South China Sea Simulation: Part 3

One last post about the South China Sea simulation that I used in my Asia course last semester.  Previous posts are here and here.

Students found it much easier to accomplish different objectives than I thought they would, and as a result I set the rewards too high. Several students managed to earn 200 points in a course with a 1,500-point grading scale.

The most beneficial aspect of the simulation for me, the instructor, was using the debriefing as an iterative design tool. I asked, both in class and in a writing assignment, how well the simulation reflected contemporary relations between countries with competing claims to the South China Sea. Students provided me with a lot of excellent feedback about how to improve the simulation for the future:

  • Clarification about which country had claims to what islands. A table would suffice for this.
  • Students write something about the country to which they are assigned and in the process research the history behind the territorial claims. This would be an easy preparatory assignment to develop — each student writes some sort of memo or position paper, then each team collaborates on a single version, which is circulated among the other teams or presented to the class orally.
  • Account for the relative military and economic strength of each country, and include rewards for trade agreements rather than just for treaties about territorial claims. More difficult to pull off, but possible.
  • Create a more formal environment and employ a moderator for discussion among participants.
  • Better incorporate nationalistic sentiments of the actors — something I mentioned in my last post. Don’t really know how to do this, but . . .

Students thought the simulation ought to last the entire semester, with roles assigned at the beginning of the course. This would enable me to replace the Visualizing Cultures presentations, which suffered from a small class size and students’ inability to deliver interactive presentations, with a sequence of preparatory assignments, negotiation sessions, or both. Engagement with the topic over a longer period of time might result in greater learning. It might also cause students to develop an affiliation and identify more strongly with the actors they are playing.

 

Teaching with Trump: A Challenge and an Invitation to Problem-Based Learning

Our series on “teaching Trump” continues today with a guest post by Martin S. Edwards, Associate Professor and  Director of Graduate Studies at the School of Diplomacy and International Relations, Seton Hall University. He can be reached at Martin [dot] Edwards [at] shu [dot] edu.

Talk to the hand.

Teaching in a professional international affairs program offers some unique challenges. The focus at the graduate level is on professional skill development rather than preparing students for comprehensive examinations, and our students come from a wide variety of disciplines rather than as political science undergraduates. The election brought a unique challenge for those of us that teach International Organizations. It made clear that we need to better train students to speak up in defense of multilateralism, especially at a time in which the White House is suspicious of it. So, given the current climate, in which the White House is openly dismissive of the value of the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Financial Institutions, and NATO, how can one rethink an established course so as to demonstrate its relevance? My approach to “Teaching with Trump” during the Spring semester was to refocus my graduate course on problem-based learning. Continue reading

South China Sea Simulation: Part 2

As promised in my last post, I’m going to talk about the mechanics of my South China Sea simulation, but I’m also going to go in a different direction because of the bombing in Manchester and Simon’s subsequent post.

As I’ve done in the past with some of my other classroom simulations, I created a set of objectives for each actor — in this case Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, the United States, and Vietnam. Each objective was associated with a number of points that contributed to a player’s final grade, but players’ objectives often conflicted with one another — a feature deliberately intended to reflect competing interests and force negotiation. All of the objectives involved which Asian nation-state would be granted sovereignty over which territories. Although I gave actors the option to engage in military action, I specified probabilities that such actions would be successful. For example, an attack by the Philippines against a specific target had a 1:6 chance of succeeding, while acting in concert with U.S. forces had increase the chances of success to 2:3. However, an attack risked involving the Philippines in a regional war, the probability and costs of which I left completely vague. This uncertainty seemed to have beneficially made students reluctant to use military force, unlike my experience with some other simulations.

Given the number of contested islands and overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea, the entire set of objectives and payoffs was rather complicated to create, but the complexity forced students to become much more familiar with the area’s geography, which I think was also plus.

I will discuss what went wrong with the simulation in the near future, but I will mention here — and this is what relates to Simon’s post — what I see as a failure that I often witness in my geographically-situated simulations: because of the point rewards, students very quickly become rationally-acting deal-makers. Nationalist and ethnic identities that the simulations are supposed to model quickly get tossed out the window. In the language of simulations, players find it easy to abandon their roles. In the real world, Vietnamese and Chinese policies reflect a strong sense of nationalism, and the two states would never agree so easily on who owns the Paracels. If they did, there would not be a conflict to simulate. Continue reading

Follow up on Model Diplomacy

A while back I put out a plea for new simulations for my Introduction to International Politics class. I asked specifically about the Council on Foreign Relations’ Model Diplomacy simulations and got some useful feedback (on that and others). In case others are interested, I figured I’d post a follow up.

I decided to structure my course around two sets of simulations. First, I planned on a series of four different one-day Model Diplomacy simulations, at key times during the term. I replaced my group debate assignment with these. Since I centered the group debate assignment around current events as a way of applying course material to a contemporary question, the Model Diplomacy simulations were a reasonable replacement since they, too, focus on a current event. Continue reading

Teaching Trump Through a Human Rights Lens

This is  guest post from Dr. Lindsey Kingston, an associate professor of human rights at Webster University.  It was originally published  at the Websteropolis blog and is reposted on ALPS with her permission .  It is part of our Teaching Trump series, and the other posts can be found here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4.

