Advertisement

EU-Simulationen als multidimensionaler didaktischer Ansatz

  • Wolfgang MunoEmail author
  • Arne Niemann
  • Petra Guasti
Chapter
Part of the Politische Bildung book series (POLBIL)

Zusammenfassung

Simulationen, im Sinne von komplexen Rollenspielen, sind heutzutage in der (Hochschul-) lehre verbreitet. Ziel ist es, Studierende aktiv zu beteiligen, um inhaltsspezifisches interaktives Lernen, Verstehen und Kommunizieren zu fördern. Dieses Kapitel diskutiert einige wichtige Aspekte von EU-Simulationen als Einführung und Grundlage in Hinblick auf die nachfolgenden Beiträge. Erstens besprechen wir kurz die Bedeutung der EU für aktuelle europäische Politik und ihre zunehmende Komplexität als Herausforderung für das Lehren und Studieren europäischer Integration. Zweitens zeigen wir, das Simulationen neuen didaktische Anforderungen entsprechen, die im Kontext des Bologna-Prozesses und des so genannten „Shift from Teaching to Learning“ aufkamen. Drittens gehen wir über die Debatte von EU-Simulationen als Lernwerkzeug hinaus und diskutieren ihre (unterschätzte) Rolle, die sie als Quasi-Experiment spielen. Zusammen machen diese drei Aspekte EU-Simulationen zu einem vielversprechenden multi-dimensionalen Werkzeug. Anschließend geben wir einen Überblick über die Inhalte des Buches.

