This brief article weighs in on a pedagogical debate concerning the didactic usefulness of an online international relations computer simulation called Statecraft. In a 2014 article, Gustavo Carvalho, a teaching assistant at the University of Toronto, claimed, based on the results of a survey he administered to an international relations class that used Statecraft, that the simulation had little to offer students as a teaching tool. In a rebuttal, Statecraft creator Jonathan Keller took Carvalho to task for not employing the simulation properly, which biased his results. While Carvalho only presented results for one class, the present analysis reports on survey responses of students over six different classes which used Statecraft from 2013 to 2014. The results call into question Carvalho’s findings and suggest that the context and curriculum matter as much as the simulation itself when judging the pedagogical value of computer-mediated learning tools.
AsalV. (2005). Playing games with international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 6, 359–373.
2.
AsalV.BlakeE. L. (2006). Creating simulations for political science education. Journal of Political Science Education, 2, 1–18.
3.
AsalV.SinS. S.FahrenkopfN. P.SheX. (2013). The comparative politics game show: Using games to teach comparative politics theories. International Studies Perspectives, 15, 347–358.
4.
BaylounyA. M. (2009). Seeing other sides: Nongame simulations and alternative perspectives of middle east conflict. Journal of Political Science Education, 5, 214–232.
5.
BaranowskiM.WeirK. (2010). Power and politics in the classroom: The effect of student roles in simulations. Journal of Political Science Education, 6, 217–226.
6.
BrownS. W.KingF. B. (2000). Constructivist pedagogy and how we learn: Educational psychology meets international studies. International Studies Perspectives, 1, 245–254.
7.
CarvalhoG. (2014). Virtual worlds can be dangerous: Using ready-made computer simulations for teaching international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 15, 538–557.
8.
ChasekP. S. (2005). Power politics, diplomacy and role playing: Simulating the UN security council’s response to terrorism. International Studies Perspectives, 6, 1–19.
9.
Crossley-FrolickK. (2010). Beyond model UN: Simulating multi-level, multi-actor diplomacy using the millennium development goals. International Studies Perspectives, 11, 184–201.
10.
Digital World Construction. (2015). Statecraft: An international relations simulation. The Statecraft Simulation. Retrieved March 12, 2015, fromhttp://www.Statecraftsim.com
11.
EhrhardtG. (2008). Beyond the prisoners’ dilemma game: Making game theory a useful part of undergraduate international relations classes. International Studies Perspectives, 9, 54–74.
12.
GiovanelloS. P.KirkJ. A.KromerM. K. (2013). Student perceptions of a role-playing simulation in an introductory international relations course. Journal of Political Science Education, 9, 197–208.
13.
KellerJ.2014. Misusing virtual worlds can be dangerous: A response to Carvalho. International Studies Perspectives, 15, 558–563.
14.
KrainM.LantisJ. S. (2006). Building knowledge? Evaluating the effectiveness of the global problems summit simulation. International Studies Perspectives, 7, 395–407.
15.
LogginsJ. A. (2009). Simulating the Foreign policy decision-making process in the undergraduate classroom. PS: Political Science and Politics, 42, 401–407.
16.
McCarthyJ. P.AndersonL. (2000). Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: Two experiments from history and political science. Innovative Higher Education, 24, 279–294.
17.
NowellG. P.SinS. S. (2014, 2). Oh how quickly do they change their tune: Integrating multiple levels of analysis into international relations simulations. Paper Presented to the American Political Science Association Teaching and Learning Conference, Philadelphia, PA.
18.
PownerL. C.AllendoerferM. G. (2008). Evaluating hypotheses about active learning. International Studies Perspectives, 9, 75–89.
19.
RaymondC. (2010). Do role-playing simulations generate measurable and meaningful outcomes? A simulation’s effect on exam scores and teaching evaluations. International Studies Perspectives, 11, 51–60.
20.
RochesterJ. M. (2003). The potential perils of pack pedagogy, or why international studies educators should be gun-shy of adopting active and cooperative learning strategies. International Studies Perspectives, 4, 431.
21.
ShellmanS. M.TuranK. (2006). Do simulations enhance student learning? An empirical evaluation of an IR simulation. Journal of Political Science Education, 2, 19–32.
22.
SimpsonA.KausslerB. (2009). IR teaching reloaded: Using films and simulations in the teaching of international relations. International Studies Perspectives, 10, 413–427.
23.
StroessnerS. J.BeckermanL. S.WhittakerA. (2009). All the world’s a stage? Consequences of a role-playing pedagogy on psychological factors and writing and rhetorical skill in college undergraduates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 605–620.
24.
WeirK.BaranowskiM. (2011). Simulating history to understand international politics. Simulation and Gaming, 42, 441–461.
25.
WheelerS. M. (2006). Role-playing games and simulations for international issues courses. Journal of Political Science Education, 2, 331–347.
26.
YoudeJ. (2008). Crushing their dreams? Simulations and student idealism. International Studies Perspectives, 9, 348–356.
