Advertisement

Grundlagenbildung für Simulationen: Herausforderungen und Chancen

  • Simon UsherwoodEmail author
Chapter
  • 949 Downloads
Part of the Politische Bildung book series (POLBIL)

Zusammenfassung

Eine der größten Probleme für Simulationen in der Lehre von Europastudien sind Anlaufkosten. Das Schaffen eines neuen Szenarios von Grund auf oder die Adoption eines bestehenden Spiels stellt Lehrende vor Herausforderungen. Dieses Papier diskutiert diese Herausforderungen, im speziellen die Spannung zwischen Spielregeln, die eine komplexe Welt reduzieren sollen und dabei neue Welten erschaffen. Der Beitrag zeigt eine Vielzahl von Möglichkeiten, einschließlich der Entwicklung einer Community von Simulationsentwicklern, den Gebrauch von Online-Anleitungen und der Schaffung von Simulationen, die über Simulationsentwicklung lehren. Diese Ideen werden mit einer Vielzahl von Praxisbeispielen illustriert.

Literatur

  1. 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
  2. Asal, V., Kollars, N.A., Raymond, C. & Rosen, A. (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
  3. Baranowski, M. (2006) “Single Session Simulations: The Effectiveness of Short Congressional Simulations in Introductory American Government Simulations,” Journal of Political Science Education 2(1): 89–112.Google Scholar
  4. Baroncelli, S., Farneti, R., Horga, I., & Vanhoonacker, S. (Hg.). (2014) Teaching and Learning the European Union, Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Brandes, D., & Ginnis, P. (1996). A guide to student-centred learning. Nelson Thornes.Google Scholar
  6. Brunazzo, M. & Settembri, P. (2014) ‘Experiencing the European Union: A simulation game on the European Citizens’ Initiative’, online http://www.sisp.it/files/papers/2013/marco-brunazzo-and-pierpaolo-settembri-1500.pdf [22.08.2017].
  7. Chasek, P. (2005) “Power Politics, Diplomacy and Role Playing: Simulating the UN Security Council's Response to Terrorism,” International Studies Perspectives 6: 1–19.Google Scholar
  8. Chin, J., Dukes, R. and Gamson, w. (2009) “Assessment in Simulation and Gaming: A Review of the Last 40 years,” Simulation & Gaming 40 (4): 553–68.Google Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Dorn, Dean S. (1989) “Simulation Games: One More Tool on the Pedagogical Shelf,” Teaching Sociology 17 (1):1–18.Google Scholar
  11. Feinstein A & Cannon H (2003) “A Hermeneutical approach to external validation of simulation models”, in Simulation & Gaming, 34–2, pp. 186–197.Google Scholar
  12. Frederking, B. (2005) “Simulations and Student Learning,” Journal of Political Science Education 1(3):385–393.Google Scholar
  13. Gredler M (1992), Designing and Evaluating Games and Simulations: A Process Approach, London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  14. Guasti, P., Muno, W. und Niemann, A. (2015), Introduction – EU Simulations as a Multi-Dimensional Resource: From Teaching and Learning Tool to Research Instrument, in: European Political Science, 14, 3: 205–217 (September 2015).Google Scholar
  15. Guetzkow, H. and Jensen, L. (1966) “Research Activities on Simulated International Processes,” Background 9(4): 261–274.Google Scholar
  16. Heitzmann, W. (1973) “The Validity of Social Science Simulations: A Review of Research Findings,” Education 94(2):170–174.Google Scholar
  17. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing?. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(6), 995.Google Scholar
  18. Katz, S. (2000). Competency, epistemology and pedagogy: Curriculum’s holy trinity. Curriculum journal, 11(2), 133–144.Google Scholar
  19. Kaunert, C (2009) “The European Union Simulation: From Problem-Based Learning (PBL) to Student Interest,” European Political Science 8–2: 254–265.Google Scholar
  20. Lantis, J. (1998) “Simulations and Experiential Learning in the International Relations Classroom,” International Negotiation 3:39–57.Google Scholar
  21. Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher education students’ attitudes to student-centred learning: beyond’educational bulimia’?. Studies in Higher Education, 28(3), 321–334.Google Scholar
  22. Lean, J., Moizer, J., Towler, M. & Abbey, C. (2006) “Simulation and Games: Use and Barriers in Higher Education,” Active Learning in Higher Education 7(3):227–242.Google Scholar
  23. Muno, W., Guasti, P. und Niemann, A. (2017): EU-Simulationen als multidimensionaler didaktischer Ansatz, in: Muno, W., Niemann, A. und Guasti, P. (Hrsg.): Europa spielerisch lernen. Didaktik und Praxis von EU-Simulationen in Schule und Hochschule, Springer (in diesem Band).Google Scholar
  24. Randolph, W. A., & Posner, B. Z. (1979). Designing meaningful learning situations in management: A contingency, decision-tree approach. The Academy of Management Review, 4(3), 459–467.Google Scholar
  25. Raymond, C. & Usherwood, S. (2013) „Assessment in Simulations“, Journal of Political Science Education, 9(2), 157–167.Google Scholar
  26. Smith, E., and Boyer, M. (1996) “Designing In-Class Simulations,” PS: Political Science and Politics 29(4):690–4.Google Scholar
  27. Sonnenberg, F. A., & Beck, J. R. (1993). Markov models in medical decision making a practical guide. Medical decision making, 13(4), 322–338.Google Scholar
  28. Starkey, B. and Blake, e. (2001) “Simulation in International Relations Education,” Simulation & Gaming 32: 537–551.Google Scholar
  29. Usherwood, S. (2009) “Enhancing Student Immersion in Negotiation-Based Learning Environments,” International Journal of Learning, 16(7).Google Scholar
  30. Winham, G. (1991) “Simulations for Teaching and Analysis,” in International Negotiation: Analysis, Approaches, Issues, Victor A. Kremenyuk, ed., Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, pp. 409–423.Google Scholar
  31. Wu, S. M., Chao Yu, Y. M., Yang, C. F., & Che, H. L. (2005). Decision‐making tree for womenconsidering hysterectomy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 51(4), 361–368.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.GuildfordUK

Personalised recommendations