Often, political science, public policy, and public administration course objectives include statements regarding increasing responsible citizenship, developing a continued interest in public affairs and policy, building the capacity to integrate the course material to develop policy arguments, and fostering the ability to apply the theoretical concepts to “real life” situations. These objectives are beyond simple recall and comprehension and are often referred to as higher-level learning. However, the traditional pedagogical techniques of assigned readings, lectures, tests, and papers often fail to replicate the “real world.” As a result, some have turned to role-playing simulations to help achieve their course objectives. While the benefits of role-playing simulations are often touted, there is a dearth of empirical evidence to support this assertion. A survey of nearly 200 students in four sections of an entry-level course in urban policy is used to examine this gap in the teaching and learning literature and attempts to uncover the impact of multisession classroom role-playing simulations on higher-level student learning. The results of this study suggest that role-playing simulations are an effective means to give students the opportunity to engage in higher-level learning.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlderM. J. (1982). The Paideia Proposal: An education manifesto. New York: Macmillan.
2.
AndersonP. H.LawtonL. (2009). Business simulations and cognitive learning. Simulation & Gaming, 40(2), 193–216.
3.
BernsteinJ. L.MeizlishD. S. (2003). Becoming Congress: A longitudinal study of the civic engagement implications of a classroom simulation. Simulation & Gaming, 34(2): 198–219.
4.
BlanchardL. A.DonahueA. K. (2007). Teaching leadership in public administration. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(3/4): 461–485.
5.
BloomB.. (1956). The taxonomy of educational objectives, the classification of educational goals, Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
6.
BonwellC. C. (1996). Enhancing the lecture: Revitalizing a traditional format. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 1996 (67): 31–44.
7.
BonwellC. C.EisonJ. A. (1991). Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
8.
BrockK. L.CameronB. J. (1999). Enlivening Science Courses with Kolb’s Learning Preference Model. PS: Political Science & Politics, 32, 251–256.
9.
BrookfieldS. D. (1990). The skillful teacher: On technique, trust, and responsiveness in the classroom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
10.
CampbellH. E.McCabeB. C. (2002). Fun with economics: Simulating theory to stimulate learning. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 8(2), 131–139.
11.
CarusonK. (2005). So, you want to run for elected office? How to engage students in the campaign process without leaving the classroom. PS: Political Science and Politics, 38(2), 305–310.
12.
CrawfordP.MachemerP. L. (2008). Measuring incidental learning in a PBL environment. Journal of Faculty Development, 22(2): 104–111.
13.
CrosbyB. C.BrysonJ. M. (2007). Teaching leadership and policy change in a public affairs school. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(2): 169–186.
14.
DavisB. G. (2009). Tools for teaching. Second edition of The Jossey-Bass Higher and Adult Education Series. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.
15.
DedeM. J. (2002). Building a public personnel system for the City of Freedonia: A new approach to teaching human resources management in an MPA program. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 8(4): 275–285.
16.
DoughertyB. K. (2003). Byzantine politics: Using simulations to make sense of the Middle East. PS: Political Science and Politics, 36(2): 239–244.
17.
FariaA. J.WellingtonW. J. (2004). A survey of simulation game users, former-users, and neverusers. Simulation & Gaming, 35(2), 178–207. doi: 10.1177/1046878104263543
18.
FinkL. D. (2003). Creating significant learning experiences: An integrated approach to designing college courses. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
FliterJ. (2009). Incorporating a sophisticated Supreme Court simulation into an undergraduate constitutional law class. Journal of Political Science Education, 5(1), 12–26.
20.
FriedrichT.ByrneC. L.MumfordM. D. (2009). Methodological and theoretical considerations in survey research. Leadership Quarterly, 20(57–60).
21.
GosenJ.WashbushJ. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation & Gaming, 35(2), 270–293.
22.
HubaM. E.FreedJ. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T.SmithK. A. (1991). Cooperative learning: Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report 4. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
24.
KannerM. D. (2007). War and peace: Simulating security decision making in the classroom. PS: Political Science & Politics, 40(04), 795–800.
25.
KillianL. J.BrandonC. D. (2009). Using the significant learning taxonomy and active learning to improve accounting education. Journal of Faculty Development, 23(3), 30–36.
26.
KirlinM. (2005). Understanding the relationship between civic skills and civic participation: Educating future public managers. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 11(4), 305–314.
27.
KrainM.LantisJ. S. (2006). Building knowledge? Evaluating the effectiveness of the Global Problems Summit Simulation. International Studies Perspectives, 7, 395–407.
28.
McKeachieW. J.MarillaS. (2006). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research and theory for college and university teachers. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
29.
MichaelsenL. K.KnightA. B.FinkL. D.. (2004). Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups in college teaching. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
30.
MooreK. D. (2009). Effective instructional strategies: From theory to practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
31.
MorenoE. A. (2007). Competency-based educational models for electronic governance: Implications for inclusion and responsiveness in the public service. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 13(1), 79–86.
32.
O’LearyR. (2002). Advice to new teachers: Turn it inside out. PS: Political Science and Politics, 35(1), 91–92.
33.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
34.
PolingD. A.HuppJ. M. (2009). Active learning through role playing. College Teaching, 57(4), 221–226.
35.
PownerL. C.AllendoerferM. G. (2008). Evaluating hypotheses about active learning. International Studies Perspectives, 9(1), 75–89.
36.
RainesS. S. (2003). The ISP Forum: Dialogue and debate (Vol. 4, pp. 432–433). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
37.
RochesterJ. M. (2003). The ISP Forum: Dialogue and debate (Vol. 4, pp. 433–435). New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
38.
ShellmanS. M. (2001). Active learning in comparative politics: A mock German election and coalition-formation simulation. PS: Political Science and Politics, 34(4), 827–834.
39.
ShellmanS. M.TuranK. (2006). Do Simulations Enhance Student Learning? An Empirical Evaluation of an IR Simulation. Journal of Political Science Education, 2, 19–32.
40.
SmithE. T.BoyerM. A. (1996). Designing in-class simulations. PS: Political Science & Politics, 29(4), 690–694.
41.
WechslerB.BakerD. L. (2004). Going camping: A new strategy for preparing academically diverse students. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 10(1), 19–29.
42.
WoodworthJ.GumpW. R.ForresterJ. R. (2005). Camelot: A role-playing simulation for political decision making (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
43.
YaghiA. (2008). Using Petra Simulation in teaching graduate courses in human resource management: A hybrid pedagogy. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 14(3), 399–412.