Literatur

  1. Asal, V., Kollars, N.A., Raymond, Ch. & Rosen, A.M. (2013) ‘Editors’ introduction to the thematic issue: Bringing interactive simulations into the political science Classroom’, Journal of Political Science Education 9(2): 129–131.Google Scholar
  2. Asal, V. & Kratoville, J. (2013) ‘Constructing international relations simulations: Examining the pedagogy of IR simulations through a constructivist learning theory lens’, Journal of Political Science Education 9(2): 132–143.Google Scholar
  3. Banchoff, T. & Smith, M. (eds.) (1999) Legitimacy and the European Union: The Contested Polity, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Baroncelli, S., Farneti, R., Horga, I. & Vanhoonacker, S. (eds.) (2014) Teaching and Learning the European Union, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Bergen-Communiqué. (2005) Der europäische Hochschulraum – die Ziele verwirklichen. Kommuniqué der Konferenz der für die Hochschulen zuständigen europäischen Ministerinnen und Minister, Bergen, 19–20. Mai, http://www.bmbf.de/pub/bergen_kommunique-dt.pdf. Zugriff 15.11.2016.
  6. Bonwell, C.C. & Eison, J.A. (1991) ‘Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom’.Washington DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports.Google Scholar
  7. Boyer, M. (2011) ‘Simulation in International Studies’, Simulation & Gaming 42(6): 685–689.Google Scholar
  8. Brunazzo, M. & Settembri, P. (2012) Experiencing the European Union: Learning How EU Negotiations Work Through Simulation Games, Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino.Google Scholar
  9. Brunazzo, M. & Settembri, P. (2014) ‘Experiencing the European Union: A simulation game on the European Citizens’ Initiative’, available online, http://www.sisp.it/files/papers/2013/marco-brunazzoand-pierpaolo-settembri-1500.pdf, 15 April 2014.
  10. Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1971) Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research, Boston: Mifflin.Google Scholar
  11. Craig, J. (2010) ‘Introduction: E-learning in politics’, European Political Science 9(1): 1–4. Crossley-Frolick, K. (2010) 'Beyond model UN: Simulating multi-level, multi-actor diplomacy using the millennium development goals’, International Studies Perspectives 11(2): 184–201.Google Scholar
  12. De Wilde, P., Michailidou, A. & Trenz, H.J. (2013) Contesting Europe: Exploring Euroscepticism in Online Media Coverage, Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
  13. Delors, J. (1985) Speech, Luxembourg, 9 September, http://www.cvce.eu/content/publication/2001/10/19/423d6913-b4e2-4395-9157-fe70b3ca8521/publishable_en.pdf. Zugriff 21.12.2016.
  14. Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education, New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  15. Druckmann, J.N., Green, D.P., Kuklinski, J.H. & Lupia, A. (2011) ‘Experimentation in Political Science’, in Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science' Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3–11.Google Scholar
  16. Engartner, T., Siewert, M., Meßner, M. & Borchert, C. (2015) ‚Politische Partizipation ‚spielend‘ fördern? Charakteristika von Planspielen als didaktisch-methodische Arrangements handlungsorientierten Lernens‘, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 25(2): 189–217.Google Scholar
  17. European Political Science. (2010) Symposium E-Learning Innovation in Politics 9(1): 1–33.Google Scholar
  18. Fejes, A. (2008) ‘European citizens under construction: The Bologna process analysed from a governmentality perspective’, Educational Philosophy and Theory 40(4): 515–530.Google Scholar
  19. Fink, S. (2017) '36 Schokoladenrichtlinien: Der Einfluss von Kontextvariablen auf die Verhandlungsergebnisse in EU-Simulationen’, in diesem Band.Google Scholar
  20. Føllesdal, A. (2004) Legitimacy theories of the European Union (No. 15). Oslo: Arena.Google Scholar
  21. Fonti, F. & Stevancevic, G. (2014) 'Innovativeness in Teaching European Studies: An Empirical Investigation’, in S. Baroncelli, R. Farneti, I. Horga and S. Vanhoonacker (eds.) Teaching and Learning the European Union, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 157–185.Google Scholar
  22. Goldsmith, M. & Goldsmith, C. (2010) ‘Teaching political science in Europe’, European Political Science 9: 61–71.Google Scholar
  23. Haas, E.B. (1958) The Uniting of Europe, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, p. 16.Google Scholar
  24. Héritier, A. (1999) ‘Elements of democratic legitimation in Europe: An alternative perspective’, Journal of European Public Policy 6(2): 269–282.Google Scholar
  25. Herz, D. & Blätte, A. (2000) Simulation und Planspiel in den Sozialwissenschaften: Eine Bestandsaufnahme der internationalen Diskussion, Münster: LIT.Google Scholar
  26. Hix, S. (2008) What’s Wrong With the EU and How to Fix it, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  27. Hoffmann, S. (1966) ‘Obstinate or obsolete? The fate of the nation-state and the case of Western Europe’, Daedalus 95(3): 862–915.Google Scholar
