Abstract
The authors reflect on the potential of simulation games for teaching the European Union. They argue that when developing or using simulations it is imperative to decide, first of all, on the learning objective(s). The authors distinguish games geared primarily towards conveying knowledge from those aimed at training soft skills. The former can focus on teaching the processes and dynamics of European politics (politics), on teaching factual knowledge about a given policy field (policy) or on teaching the Union’s institutional aspects (polity). The second category concerns objectives such as training teamwork, communication and negotiation skills, as well as empathy, the ability to deal with complexity and making decisions under stress. The relevance of these objectives for teaching and training students is assessed on the basis of case studies describing different simulation game concepts. Although the authors acknowledge that simulation games enjoy an increasing popularity within academic teaching, they maintain that their use in European Studies is largely restricted to classical concepts and argue for a more extensive use of more experimental simulation games.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
On the relationship between knowledge and competence related to teaching the EU, see also Oberle and Tatje (2014).
Although simulation games aiming at training competencies are highly relevant for the students’ future careers, we will focus here mostly on games aiming at conveying knowledge about the EU.
Mention should be made of the SUNY Model EU, the Mid-Atlantic EU Simulation, the Midwest Model European Union, the West Coast Model EU and the EUROSIM by the transatlantic network TACEUSS (Van Dyke et al, 2000; Zeff, 2003; Shekleton, 2009).
So far, planpolitik have developed games on the CO2-directive, the EU’s asylum policy, food labelling, the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, and on data protection policy. Structurally, these games are more or less identical. Also part of this category is the simulation game Chocolate Directive that has mostly found distribution in English-speaking areas (Jozwiak, 2013).
As illustrated by this quote from a student who took part in one of our OLP simulation games at Viadrina University, Frankfurt/Oder in 2012: ‘Differentiating between formal and informal negotiations in the simulation game and realising that informal negotiations take up more space and time during the simulation game was very informative: particularly because these informal aspects are only briefly mentioned – or not at all – in many seminars and other simulation games such (MUN, POLIS, SIMEP et al), despite the fact that the crucial decisions tend to be made outside the official procedure in Parliament and the Commission’. For a more abstract description of quantitative data from evaluations with younger participants at schools, see Oberle (2015).
Generally, the evaluation of a simulation game occurs in four steps: first, intuitive game analysis (What happened?), then reflection and detachment (How can one explain and evaluate the course the game took?), transfer to reality (How is the game result relevant to our view of reality?) and finally, critique (What have we learnt? How can the concept be improved? This structuring of the evaluation discussion is based on a similar structuring from Geuting (2000: 39–42); see also Raiser and Warkalla (2011: 22–23) and Raymond and Usherwood (2013). For an in-depth analysis of the significance of evaluating simulation games see Peters et al (2004).
References
Ambrosio, T. (2006) ‘Trying Saddam Hussein: teaching international law through an undergraduate mock trial’, International Studies Perspectives 7 (2): 159–171.
Brunazzo, M. and Settembri, P. (2012) Experiencing the European Union. Learning how EU negotiations work through simulation games, Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore.
Brunazzo, M. and Settembri, P. (2014) ‘Learning Through Simulation Games’, Italian Political Science 9 (1): online.
Beichelt, T., Choluj, B., Rowe, G., Wagener, H-J. and Lange, T (2013) ‘Einleitung: Was heißt und zu welchem Ende studiert man Europastudien?’ in T. Beichelt, B. Choluj, G. Rowe and H.-J. Wagener (eds.) Europa-Studien, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 9–32.
Belloni, R. (2008) ‘Role-playing international intervention in conflict areas: Lessons from Bosnia for Northern Ireland education’, International Studies Perspectives 9 (2): 220–234.
Capaul, R. and Ulrich, M. (2003) Planspiele: Simulationsspiele für Unterricht und Training, Altstätten: Tobler Verlag.
Geuting, M. (2000) ‘Soziale Simulation und Planspiel in pädagogischer Perspektive’, in H. Dietmar and A. Blätte (eds.) Simulation und Planspiel in den Sozialwissenschaften, Münster: LIT, pp. 15–62.
Guasti, P., Muno, W. and Niemann, A. (2015) ‘Introduction – EU simulations as a multi-dimensional resource: From teaching and learning tool to research instrument’, European Political Science, in press.
Hofstede, G J., de Caluwé, L. and Peters, V. (2010) ‘Why simulation games work – In search of the active substance: A synthesis’, Simulation and Gaming 41 (6): 824–843.
Jozwiak, Joseph (2013) ‘Vegelate’ and Greece: Teaching the EU through simulations’, European Political Science (12): 215–230.
Krain, M. and Lantis, J.S. (2006) ‘Building knowledge? Evaluating the effectiveness of the global problems summit simulation’, International Studies Perspectives 7 (4): 395–407.
Morgan, A. L. (2003) ‘Toward a global theory of mind: The potential benefits of presenting a range of IR Theories through active learning’, International Studies Perspectives 4 (4): 351–370.
Oberle, M. (2015) Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln: Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung heute, Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Oberle, M. and Tatje, C. (2014) ‘Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln – Vorschläge für eine kompetenzorientierte EU-Didaktik’, in S. Manzel (ed.) Politisch mündig werden. Politikkompetenz in der Schule aufbauen und diagnostizieren, Opladen: Barbara Budrich, pp. 63–78.
Peters, V., Vissers, A.M and Geert, A.N. (2004) ‘A simple classification model for debriefing simulation games’, Simulation and Gaming 35 (1): 70–84.
Raiser, S. and Warkalla, B (2011) Konflikte verstehen. Planspiele und ihr Potenzial in der Lehre der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Center for Conflict Studies, Philipps Universität Marburg. CCS Working Papers no. 10, Marburg.
Raiser, S. and Warkalla, B. (2015) ‘Auf das Lernziel kommt es an - Planspiele in der europapolitischen Bildungsarbeit’, in: M. Oberle (ed.) Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln: Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung heute, Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Raymond, C. and Usherwood, S. (2013) ‘Assessment in simulations’, Journal of Political Science Education 9 (2): 157–167.
Shekleton, P. (2009) ‘Model European union simulations: A brief primer’, European Union Students Association Review 22 (1): 7–9.
Susskind, L. and Corburn, J. (2000) ‘Using Simulations to Teach Negotiation: Pedagogical Theory and Practice’, in D. Herz and H. Blätte (eds.) Simulation und Planspiel in den Sozialwissenschaften, Münster: LIT, pp. 63–89.
Van Dyke, G. J., DeClair, E. G. and Loedel, P. H. (2000) ‘Stimulating simulations: Making the European union a classroom reality’, in: International Studies Perspectives 1 (2): 145–159.
Wessels, W., Linsenmann, I. and Hägele, S. (2001) ‘Teaching European integration. A core curriculum on European integration studies. basic assumptions and proposals’. Paper presented at the ECSA Seventh Biennial International Conference in Madison, Wisconsin; 31 May–2 June.
Zeff, E. E. (2003) ‘Negotiating in the European council: A model European union format for individual classes’, International Studies Perspectives 4 (3): 265–274.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
raiser, s., schneider, a. & warkalla, b. simulating europe: choosing the right learning objectives for simulation games. Eur Polit Sci 14, 228–240 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2015.20
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/eps.2015.20