SYMPOSIUM simulating europe: choosing the right learning objectives for simulation games simon raiser*, annegret schneider and björn warkalla planpolitik, Friedelstr. 16, Berlin, D-12047, Germany E-mails: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] *Corresponding author.

doi:10.1057/eps.2015.20; published online 8 May 2015

Abstract The authors reflect on the potential of simulation games for teaching the European Union. They argue that when developing or using simulations it is imperative to decide, first of all, on the learning objective(s). The authors distinguish games geared primarily towards conveying knowledge from those aimed at training soft skills. The former can focus on teaching the processes and dynamics of European politics (politics), on teaching factual knowledge about a given policy field (policy) or on teaching the Union’s institutional aspects (polity). The second category concerns objectives such as training teamwork, communication and negotiation skills, as well as empathy, the ability to deal with complexity and making decisions under stress. The relevance of these objectives for teaching and training students is assessed on the basis of case studies describing different simulation game concepts. Although the authors acknowledge that simulation games enjoy an increasing popularity within academic teaching, they maintain that their use in European Studies is largely restricted to classical concepts and argue for a more extensive use of more experimental simulation games.

Keywords

simulation game; European union; learning goal; politics;

training

s a method for active learning, the simulation game is part of a trend in didactics bemoaning a lack of creativity and sustainability in frontal and non-activating teaching methods.

A 228

Accordingly, the simulation game method is becoming increasingly popular among university lecturers and in political education as a whole, and we could not agree more with the positive view on simulation

european political science: 14 2015 (228 – 240) & 2015 European Consortium for Political Research. 1680-4333/15 www.palgrave-journals.com/eps

games as expressed in the introduction to this volume (Guasti et al, 2015). This article examines the simulation game method with regard to its relevance to academic teaching and training in the field of European studies. In our view, the potential is considerable because the possible learning objectives in simulation games and those in European studies are largely overlapping. Admittedly, there is no core curriculum with regard to European integration. However, the curricula discernibly share a similar basic outlook: they concern themselves with the process of European integration from political, legal and economic perspectives (Beichelt et al, 2013: 9). European Studies are concerned with the formal and informal structure of the European Union (polity) as well as the contents of European policy. Students should also come to understand and reflect upon the processes of European integration (politics). This applies to degree courses within European studies, but also political and social sciences. Furthermore, the university as an institution raises the general claim of producing socially competent, thoughtful, critical and responsible graduates who are able to make decisions. All of these objectives can be achieved and supported using simulation games as an active learning method. Supporters of the method maintain that employing simulation games can make political conflicts and their dynamics tangible. By reflecting on actively gained experience, the institutional procedures, processes and contents of European politics become comprehensible. Simultaneously, different interests as well as reasons for decisions and the resulting consequences become more apparent. Furthermore, simulation games are an effective tool for the acquisition of key competences such as negotiation skills, teamwork and the capacity for compromise.

‘... simulation games are an effective tool for the acquisition of key competences such as negotiation skills, teamwork and the capacity for compromise’. Simulation games are about actively following the type of dynamics that when taught employing traditional methods (lectures, presentations, text work) are mostly analysed theoretically and purely cognitively. As explained in the introduction to this volume, this constitutes the sizeable potential of the method as a practical addition to teaching, provided – and this is an important condition – that it is used for reaching clearly defined objectives and that it is sensibly embedded in the course to be taught (Geuting, 2000; Morgan, 2003; Belloni, 2008; Guasti et al, 2015). This article seeks to discuss the potential of the simulation game method in teaching the European Union. After briefly outlining the core of the European studies curriculum, we present our typology of simulation game learning objectives. This typology is then applied to three exemplary simulation games, whose merits for fulfilling the different learning objectives are assessed.