  28. Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2001) Multi-Level Governance and European Integration, New York: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  29. Huang, H.M. (2002) ‘Toward constructivism for adult learners in online learning environments’, British Journal of Educational Technology 33(1): 27–37.Google Scholar
  30. Jabko, N. (2012) ‘Teaching the EU as a Part of Broader Courses’ EUSA Review Forum 25(3): 2. Available online, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.304.4125&rep=rep1&type=pdf, accessed 20 April 2016.
  31. Jones, R. & Bursens, P. (2014) ‘Assessing EU Simulations: Evidence from the Trans-Atlantic EuroSim’, in S. Baroncelli, R. Farneti, I. Horga and S. Vanhoonacker (eds.) Teaching and Learning the European Union, the Netherlands: Springer, pp. 157–185.Google Scholar
  32. Jones, R. & Bursens, P. (2017) ‘Die Effekte von aktivierenden Lernumgebungen: Wie Simulationen affektives Lernen fördern’, in diesem Band.Google Scholar
  33. Journal of Political Science Education. (2013) Thematic Issue: Simulations in Political Science 9(2): 129–253.Google Scholar
  34. Jupille, J. & Caporaso, J.A. (1998) ‘States, Agency and Rules: the European Union in Global Environmental Politics’, in C. Rhodes (ed.) The European Union in the World Community, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, pp. 213–229.Google Scholar
  35. Keeling, R. (2006) ‘The Bologna process and the Lisbon research agenda: The European commission’s expanding role in higher education discourse’, European Journal of Education 41(2): 203–223.Google Scholar
  36. King, A. (1993) ‘From sage on the stage to guide on the side’, College Teaching 41(1): 30–35.Google Scholar
  37. Klippert, H. (2008) Planspiele, 10 Spielvorlagen zum sozialen, politischen und methodischen Lernen in Gruppen, Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar
  38. Kohler-Koch, B. & Rittberger, B. (eds.) (2007) Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union, Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  39. Kolb, D.A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  40. Krain, M. & Lantis, J.S. (2006) ‘Building knowledge? Evaluating the effectiveness of the global problems summit simulation’, International Studies Perspectives 7(4): 395–407.Google Scholar
  41. Krain, M. & Shadle, C.J. (2006) ‘Starving for knowledge: An active learning approach to teaching about world hunger’, International Studies Perspectives 7(1): 51–66.Google Scholar
  42. Lightfoot, S. & Maurer, H. (2013) ‘Introduction: Teaching European studies – Old and new tools for student engagement’, European Political Science 13(1): 1–3.Google Scholar
  43. Mahony, H. (2007) ‘Barroso says EU is an “empire”’. EU Observer 11 July, http://euobserver.com/nstitutional/24458.
  44. Majone, G. (2009) Europe as the would-be World Power: The EU at Fifty, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Manzel, S. (2012) ‘Anpassung an wissenschaftliche Standards oder Paradigmenwechsel in der Politikdidaktik? Zum empirischen Aufbruch einer neuen Generation von Politikdidaktiker/-innen’, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 22(1): 143–154.Google Scholar
  46. Massing, P. (2004): Planspiele und Entscheidungsspiele, in: Frech, S., Kuhn, H.-W. & Massing, P. (Hrsg.): Methodentraining für den Politikunterricht. Schwalbach/Ts: Wochenschau: 163–194.Google Scholar
  47. Maurer, H. & Engelmann, C. (2017) ‘Aktives Lernen durch EU Simulationen: eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Erfahrungen an der Universität Maastricht’, in diesem Band.Google Scholar
  48. McCormick, J. (2005) Understanding the European Union, London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  49. McIntosh, D. (2001) ‘The uses and limits of the model United Nations in an international relations classroom’, International Studies Perspectives 2(3): 269–280.Google Scholar
  50. Michael, J. (2006) ‘Where’s the evidence that active learning works?’ Advances in physiology education 30(4): 159–167.Google Scholar
  51. Middleton, D. (2010) ‘Putting the learning into e-learning’, European Political Science 9(1): 5–12.Google Scholar
  52. Millians, D. (1999) ‘Thirty Years and More of Simulations and Games’, Simulation & Gaming 30(3): 352–355.Google Scholar
  53. Moravcsik, A. (2008) ‘The myth of Europe’s democratic deficit’, Intereconomics 43(6): 331–340.Google Scholar
  54. Muno, W. & Prinz, L. (2015). Teaching and learning with EU simulations: Evaluating Model European Union Mainz. Journal of Contemporary European Research 11, 4. 370–387.Google Scholar
  55. Muno, W., Meßner, M.T. & Hahner, N. (2013) ‘Politikdidaktik und Simulationen: Die EU-Simulation’, Model European Union Mainz' Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft/Journal of Political Science 23(1): 159–172.Google Scholar
  56. Neimeyer, R.A. & Neimeyer, G.J. (1993) Constructivist Assessment: What and When, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