The political campaign and subsequent election of Donald Trump as president of the United States raises important questions about neutrality in university classrooms. Across disciplines, but particularly within the realms of international relations and political science, my colleagues struggle to identify fair and ethical approaches for “teaching Trump”. Yet as a human rights professor, the need to offer a critical perspective on current events has taken on a new, incredible sense of urgency.

Dr. Lindsey Kingston

My perspective on politics – one viewed through a “human rights lens,” if you will – requires me to assess U.S. domestic and foreign policies with an eye toward human rights frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and various binding instruments of international law. These rights are universal (meaning they belong to everyone, by virtue of being human) and are inalienable (meaning nothing you can do or say can strip you of your rights). The U.S. Constitution comes second to these principles, although it’s noteworthy that the Bill of Rights reinforces fundamental guarantees to justice, as well as freedoms of speech, assembly, and religion.

Continue reading

A Place For My Stuff

Here is a quick report on using Leanne’s international trade scavenger hunt and a related exercise:

I awarded five points to any student who found an item from all five regions and five points for each unique item; all other rules were the same. In a class of thirteen students, nine posted photos to the online discussion. Points earned ranged from zero to twenty-five, for a course with a grading scale of 1,500 points. One student said he was unable to upload his photos; my response was “not my problem.”

As Leanne experienced, my class found very few items from sub-Saharan Africa. Two students took photos of clothing made in Mauritius, which really isn’t part of Africa, but I counted it as such anyway. When I asked what the scavenger hunt revealed about trade flows, they were for the most part clueless, and it took a lot of prodding on my part to get them to see the possible implications of the scavenger hunt’s results.

I found this a bit disappointing because the class had engaged in a similar exercise the week before, in which teams of students tried to identify the country of origin for every item they had with them in the classroom. After about ten minutes of students searching for labels, I compiled a digest of what they had discovered by writing on the board categories of items — such as “clothing” — and the countries from which the items originated. The purpose of the exercise, which I communicated to students after some discussion, was to demonstrate that everyone in the room was a participant in globalization, whether they were conscious of it or not.

Teaching Trump 4: the view from outside

After all the great suggestions from colleagues (here, here and here), I thought I’d chip in with some ideas from outside, given that this Trump thing seems to be global in impact.

In particular, I’d point you towards the endless memes and gifs out there, the new President being a gift for such vehicles. Just trawl your Facebook or Twitter feed, or simply google it, for more material than you could ever want for. I’d then point you to Jack Holland’s post here for ideas on how to then use these in the classroom.

Personally, I’m interested in how Trump plays into European politics. One ‘resource’ that I’ve found really interesting is the Every Second Counts site.

This started with a Dutch late-night chatshow picking up on Trump’s inauguration statement of ‘America first’, by putting together a package about why that should also mean ‘the Netherlands second‘. Having duly gone viral, equivalent packages have been made by other European countries and are collecting on the main site: personally, I like the Swiss one.

As well as being entertaining, they also contain pointed critiques of both American and domestic politics: watch one as a non-resident of either the US or the other state and you’ll find that you’ve been left behind at several points.

However, as stepping-off points for class discussion about political identities, self-images and othering (and gender, for that matter), these are great. Indeed, if you felt bold then you’d ask students to make their own version.

The Lithuanians don’t even aim for second…

Links to the full Teaching Trump series:

Where Did Your Stuff Come From?

Most American students are challenged to understand the extent to which international trade affects their lives, and the way that the US trades with the world. I can (and have) shown statistics about trade and economics in very graphic and immediate form, but numbers in the scale of trillions are hard to conceptualize.

To combat that, I asked students in an introductory international politics class to go on a scavenger hunt. They were tasked to find one item from each of 5 world regions – Europe, Latin America, Sub-Saharan Africa, Middle East & North Africa, and Asia & the Pacific. They had to take a picture of the ‘made in’ indicator (and part of their student ID, to ensure that they didn’t just go grabbing stock photography or Instagram stuff) and post it to the class learning management system’s discussion board. To sweeten the pot, I offered 2 bonus points for unique entries, where no one else posted something from that country. Specialty foods and beverages were excluded (no taking a picture of a bottle of Stella for Belgium).

Students went crazy hunting for stuff. The two bonus points were apparently a huge incentive, with students finding and posting additional items when someone else duplicated “their” country.

Continue reading

A final Brexit sim reflection

In our last post on this, Matthew LeRiche (Memorial) talks about his takeaways from our Brexit game held before Christmas.

 

With the semester now over and course commentary and review in progress it is clear that the Brexit simulation lead by Simon Usherwood in conjunction with Chris Huggins was one of the highlights for my undergraduate students. This past semester the Political Science Department at Memorial University of Newfoundland (MUN for short) was able to run its Public Policy Certificate program based at our UK based Harlow Campus – a gift from Lord Taylor many moons ago and a great platform to link our North American students to Europe and the world.

