Search results

In recent decades, a vast amount of literature has been published discussing the educational use of simulation games in higher education. Since their emergence in the 1960s, simulation games have had a substantial effect on the way we think about teaching and learning in higher education. One reason simulation games are regarded as superior to traditional teaching is that they encourage students to interact and collaborate. Simulation games can therefore be subsumed under Kolbs learning model of experiential learning referring to learning through experience. Experiential learning follows a recursive cycle of experiencing, reflecting, thinking and acting to increase students' learning motivation and learning success.

In the broader field of education, the added value of gaming in general is incrementally becoming more evident. A large number of articles from various fields have been published stating the benefits of simulation games in higher education. In spite of the success of gaming as a tool to foster learning, the way it affects learning success and learning motivation of students needs further clarification. In this paper, I want to contribute to the debate by critically examining whether, and if yes to what extent, the use of simulation games in higher education can lead to enhanced learning motivation and learning success. Based on the findings of existing literature, boosted students' interaction might be one key reason to explain the success of simulation games.

As a case study, I present empirical findings from the incorporation of a simulation game into a university course about climate change. The course is part of a Master program on interdisciplinary environmental science. The aim of the course is to teach students the basic knowledge about causes and effects of climate change with a special focus on the political understanding of the international negotiation process. The course is offered as a blended learning course combining a virtual collaboration phase with a three-day attendance seminar. For several years, this attendance seminar was comprised of students' presentations, scientific lectures and joint discussions. In 2015, we tested whether the use of a simulation game instead of classical teaching methods would affect the students' learning motivation and learning success. As our results indicate, the boosted student´s interaction increased through the use of the simulation games lead to an enhanced learning motivation and learning success.

As for the structure of the paper: In the first section, I discuss the potential benefits of simulation games for teaching in higher education. In the second section, I present how the simulation game was integrated and conducted during the course. In the third section, I present and critically examine the influence of the simulation game on the students' performance. To this end, I compare data from previous course evaluations with the recent course evaluation. To secure the reliability of the findings, an additional survey was conducted to gauge whether the simulation game was decisive for the variances in the regular evaluation. In the last section, I discuss the results in the wider context of simulation games in education.

"This chapter was borne out of a need to bring together two contending constituencies and their arguments about why and how to identify impact in peacebuilding initiatives in practice. The two constituencies, which the authoress calls 'frameworkers' and 'circlers', involve sets of people who blend across the lines of development and conflict transformation work and possess very different arguments about how to conceptualize and operationalize issues of impact and change in program design, monitoring and evaluation. The differences matter in a practical sense for workers in international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) because their views often clash during program design, monitoring and evaluation processes, and leave both sides dissatisfied. The groups also matter for conceptual reasons because they capture unspoken differences that hinder people's ability to talk clearly about impact and change, what matters, how people 'know what they know' about impact and change and, therefore, how they do their peacebuilding work. Unmasking the conceptual debates can improve our ability to speak about and achieve effectiveness and impact. The authoress receives diverse reactions to the arguments contained here. People who self-identify as circlers are often delighted to find an argument that recognizes them. For example, when one raises the topic in a course one co-teaches an peacebuilding monitoring, evaluation and learning there is a palpable sense of relief amongst some in the room who question linear causal logic and objective measures. Others, who are frameworker-orientated and work extensively in the field, tend to be open to the arguments below; they want frameworkers to be depicted positively but appreciate that different worldviews operate in the field and believe people need to be aware of differences and able to translate between them where possible. On infrequent occasions, academics steeped in positivist research have read the chapter and been appalled by the discussion regarding alternative worldviews, perceptions of reality and the questioning of causality; they find the suggestions disturbing and counter to their commitment to discover objective truths. Overall, these reactions reinforce for the authoress the importance of identifying and discussing assumptions at work in peacebuilding monitoring and evaluation; they also suggest that there are further issues to be addressed and that the authoress only begins to scratch the surface of the issues presented here. In this chapter, she begins by outlining the two basic constituencies: frameworkers and circlers. She briefly reviews the current status of peacebuilding monitoring and evaluation, which continues to grow and evolve. This is followed by an analysis of a series of topics that are debated between frameworkers and circlers; some of these topics are debated openly and addressed by other works that examine peacebuilding monitoring and evaluation, and some lie below the surface or are not articulated as debates. The tensions provide insights into the underlying issues that need to be identified in order to be fruitfully addressed. Finally, the authoress presents some concrete examples of ways that peacebuilding or other social change orientated programs have adopted to Bridge the positions in practice and identify practices that can strengthen particular areas that are currently under-developed and can benefit programs." (excerpt)

