This article describes a university-sponsored experiential-based simulation, the NANO SCENARIO, to increase the public's awareness and affect attitudes on the societal implications of nanoscience and nanotechnology by bringing together diverse stakeholders' perspectives in a participatory learning environment. Nanotechnology has the potential for massive societal effects across all sectors, globally. Thus, new forms of education are needed to prepare members of society for making complex decisions about policy, governance, and values. Here, the authors examine the theoretical and conceptual framework of the simulation, which uses improvised role-play and perspective-taking to engage the public in a transformative learning experience. As part of this examination, they describe the uses and constraints of simulations with open-ended goals and without competition and prescribed rules. They believe educational role-play scenarios with active participation of the public can serve as a dynamic method for civic engagement across a range of complex, interdisciplinary topics and new technological dilemmas.
Anderson, J., & Meyer, T. (1988). Mediated communication: A social action perspective . Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2.
Arias, E., & Arias, M. (1980). The cry of my people: Out of captivity in Latin America. New York: Friendship Press .
3.
Austin, J.T., & Vancouver, J.B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338-375.
4.
Boal, A. (1985). Theatre of the oppressed (C. A. & M. L. McBride, Trans.). New York: Theatre Communications Group. (Original work published 1979)
5.
Bos, N.D., Shami, N.S., & Naab, S. (2006). A globalization simulation to teach corporate social responsibility: Design features and analysis of student reasoning. Simulation & Gaming, 37(1), 56-72.
6.
Burke, K. (1954). Permanence and change: An anatomy of purpose. Berkeley: University of California Press .
7.
Chaikin, J. (1977). The presence of the actor. New York: Atheneum.
8.
Cohen, K.J., & Rhenman, E. (1961). The role of management games in education and research. Management Science, 7(2), 131-166.
9.
Conrad, D. (2004). Exploring risky youth experiences: Popular theatre as a participatory, performative research method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,3(1), Article 2. Retrieved from http://www.ualberta.ca/~iiqm/backissues/3_1/pdf/conrad.pdf
10.
Crookall, D., & Arai, K. (Eds.). (2005). Simulation and gaming across disciplines and cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
11.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Bennett, S. (1971). An exploratory model of play. American Anthropologist, 73(1), 45-58.
12.
Cutler, C., & Hay, I. (2000). "Club Dread": Applying and refining an issues-based role play on environment, economy, and culture. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 24(2), 179-197.
13.
DeNeve, K., & Heppner, M.J. (1997). Role play simulations: The assessment of an active learning technique and comparisons with traditional lectures. Innovative Higher Education, 21(3), 231-246.
14.
Dole, J., Valencia, S., Greer, E., & Wardrop, J. (1991). Effects of two types of prereading instruction on the comprehension of narrative and expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(2), 142-159.
15.
Dugdale, J., Pallamin, N., & Pavard, B. (2006). An assessment of a mixed reality environment: Toward an ethnomethodological approach. Simulation & Gaming , 37(2), 226-244.
16.
Duke, R.D. (1975). Public policy applications: Using gaming-simulations for problem exploration and decision-making. In C. S. Greenblatt & R. D. Duke (Eds.), Gaming-simulation: Rationale, design, and applications (pp. 313-319). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Duke, R.D., & Greenblatt, C.S. (1975). Running games: A guide for game operators. In C. S. Greenblatt & R. D. Duke (Eds.), Gaming-simulation: Rationale, design, and applications (pp. 196-208). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
18.
Errington, E. (1997). Role play. Australian Capital Territory, Higher EducationResearch and Development Society of Australia .
19.
EUROPTA Project. (2002). EUROPTA: Executive summary. Teknologirådet (The Danish Board of Technology) . Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.tekno.dk/subpage.php3?article=780&language=uk&category=11&toppic=kategori11
20.
Feldt, A.G., & Goodman, F. (1975). Observations on the design of simulations and games. In C. S. Greenblatt & R. D. Duke (Eds.), Gaming-simulation: Rationale, design, and applications (pp. 167-177). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
Freire, P. (1978). Pedagogy in process: The letters to Guinea-Bissau (C. St. J. Hunter, Trans.). New York: Seabury Press.
22.
Geertz, C. (1977). Interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
23.
Goffman, E. (1956). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
24.
Gosen, J., & Washbush, J. (2004). A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness. Simulation & Gaming, 35(2), 270-293.
25.
Gredler, M.E. (2004). Games and simulations and their relationships to learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 571-581). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
Greenblatt, C.S. (1975a). Gaming simulations for teaching and training: An overview. In C. S. Greenblatt & R. D. Duke (Eds.), Gaming-simulation: Rationale, design, and applications (pp. 180-195). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Greenblatt, C.S. (1975b). Sociological theory and the "Multiple Reality" game. In C. S. Greenblatt & R. D. Duke (Eds.), Gaming-simulation: Rationale, design, and applications (pp. 148-161). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
28.
Greenblatt, C.S. (1988). Designing games and simulations: An illustrated handbook. Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
29.
Howard, L. (2004). Speaking theatre/doing pedagogy: Re-visiting theatre of the oppressed. Communication Education, 53(3), 217-233.