Although tardy in my contribution to the de-brief from the exercise, the following is a reflection on the exercise from my perspective and that of my students. The multi-layered nature of this simulation afforded great opportunity for learning. In particular, it afforded different learning to take place for the different groups involved, since the various groups of students involved from different institutions were undertaking quite different courses. For the MUN group, the key challenge and thus most important learning opportunity was the need to reconcile internally and manage the process of balancing several internal interests to then engage in a single front in a negotiation. For a group of public policy students this afforded an opportunity to think more deeply about the public policy process. Continue reading

Another Brexit sim roundup

This is as guest post from Christopher Huggins (Keele):

Over the course of this semester my students at Keele have been taking part in a Brexit negation simulation alongside students from the University of Surrey and Memorial University in Canada. Simon has been posting regular updates about it, but, given the three groups of students came at this from different perspectives, I wanted to offer my own take.

Why do it?

My students all study a third year module titled ‘Debating the Future of the European Union’. This module gets the students to examine some of the main issues which feature in the wider debate about what the future holds for the European Union. This includes the Eurozone crisis, the EU’s international role, and, of course, Brexit.

As Simon has already noted, the challenge with teaching Brexit is that it is hideously complex. It’s also a ‘live’ contemporary political event – it’s happening while the students study it. This makes using traditional teaching tools difficult. There’s no textbook for the students to use a reference and academic literature is only stating to emerge. While there is a constant stream of information from the media, think tanks and the, it can be difficult to make sense of the barrage of information. Given the students are based in a British university and are largely digesting British media, the information they’re being exposed to is heavily UK-centric.

All of this made Simon’s open invitation to participate in the simulation an offer too good to refuse. It was directly relevant to my students’ studies. It was a way for them to actively engage with the complexities of a political event unfolding around them. It would help them to focus their attention on a specific aspect of Brexit (the process of negotiation), while also encouraging them to look beyond a narrow UK perspective.

The successes

There were two main motivations for getting involved. Firstly to expose students to the inherent complexity involved in negotiating Brexit. Secondly to get them to recognize that the UK is not the only party in this negotiation.

In this respect the simulation was a success. Talking to my students afterwards, many commented how it encouraged them to find out to the positions of other EU member states, and they all seemed to come away with an appreciation that the internal politics of the other EU member states would play a significant role in shaping their positions and, therefore, the outcome of the negotiations. Some were even brave enough to admit they probably wouldn’t have bothered to consider this had the simulation not prompted them to.

There were other learning points too. For example we decided on sending a delegation of six of my students (rather than all 22) to the live negotiation. This was mainly for financial reasons, but it also had the advantage of reinforcing the multi-level nature of EU negotiations. Groups would first have to develop their own position based on internal political preferences, before bringing that to the wider negotiation. Sending delegates to act as ‘ambassadors’ also mirrored how some EU negotiations work in real life. During the simulation the Netherlands group agreed one of their ‘red lines’ would be any restrictions on freedom of movement. And yet in the excitement of the final vote the lone Netherlands delegate voted to give the UK single market access/membership and emergency brake on freedom of movement without sanction, going against their national position. This promoted some nice discussions with the students about the desire for consensus in EU decision making, the presence of an ‘esprit de corps’ between EU negotiators and the potential role of socialization dynamics.

It was also great to get the students interacting outside their normal cohort. Universities not only foster students’ learning, but also develop their wider cultural awareness and communication and interpersonal skills. So it was great to see students across all three groups build a good rapport, talk to each other over the length of the semester, and socialize.

The challenges

Simon has already spoken of the ‘on the fly’ approach we adopted for this. It all worked out in the end, but there were moments of miscommunication and misunderstanding. There was also the added complication of distance for us. To make the most of it we needed students to travel down to Surrey and take part in the live negotiation. As mentioned we sent down a delegation of six, with the school covering travel and accommodation costs. The amount of money required was relatively modest and I had the full support of my head of school, but we still had to go through an internal process of gaining approval, checking there was enough money in the school budget and then, as this was an officially university sanctioned trip, making all the arrangements through the university’s approved travel agents. All of this really highlights the importance of thinking through the practicalities of organizing these sorts of simulations.

The other main challenge was trying to maintain student involvement over a semester long simulation. Simon noted we basically left the students to it and this inevitably meant some disengaged. As Simon suggested in his post more structure might have helped here. Because we joined the simulation relatively late on (in part due to the lengthy approval process described above), it was effectively an informal add-on to the module. With extra planning it could have been more rigorously incorporated into the teaching programme.

Another issue was that not all the students felt fully invested in the simulation. To begin with all were involved in the initial discussions in their country-specific groups. However only six were going to Surrey for the live negotiation, and maintaining the involvement of those who weren’t coming, especially in the latter stages (when assessment deadlines also started to hit), proved difficult.

These issues aside, engaging the students in the simulation was worth it.  They came away with a greater appreciation with the complexities of Brexit and the position of the other EU member states. On a more personal level it’s taught me more about simulations, both the benefits of collaborating with colleagues and students from other institutions, but also the need to better prepare and address the practicalities.