Advertisement

Die Effekte von aktivierenden Lernumgebungen: Wie Simulationen affektives Lernen fördern

  • Rebecca JonesEmail author
  • Peter Bursens
Chapter
Part of the Politische Bildung book series (POLBIL)

Zusammenfassung

Simulationen haben sich zu einem populären Lehrwerkzeug in den Politikwissenschaften und den Lehrplänen von EU-Studien entwickelt. Befürworter weisen vor allem darauf hin, dass Simulationen im Einklang mit konstruktivistischen Lerntheorien stehen. Ihr Hauptargument ist: Studierende werden Entscheidungsprozesse der EU besser verstehen wenn sie ihr theoretisches Wissen über Verhandlungstheorie mit ihrem Wissen über die Funktionsweisen der EU und den Erfahrungen des Verhandelns in der Simulation kombinieren. Dieser Beitrag hat zum Ziel, diese pädagogischen Annahmen zu diskutieren. Empirische Referenz ist dabei EuroSim, eine Simulation von EU-Entscheidungsprozessen des transatlantischen Konsortiums für EU-Studien & Simulationen (TACEUSS). Zusätzlich diskutiert der Beitrag, durch Nutzen von Daten aus Umfragen unter Teilnehmern vor und nach der Simulation, wie Studierende von der Teilnahme an Simulationen im dem Bereich affektives Lernen profitierten.