POTENTIAL OF THE METHOD IN CONVEYING EUROPEAN INTEGRATION Although no uniform curricula exist for all courses and places of study, there are significant overlaps (Wessels et al, 2001; Beichelt et al, 2013). Both European Studies courses and modules of related disciplines contain, at their core, ‘the study of simon raiser et al

european political science:14 2015

229

politics, policy and polity of the European Union’ (Wessels et al, 2001: 5):

Politics

Policy

Polity

Political processes within the EU, inputoriented

Content of European policy, outputoriented

Framework conditions for European policy, institutionoriented

Modes of governance, multi-level networks

For example, environment policy, outcomes of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, shaping of the single market

Legal foundations of the EU, institutions, legislative procedures

By analogy with Political Science, university teaching of European Studies therefore aims at conveying content knowledge (policy), institutional knowledge (polity) and procedural knowledge (politics). These three dimensions are subordinate to the exploration of the historical development of the integration process, the outlook from a theoretical perspective and the analysis of perspectives for future development. Apart from dealing with specific topics and questions, the relevant study programmes aim at conveying analytical and practical competences and prepare graduates for the realities of work environments. Simulation games are well suited for the above-mentioned learning objectives. This will become apparent in the following section, when we categorise simulation games along the most important overall learning objectives. For this, we will adopt the commonly used distinction of learning objectives as the conveying of knowledge on the

230

european political science:14 2015

simulating europe

one hand and of practical competences on the other. We will then create further sub-distinctions with the aim of creating a better overview of the field of existing simulation games. This will allow the right simulation game for the intended purpose to be chosen or to set the right priorities when developing simulation games. While Brunazzo and Settembri (2012) argue that simulations are knowledgedeepening rather than knowledge acquisition tools, we would maintain that this is only partially true. First, the preparation is an essential part of a simulation game, and it is here where some of the knowledge acquisition takes part. Second, the validity of the statement depends on the type of knowledge to be acquired: Although it may also be possible to learn about the policy and polity dimensions using traditional teaching methods, knowledge about the politics, that is, the political processes, can be acquired through simulation games uniquely well.

IT’S ALL ABOUT LEARNING OBJECTIVES – A TYPOLOGY OF THE SIMULATION GAME The most fundamental distinction lies in the question whether knowledge or competences should be conveyed.1 In the broadest sense, the conveying of knowledge is about gaining subject-specific knowledge about European integration. We distinguish between the following three game types that will be further elaborated below: ●

●

●

Simulation games with a focus on institutional and structural aspects of the European Union; Simulation games with a focus on content knowledge about European policy fields; Simulation games with a focus on the process and dynamics of European politics.

By competences we mean the often discussed soft skills that are increasingly called for in professional practice and have been championed as a key learning target by universities for some time. We divide simulation games in the area of conveying competences into three types (without claiming to be exhaustive): First, simulation games with a focus on interaction and communication emphasise learning objectives such as training students’ rhetoric and negotiation skills, practicing finding common ground for compromise and developing team skills such as collaborating with others, agreeing on a productive division of labour and using available time and resources wisely. Second, simulation games with a focus on systemic competence improve students’ ability to deal with complexity, to appreciate different perspectives and to question one’s own behaviours, stereotypes and viewpoints. Third, simulation games with a focus on decision making and action-related competence put students in situations that train their ability to make decisions, particularly under time pressure, stress and high media attention. They encourage students’

willingness to take responsibility for their actions and to reflect on their behaviour in exceptional circumstances without the risks and possible consequences of real situations. On the basis of these distinctions, simulation games can be categorised along their intended learning objectives and their characteristics (see Figure 1).2 Naturally, the different objectives are not mutually exclusive. Although a simulation game can aim towards reaching several learning objectives that are equally relevant to European Studies, we would always argue in favour of emphasising particular points and determining the main learning objective. As a general principle, the more learning objectives are followed simultaneously, the more complex the game design will become and consequently obscure the exercise’s overall purpose to the participants. This is also important for the development of a simulation game: clarity on the learning objectives helps avoid unnecessary work; certain details in designing games are not needed for certain purposes. And not every game concept is suited to every learning objective.

Figure 1 Simulation game learning objectives. simon raiser et al

european political science:14 2015

231

In addition, defining a clear objective will help manage some of the difficulties inherent in simulation game development, such as the tension between complexity-reduction and oversimplification (Guasti et al, 2015; Brunazzo and Settembri, 2012, 2014).