30.
Jones, K. (1998). Who's who, who sits where. Simulation & Gaming, 29(3), 328-330.
31.
Keating, E., & Jarmon, L. (2005). What is nanotechnology? New properties of words as territories in a cross-disciplinary, cross-cultural flow. Practicing Anthropology, 28(2), 6-10.
32.
Kindervatter, S. (1987). Women working together. Washington, DC: OEF International.
33.
Klinger, E. (1969). Development of imaginative behavior: Implications of play for a theory of fantasy. Psychological Bulletin, 72(4), 277-298.
34.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation . New York: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Lederman, L. C., & Kato, F. (Eds.). (2005). Debriefing the debriefing process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
36.
Lewin, K. (1948a). Group decisions and social change. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (pp. 330-344). New York: Henry Holt.
37.
Lewin, K. (1948b). Resolving social conflicts. New York: Harper and Row.
38.
Miller, M., & Mansilla, V. (2004). Thinking across perspectives and disciplines. In J. Solomon (Ed.), Goodwork project report series (Vol. 27, pp. 1-13). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Project Zero.
39.
Murphy, T. (2004). Deliberative civic education and civil society: A consideration of ideals and actualities in democracy and communication education . Communication Education, 53(1), 74-91.
40.
Myers, D. (1999). Simulation, gaming, and the simulative. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 482-489.
41.
Office of Science and Technology. (2005). The government's outline programme for public engagement on nanotechnologies. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.ost.gov.uk/policy/issues/programme12.pdf
42.
Operation Day's Work. (2000). Companion community development alternatives. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.usaid.gov/odw/member/cocoda.doc
43.
Participatory Approaches in Science and Technology. (2006). European Commission-funded conference on participatory approaches in science and technology. Retrieved July 22, 2006 , from http://www.macaulay.ac.uk/PATHconference/index.html#location
44.
Rogers, C. (2005). Report-The nexus: Where science meets society . Science Communication, 27(1), 146-149.
45.
Ruben, B.D. (1999). Simulations, games, and experience-based learning: The quest for a new paradigm for teaching and learning. Simulation & Gaming, 30(4), 498-505.
46.
SaLut. (1982). Agricultural marketing principles (Peace Corps ICE No. T-31). Washington, DC: Soil and Land Use Technology.
47.
Schechner, R. (1977). Essays on performance theory. New York: Drama Book Specialists.
48.
Sclove, R. (1999). Democratic politics of technology: The missing half-Using democratic criteria in participatory technology decisions. Retrieved July 22, 2006, from http://www.loka.org/idt/intro.htm
49.
Sogunro, O.A. (2004). Efficacy of role-playing pedagogy in training leaders: Some reflections. Journal of Management Development , 23(4), 355-371.
50.
Spratt, T., Houston, S., & Magill, T. (2000). Imaging the future: Theatre and change within the child protection system. Child & Family Social Work , 5(2), 117-127.
51.
Starkey, B.A., & Blake, E.L. (2001). Simulation in international relations education . Simulation & Gaming, 32(4), 537-551.
52.
Svendsen, D., & Wijetilleke, S. (1985). Navamaga. Washington, DC: Overseas Education Fund.
53.
Teach, R.D. (1990). Designing business simulations. In J. W. Gentry (Ed.), Guide to business gaming and experiential learning (pp. 93-116). East Brunswick , NJ: Nichols/GP.
54.
Telesco, G. (2001). Theater of the recruits: Boal techniques in the New York Police Academy. Theater, 31(3), 55-61.
55.
Thavikulwat, P. (2004). The architecture of computerized business gaming simulations. Simulation & Gaming, 35(2), 242-269.
56.
Thiagarajan, S. (1996). Instructional games, simulations, and role-plays . In R. L. Craig (Ed.), The ASTD training and development handbook (4th ed., pp. 517-533). New York: McGraw-Hill.
57.
Thorelli, H.B. (1997). Musings on business game performance evaluations . Developments in Business Simulation and Experiential Learning , 24, 12-18.
58.
TOP MANAGEMENT DECISION SIMULATION. (1957). [Developed by Ricciardi, F.M., Craft, C.J., Malcolm, D.G., Bellman, R., Clark, C., & Rawdon, R.H.] New York: American Management Association .
59.
Vygotsky, L.S. (2006). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
60.
Warren, J., & Hytten, K. (2004). The faces of whiteness: Pitfalls and the critical democrat. Communication Education, 53(4), 321-339.
61.
Wells, G. (2000). Dialogic inquiry in education: Building on the legacy of Vygotsky. In C. D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry. Learning in doing: Social, cognitive, and computational perspectives (pp. 1-21). New York: Cambridge University Press.
62.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
63.
Winham, G. (1991). Simulation for teaching and analysis. In V. Kremenyuk (Ed.), International negotiation (pp. 409-423). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
64.
Wolfe, J. (1994). Recollections on 25 years of simulation/gaming . Simulation & Gaming, 25(2), 274-278.
65.
Zimmerman, B.J., & Kitsantas, A. (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: Shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 29-36.