  57. Omelicheva, M.Y. & Avdeyeva, O. (2008) ‘Teaching with lecture or debate? Testing the effectiveness of traditional versus active learning methods of instruction’, PS: Political Science & Politics 41(3): 603–607.Google Scholar
  58. Oros, A.L. (2007) ‘Let’s debate: Active learning encourages student participation and critical thinking’, Journal of Political Science Education 3(3): 293–311.Google Scholar
  59. Perkins, D.N. (2006) ‘Constructivism and Troublesome Knowledge’, in J.H.F. Meyer and R. Land (Hrsg.) Threshold Concepts and Troublesome Knowledge, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Piaget, J. (1973) To Understand is to Invent: The Future of Education, New York: Grossman.Google Scholar
  61. Piaget, J. (1980) ‘The Psychogenesis of Knowledge and its Epistemo-logical Signifikance’, in M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Hrsg.) Language and Learning, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Pinder, J. (1985) ‘European community and nation-state: A case for a neo-federalism?’ International Affairs 62(1): 41–54.Google Scholar
  63. Prince, M. (2004) ‘Does active learning work? A review of the research’, Journal of Engineering Education 93(3): 223–231.Google Scholar
  64. Prinz, L, Gewering, M. & Niemann, A. 2017: Die Umsetzung von EU-Simulationen für die gymnasiale Oberstufe. Probleme, Fragen, Hindernisse – Lehren aus der Praxis des Planspiels EU+, in diesem Band.Google Scholar
  65. Raiser, S., Schneider, S. & Warkalla, B. (2017) ‘EU-Planspiele und Bildungsarbeit’, in diesem Band.Google Scholar
  66. Raymond, C. & Usherwood, S. (2013) ‘Assessment in simulations’, Journal of Political Science Education 9(2): 157–167.Google Scholar
  67. Reinalda, B. & Kulesza-Mietkowski, E. (2005) The Bologna Process: Harmonizing Europe’s Higher Education, Farmington Hills, MI: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  68. Ruggie, J. (1993) ‘Territoriality and beyond: Problematizing modernity in international relations’, International Organization 47(1): 139–175.Google Scholar
  69. Rünz, P. (2017) ‘EU-Simulationen, Europäische Identität und politische Unterstützung der EU’, in diesem Band.Google Scholar
  70. Saurugger, S. (2012) ‘Teaching Comparative Politics and the EU’ EUSA Review Forum 25(3): 4. Available online, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.11.304.4125&rep=rep1&type=pdf, accessed 20 April 2016.
  71. Schmitter, P.C. (1996) ‘Imagining the future of the Euro-polity with the help of new concepts’, Governance in the European Union 133: 1–14.Google Scholar
  72. Siemes. T. (2017) "Scientia per ludum – Wissen durch Spiel". Die Betreuung und Vorbereitung von Studierenden im Vorfeld einer EU-Simulation. Das Beispiel der transatlantischen EuroSim, in diesem Band.Google Scholar
  73. Silberman, M. (1996) Active Learning: 101 Strategies to Teach Any Subject, Boston.Google Scholar
  74. Simpson, A. & Kaussler, B. (2009) ‘IR teaching reloaded: Using films and simulations in the teaching of international relations’, International Studies Perspectives 10(4): 413–427.Google Scholar
  75. Stice, J.E. (1987) ‘Using Kolb’s learning cycle to improve student learning’, Engineering Education 77(5): 291–296.Google Scholar
  76. Switky, B. (2004) ‘The importance of voting in international organizations: Simulating the case of the European union’, International Studies Perspectives 5(1): 40–49.Google Scholar
  77. Taylor, K. (2012) ‘Simulations inside and outside the IR classroom: A comparative analysis’, International Studies Perspectives 13(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
  78. Usherwood, S. (2012) ‘Removing the Barriers to Learning about the EU’ EUSA Review Forum 25(3): 6–7. Available online, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.304.4125&rep=rep1&type=pdf, accessed 20 April 2016.
  79. Usherwood, S. (2014) ‘Constructing effective simulations of the European Union for teaching: Realising the potential’, European Political Science 13: 53–60, March.Google Scholar
  80. Usherwood, S. (2017) ‘EU-Simulationen: Didaktik, Konzepte und Praxis’, in diesem Band.Google Scholar
  81. Van Dyke, G., DeClair, E. & Loedel, P. (2000) ‘Stimulating simulations: Making the European Union a classroom reality’, International Studies Perspectives 1(2): 145–159.Google Scholar
  82. Wallace, W. (1983) ‘Less than a Federation, More than a Regime: The Community as a Political System’, in H. Wallace, W. Wallace and C. Webb (Hrsg.) Policy-Making in the European Community, Chichester: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  83. Wildt, J. (2013) ‘The shift from teaching to learning. Thesen zumWandel der Lernkultur in modularisierten Studienstrukturen’, Fraktion Bündnis 90: 14–18.Google Scholar
  84. Zeff, E.E. (2003) ‘Negotiating in the European council: A model European Union format for individual classes’, International Studies Perspectives 4(3): 265–274.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MainzDeutschland
  2. 2.Frankfurt am MainDeutschland

Personalised recommendations