SIMULATION GAMES AIMED AT CONVEYING KNOWLEDGE In the field of conveying knowledge, three central types of simulation games can be identified (Raiser and Warkalla 2015): Simulation games with a focus on the process and dynamics of European politics (politics): Here, the objective is to allow participants to gain insight into the dynamics of European political processes. How do the actors’ actions as well as the institutional structures affect the political process within the EU? What role do the power relations play? In a simulation game, participants gain an active sense of how interests develop through interaction with others and how they change throughout negotiations. The significance of trust as a variable in politics can be reflected upon, as can the importance of information and communication, as well as of informal modes of negotiation. Contrary to content-focused simulation games (see below), a long preparation period on background content is not necessary. After all, the goal is not to convey knowledge about a specific real policy area or exact institutional structures, but to create an understanding of the dynamics of political processes in general. The emphasis is on an abstracting view on politics, that is, the drawing of generalised conclusions from the result of the game. Simulation games with a focus on content knowledge on a specific policy area (policy): This type of game is about addressing the shaping of European policy content and the current lines of conflict between the actors. This could mean

232

european political science:14 2015

simulating europe

members of the European Parliamentary groups, members of member state governments or Commission officials and lobbyists. What is important here is the interplay of their different interests as well as understanding the respective political backgrounds on a given policy area. Games of this type are usually designed to include intensive content-related preparation for the participants. Other learning objectives tend to be the by-products of the game, more important is research into the topic, background, positions and interests of all actors involved. Simulation games with a focus on institutional aspects (polity): The most important objective of this type of simulation game is for participants to become acquainted with the institutional basis of decision-making procedures within the EU. The content of any given procedure may typically be of lesser interest than the formal and informal rules and laws. This learning objective lies at the heart of classic simulations such as Model United Nations and equivalent EU simulations. It is of particular relevance in the context of European studies, not least because the European institutions are an important occupational field and topic of research for European studies graduates.

CASE STUDIES In this section we will introduce simulation games that could serve as examples for some of the simulation game types introduced above. Table 1 also shows which further, secondary learning objectives can be reached with these simulation games.

COUNCIL SUMMIT SIMULATION Simulations of the European Council are probably the most commonly used in

Table 1: Simulation game case studies Simulation game

Main focus

Primary learning objective

Secondary learning objective

Council session

Knowledge

Policy

Knowledge: politics

Ordinary Legislative Procedure

Knowledge

Polity

Knowledge: politics

States in debt crisis

Knowledge

Politics

Competences: action-related and decision-making competences, systemic competence

universities worldwide. Although they may differ in form and design, many Council simulations follow a similar formula. The participants take on the roles of heads of state and government of EU member states. In formal and informal sessions they negotiate a topic taken from real current issues. The simulation game introduced here carries the title Future of the EU, as developed by planpolitik in 2013. It involves discussions on the EU’s short-term and long-term future prospects: How to find a way out of the debt crisis? What long-term institutional and political reforms are needed? What would a ‘multi-speed Europe’ look like? What will be the future of the enlargement policy? How to deal with conflicts within Europe? The heads of state and government are gathering for a summit chaired by the President of the Council and his team. Negotiations are always held ‘along the text’, the draft either being determined by the game leaders or drawn up by the participants. In the latter case, the delegations submit their proposals for formulating the text, based on which the President’s group creates the draft for the resolution. The delegation members’ role profiles have either been formulated by the facilitators, or they are researched by the participants themselves. Negotiations then take between a few hours or several days. When involving a

large number of participants, negotiations are held in two or more committees simultaneously. There is no exact schedule within the negotiations. Participants may interrupt official session for informal talks and thus largely determine the time plan themselves. A press group produces short bulletins featuring interviews and background reports. The simulation game ends with all heads of state and government accepting the conclusions – if they have reached consensus.

REACHING THE LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND RELEVANCE FOR EUROPEAN STUDIES This simulation requires a relatively large amount of preparation as the participants need an extensive introduction to the topics of the game. Researching this content can be part of the students’ (graded) contribution. The central learning objective of the simulation game ‘Future of the EU’ is conveying content knowledge about a specific area of policy’. By dealing with the fundamental questions of European integration as well as the positions of the member states, the simulation game provides a comprehensive overview over current political issues (Figure 2). simon raiser et al