"The question at hand seems relatively simple and straightforward: whether and to what extent the protection and promotion of human rights is necessary for efforts to address conflict and build peace. The issue has been much debated over time. The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights forcefully associated the protection of human rights with the prevention of violent conflict, stating that 'it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law' (UN 1948, preamble). Yet in 1996, an anonymous author in Human Rights Quarterly accused the international human rights movement of prolonging the war in Bosnia Herzegovina. There, human rights activists had rejected pragmatic deals that could have ended the violence and, from hindsight, were no worse than the eventual agreement in rewarding ethnic cleansing and aggression. In that author's view, it made 'today's living the dead of tomorrow' by pursuing a perfectly just and moral peace that would bring 'justice for yesterday's victims of atrocities' (Anonymous 1996, 259). Since then, the idea that the normative nature of human rights standards may complicate the practical demands of peacemaking has been a recurrent theme in discussions on the relationship between human rights and efforts to address violent conflict. This is especially the case when the latter is conceived of in terms of conflict settlement or resolution. Questions of definitions and objectives are thus key. Also relevant are the time frame, context and level of intervention one focuses on, though few authors on the subject make this explicit. In addition, narrow perceptions and generalizations abound in this debate as people working on human rights, peace and conflict have been grouped into categories of 'human rights activists' and 'conflict resolvers' as if these were homogenous and coherent clusters of actors. In this chapter, the authoress argues that considering human rights and conflict transformation in conjunction deepens one's analysis of what is involved in moving from violence to sustainable peace. It is informed by the idea that the two fill 'gaps' in one another, in that each contributes to a better understanding of the other by highlighting elements that are relatively under-explored in the theory and practice of each separate field. For conflict transformation, which will be the main focus here, the perspective of human rights forces a greater emphasis on structural conditions, especially the role of the state, systems of governance and issues of power in generating, escalating and transforming violent conflict. Considering human rights in relation to conflict transformation, moreover, highlights the need to employ a holistic, multidimensional understanding of human rights that does not reduce them to their legal foundations. This chapter suggests that conflict transformation, because of its explicit grounding in social justice, and hence inherently normative foundation, may provide a more nuanced and fruitful conceptual space for thinking about human rights, conflict and peace than conflict resolution and conflict management. Placing constructive social change at its core, conflict transformation acknowledges the need for addressing power imbalances and recognizes a role for advocacy and the importance of voices that challenge the status quo. Its concern with direct, structural and cultural violence is thus also highly relevant from a rights perspective. In order to place these ideas in context, the chapter will briefly comment on literature that has been published on human rights and approaches for addressing conflict and building peace (section 2). Section 3 proposes a framework for understanding the relationship between human rights and conflict transformation, using the metaphor of an iceberg, with its graphic image of things visible connected to matters unseen. It also introduces four dimensions of human rights that need to be taken into account in processes to build a just and sustainable peace. Section 4 discusses some of the practical implications of adopting a human rights perspective on conflict transformation. Nepal, South Africa, and other countries where the authoress has worked over the past 15 years, are used as illustrative examples throughout sections 3 and 4. Finally, section 5 concludes and points to some areas for further research." (excerpt)