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. Barr, R. & Tagg, J. (1995) ‘From teaching to learning – A new paradigm for undergraduate education’, Change 27(6): 13–25.Google Scholar
  3. Birenbaum, M. (2003) ‘New insights into learning and teaching and their implications for assessment’ in F. Dochy, E. Cascalar and M. Segers (eds.) Optimizing new modes of assessment: In search for qualities and standards, Boston/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 13–37.Google Scholar
  4. Boud, D. & Falchikov, N. (1989) ‘Student Self-Assessment in Higher Education: A Meta-Analysis’, Review of Educational Research 59(4): 395–430.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, S. W. & King, F. B. (2000) ‘Constructivist pedagogy and how we learn: Educational psychology meets international study’, International Studies Perspectives 1(3): 245–254.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. Chin, J., Dukes, R. & W. Gamson (2009) ‘Assessment in Simulation and Gaming. A Review of the Last 40 Years’, Simulation and Gaming 40(4): 553–568.Google Scholar
  8. De Corte, E. (2000) ‘Marrying theory building and the improvement of school practice: A permanent challenge for instructional psychology’, Learning and Instruction 10(3): 249–266.Google Scholar
  9. Dougherty, B. K. (2003) ‘Byzantine politics: Using simulations to make sense of the middle east’, Political Science and Politics 36(2): 239–244.Google Scholar
  10. Druckman, D., & Ebner, N. (2013) ‘Games, claims, and new frames: Rethinking the use of simulation in negotiation education’, Negotiation Journal, 29(1): 61–92.Google Scholar
  11. Elias, A. (2013) ‘Simulating the European Union: Reflections on Module Design’. International Studies Perspectives 14.Google Scholar
  12. Fonti, F. & Stevancevic, G. (2014) ‘Innovativeness in Teaching European Studies: an Empirical Investigation’, in Baroncelli, S. et al. (Hrsg.) Teaching and Learning the European Union. Traditional and Innovative Methods: 111–132.Google Scholar
  13. Galatas, S.E. (2006) ‘A Simulation of the Council of the European Union: Assessment of the Impact on Student Learning’, PSonline January: 147–151.Google Scholar
  14. Giovanello, S. P., Kirk, J. A., & M. K. Kromer (2013) ‘Student Perceptions of a Role-Playing Simulation in an Introductory International Relations Course’, Journal of Political Science Education 9(2): 197–208.Google Scholar
  15. Gosen, J. and Washbush, J. (2004) ‘A review of scholarship on assessing experiential learning effectiveness’, Simulation and Gaming 35(2): 270–293.Google Scholar
  16. Greenblat, C. S. (1973) ‘Teaching with simulation games: A review of claims and evidence’, Teaching Sociology 1(1): 62–83.Google Scholar
  17. Greenblatt, C., Duke, Richard, D. (ed) (1975). Gaming Simulations: Rationale, Design, and Applications, New York: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
  18. Guasti P., Muno W. & Niemann A. (2015) ‘Introduction – EU Simulations as a Multi-dimensional Resource: From Teaching and Learning Tool to Research Instrument’ European Political Science 14(3): 205–217.Google Scholar
  19. Hofstede, G.J., de Caluwé, L. & V. Peters (2010) ‘Why Simulation Game Works – in Search of the Active Substance: a Synthesis’, Simulation and Gaming 41(6): 824–843.Google Scholar
  20. Ishiyama, J. (2012) ‘Frequently Used Active Learning Techniques and their Impact: A Critical Review of Existing Journal Literature in the United States’, European Political Science 11(1): 116–126.Google Scholar
  21. Jones, R. (2008). ‘Evaluating a Cross-Continent EU Simulation’, Journal of Political Science Education 4(4): 404–434.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, R. & Bursens P. (2013) ‘Assessing EU Simulations: Evidence from the Trans-Atlantic EuroSim’, in: S. Baroncelli, R. Farnelli, I. Horga and S. Vanhoonacker (eds.) Teaching and Learning the European Union, Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 157–186.Google Scholar
  23. Kaunert, C. (2009) ‘The European Union Simulation: from Problem Based Learning (PBL) to Student Interest’, European Political Science 8(3): 254–264.Google Scholar
  24. Muno, W., Messner, M.T. & Hahner, N. (2013) ‘Politikdidaktik and Simulationen: Die EU Simulation Model European Union Mainz’ Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft 23(1): 159–171.Google Scholar
  25. Muno, W., Niemann, A. & Guasti, P. (2017): EU-Simulationen als multidimensionaler didaktischer Ansatz, in diesem Band.Google Scholar
  26. Raymond, C. (2012) ‘Missing the Trees for the Forest? Learning Environments versus Learning Techniques in Simulations’, Journal of Political Science Education 8(1): 69–84.Google Scholar
  27. Raymond, C. & Usherwood, S (2013) ‘Assessment in Simulations’, Journal of Political Science Education, 9(2): 157–167.Google Scholar
  28. Rünz, P. (2013) ‘Making European Citizens? How Participation in Model EU Simulations Influences European Identity and Support of the EU.’ EU Simulations: Scholarly reflection and Research on Innovative Teaching Methodology, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, 27–28 September 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Schnurr, M., De Santo, E., & Green, A. (2014) ‘What do students learn from a role-play simulation of an international negotiation?’, Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 38(3): 401–414.Google Scholar
  30. Shellman, S. M. & Kürşad, T. (2001) ‘Active Learning in Comparative Politics: A Mock German Election and Coalition-Formation Simulation’, PS: Political Science & Politics 34(4): 827–834.Google Scholar
  31. Shellman, S. M. & Kürşad, T. (2006) ‘Do simulations enhance student learning? An empirical evaluation of an IR simulation’, Journal of Political Science Education 2(1): 19–32.Google Scholar
  32. Snyder, K. (2003) ‘Ropes, poles and space. Active learning in business education’, Active Learning in Higher Education 4(2): 159–167.Google Scholar
  33. Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Schelfhout, W. & Gielen, S. (2006). ‘On the dynamics of students‘ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment’, Learning and Instruction 16(4): 279–294.Google Scholar
  34. Szafran, R. F. & Mandolini, A. F. (1980) ‘Student evaluations of a simulation game’, Teaching Sociology 8(1): 21–37.Google Scholar
  35. Topping, K. (1998) ‘Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities’, Review of Educational Research 68(3): 249–276.Google Scholar
  36. Usherwood, S. (2014) ‘Constructing Effective Simulations of the European Union for Teaching: Realising the Potenial’, European Political Science 13(1): 1–16.Google Scholar
  37. Vermetten, Y., Vermunt, J., & Lodewijks, H. (2002) ‘Powerful learning environments? How university students differ in their response to instructional measures’ Learning and Instruction 12(3): 263–284.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ChesterUSA
  2. 2.AntwerpenBelgien

Personalised recommendations