european political science:14 2015

233

Figure 2 Learning objectives of a Council simulation. Second, this simulation game aims to convey knowledge about the dynamics of political processes within the EU. The emphasis here is not on the institutional procedures, but on the processes ‘behind the scenes’. Participants are learning how the national perception of problems influence European politics, how political negotiations work in the consensus-based European Council and how compromise is possible even between very different policy positions. The conveying of knowledge about institutional procedures hardly plays a role in this simulation. Procedural rules such as formal amendment proposals, speaking time and detailed schedules are deliberately omitted. In this, the simulation game Future of the EU differs from many other Council simulations such as US-based games similar to the Model United Nations series which aim to recreate negotiation scenarios including all rules as realistically as possible.3 The training of competences is mostly a welcome by-product with this simulation game. As with almost all simulation games, systemic competence as well as interaction and communication skills are exercised. The participants learn to view

234

european political science:14 2015

simulating europe

the political discourse from varying perspectives and to develop a solutionoriented way of thinking. Furthermore, rhetoric, argumentation skills and negotiation skills are trained. However, these are not primary objectives – if the main aim was to convey competences, shorter games tailored to this particular end would be more suitable.

SIMULATION GAMES ON THE ORDINARY LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE (OLP) Next to Council simulations, simulation games on the Ordinary Legislative Procedure (OLP) form the second large group of tried-and-tested simulation games in European studies. The primary aim here is to convey an insight into the functioning of European lawmaking. Participants assume the roles of Members of the European Parliament, of ministers in the Council and of EU Commission members. Role profiles, that is, objectives and interests of each actor, are either given or researched by the participants themselves. There are OLP simulation games on a large variety of topics.4 However, the

structure is largely the same and follows the structure of the OLP: The Commission proposes a new regulation or directive (in simpler versions these are provided by the game leaders). The draft is discussed in the Parliament’s committees and is voted on in the plenary (first reading). Following the first reading, ministers in the EU Council decide. The game ends when both institutions agree on a compromise, or after the third reading. Shorter versions of the game might simulate parts of the OLP, for example, only the first reading in Parliament.

REACHING THE LEARNING OBJECTIVES AND RELEVANCE FOR EUROPEAN STUDIES First, OLP simulation games are suited to gaining knowledge about the structure and functioning of the EU. Participants internalise the decision making rules and the functioning of the most important EU institutions as well as the course of the OLP. By analogy of the typology, the objective is primarily to convey

‘The primary aim here is to convey an insight into the functioning of European lawmaking’. knowledge about the EU’s institutional and legal framework (polity). Second, these games show the interaction between the European institutions. Networks and communication between members of Parliament, ministers and members of the Commission become clear. Students gain first-hand experience of the processes (politics) that take place behind the facades of institutional regulations.5 By comparison, the topical content is less important and primarily serves as an example and can be exchanged easily while the game structure remains intact. Conveying knowledge about a particular policy field (policy) is not among the main objectives (Figure 3). The training of competences is not in the foreground with OLP simulation games and takes places on the side. As these are negotiation-based simulation games, the largest gains in competence can be expected to occur in the area of communication and interaction.

Figure 3 Learning objectives of an OLP simulation game. simon raiser et al

european political science:14 2015

235

SIMULATION GAME ‘STATES IN DEBT CRISIS’ The last example differs considerably from both the previously discussed games and is rather atypical in the context of academic teaching of European integration. It is a fictional, action-oriented simulation game about the state debt crisis in the Eurozone. It was developed by planpolitik in 2011 and has since been played by numerous groups of high school and university students. The actors are up to four fictional member states of a single currency union. In each, state groups, civil society groups and groups from the private sector are debating their country’s budget policy. The states are based on the economic data and political frameworks of Ireland, Portugal, Greece and Spain. The game takes place in three consecutive rounds. In the first round, before the crisis, the general economic mood is good. The groups of the different states determine spending for a range of budget items and decide on new debts. After initial budgets have been negotiated, they are published. Using a fixed key, two credit rating agencies assess the budget plans and calculate a rating. At the beginning of the second round, the game leaders announce a general economic and financial crisis: Economic performance has plunged, large rescue packages have to be voted on in all countries overnight. Debt has risen, a massive fall in credit ratings is imminent, insolvency beckons. Governments and internal political actors must work together to create rescue packages in order to retain an acceptable credit rating. The representatives of the monetary union are offering help: they are offering low-interest bailout packages in return for a say in the countries’ budget decisions. Typically, the atmosphere in this round is rather hectic as difficult decisions need to be made in very little time.

236

european political science:14 2015

simulating europe

‘The last example differs considerably from both the previously discussed games and is rather atypical in the context of academic teaching of European integration’. Round three offers the states a chance to consolidate: Depending on the level of disagreement between the different groups and what kind of specific obstacles they must overcome, some countries are not depending on a bailout. Others might have had to accept external help and are now hoping to gain access to regular credit on the international market by way of further austerity measures and improved credit ratings. After budget plans have been drawn up for the third time, the game ends with the agencies announcing the last round of credit ratings.

REACHING THE LEARNING GOALS AND RELEVANCE FOR EUROPEAN STUDIES In relation to the simulation game typology, ‘states in the debt crisis’, follows the objective to clarify the political processes in Europe under the circumstances of the state debt crisis (Figure 4). The participants learn how political constraints limit the affected governments’ ability to act. During the course of the simulation game, the monetary union (symbolising the Troika) and the rating agencies (representing the international financial markets) gain more and more influence. At the same time, government representatives are finding it close to impossible to implement the external demands against the trade unions and other domestic actors. The difficult situation of national governments between international and

supranational constraints on the one hand and domestic political pressure on the other becomes tangible. In this fictional scenario, the European Union’s polity remains largely untouched upon. The political procedural rules and actor-specific structures are strongly simplified or fictionally modified in favour of other aspects. Instead, action and decision-making competences are trained. In so doing, the game addresses a specific area of learning objectives in courses of European studies: the conveying of profession-specific competences. It prepares participants for a workplace reality within European politics that is likely to involve having to consider different alternatives for action under time pressure, making far-reaching decisions and considering possible consequences. The evaluation session sees the experiences gained during the game transferred to reality. Therefore, it is not until after the end of the game that content knowledge about the EU’s economic and monetary policy is conveyed. The game depicts the cycle of spending policy, new debt, credit ratings and refinancing. The political, economic and financial contexts are

‘It prepares participants for a workplace reality within European politics…’ addressed, as are possible perspectives for solutions. The evaluation – generally a fundamental part of every simulation game – is of particular significance in this game, as for many other fictional games. Only by reflecting on the course of the game can what has been learnt during the game be connected to the didactic objectives (Capaul and Ulrich, 2003: 39–41; Krain and Lantis, 2006: 399).6

CONCLUSION Simulation games are making a substantial contribution to teaching in the area of European studies since learning objectives here are congruent with those of simulation games: the conveying of knowledge about the EU’s policies, politics and polity as well as, with a view to prospective professions, the conveying of social, communicative, systemic and action-related competences.

Figure 4 Learning objectives of the simulation game ‘states in debt crisis’. simon raiser et al

european political science:14 2015

237

However, when setting out to use simulation games, one should consider a number of caveats related to their learning objectives: First, although being a great method, simulation games do not fit all purposes – it is, for example, not possible to develop recommendations for action or visions within the game; this is possible only after the game and can be a valuable addition, either as part of the game’s debriefing or as a separate part of the workshop or seminar. Second, not all of the learning objectives mentioned above can be reached at once. Instead, it is advisable to determine a clear focus when choosing or designing a simulation game. The simulation game types identified in Section 4 can serve as a framework, the distinction between knowledge-oriented and skills-oriented games probably being the most fundamental. Third, it is important to note that simulation games as a method will always retain an element of unpredictability. The aspects perceived by participants as being the most stimulating and insightful do not always reflect what was planned for the game (Hofstede et al, 2010: 827). Occasionally, other learning effects than those originally intended occur, but often, they are just as valuable. Lastly, simulation games should always be embedded in the overall context of teaching and be appropriately connected to the other elements of the seminar. When taking on board these considerations, working with this activating method is a benefit to academic teaching. As outlined in the introduction to this volume, this is the case not least because a mix of methods helps to increase student

motivation and facilitates appropriate integration of different types of learning (Guasti et al, 2015). However, despite all hopeful signs, the use of the method is still below its potential. Apart from the fact that the use of games is still often deemed as unsound among many ‘old school’ lecturers and is therefore unpopular (Hofstede et al, 2010: 825), the most frequently listed restriction is surely the lack of time for preparation (Ambrosio, 2006: 169). This may also be the main reason why the increasing number of simulation games that are already being used in European studies (Brunazzo and Settembri, 2012, 2014) are often rather conventionally designed and usually aimed at learning objectives concerning the European polity. In this article, we have shown that this is an important, but by no means the only learning objective of European studies. We are, therefore, making the case for more variance and openness to experimentation regarding both the envisaged learning objectives and the design of simulation games. In order to make the processes and dynamics of European politics transparent and to pose the right questions in certain fields of policy, fictional or action-oriented simulation games can be more suitable than the re-enactment of legislative procedures. In states in the debt crisis, we have introduced a simulation game whose design and learning objective sets it apart from many of the simulation games currently in use in European studies. Not every simulation game needs to be this complex, but it is always worth exploring new territory in simulation games – the students will be grateful.

Notes 1 On the relationship between knowledge and competence related to teaching the EU, see also Oberle and Tatje (2014). 2 Although simulation games aiming at training competencies are highly relevant for the students’ future careers, we will focus here mostly on games aiming at conveying knowledge about the EU. 3 Mention should be made of the SUNY Model EU, the Mid-Atlantic EU Simulation, the Midwest Model European Union, the West Coast Model EU and the EUROSIM by the transatlantic network TACEUSS (Van Dyke et al, 2000; Zeff, 2003; Shekleton, 2009).

238

european political science:14 2015

simulating europe

4 So far, planpolitik have developed games on the CO2-directive, the EU’s asylum policy, food labelling, the reform of the Stability and Growth Pact, and on data protection policy. Structurally, these games are more or less identical. Also part of this category is the simulation game Chocolate Directive that has mostly found distribution in English-speaking areas (Jozwiak, 2013). 5 As illustrated by this quote from a student who took part in one of our OLP simulation games at Viadrina University, Frankfurt/Oder in 2012: ‘Differentiating between formal and informal negotiations in the simulation game and realising that informal negotiations take up more space and time during the simulation game was very informative: particularly because these informal aspects are only briefly mentioned – or not at all – in many seminars and other simulation games such (MUN, POLIS, SIMEP et al), despite the fact that the crucial decisions tend to be made outside the official procedure in Parliament and the Commission’. For a more abstract description of quantitative data from evaluations with younger participants at schools, see Oberle (2015). 6 Generally, the evaluation of a simulation game occurs in four steps: first, intuitive game analysis (What happened?), then reflection and detachment (How can one explain and evaluate the course the game took?), transfer to reality (How is the game result relevant to our view of reality?) and finally, critique (What have we learnt? How can the concept be improved? This structuring of the evaluation discussion is based on a similar structuring from Geuting (2000: 39–42); see also Raiser and Warkalla (2011: 22–23) and Raymond and Usherwood (2013). For an in-depth analysis of the significance of evaluating simulation games see Peters et al (2004).

References Ambrosio, T. (2006) ‘Trying Saddam Hussein: teaching international law through an undergraduate mock trial’, International Studies Perspectives 7(2): 159–171. Brunazzo, M. and Settembri, P. (2012) Experiencing the European Union. Learning how EU negotiations work through simulation games, Soveria Mannelli: Rubbettino Editore. Brunazzo, M. and Settembri, P. (2014) ‘Learning Through Simulation Games’, Italian Political Science 9(1):online. Beichelt, T., Choluj, B., Rowe, G., Wagener, H-J. and Lange, T (2013) ‘Einleitung: Was heißt und zu welchem Ende studiert man Europastudien?’ in T. Beichelt, B. Choluj, G. Rowe and H.-J. Wagener (eds.) Europa-Studien, Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 9–32. Belloni, R. (2008) ‘Role-playing international intervention in conflict areas: Lessons from Bosnia for Northern Ireland education’, International Studies Perspectives 9(2): 220–234. Capaul, R. and Ulrich, M. (2003) Planspiele: Simulationsspiele für Unterricht und Training, Altstätten: Tobler Verlag. Geuting, M. (2000) ‘Soziale Simulation und Planspiel in pädagogischer Perspektive’, in H. Dietmar and A. Blätte (eds.) Simulation und Planspiel in den Sozialwissenschaften, Münster: LIT, pp. 15–62. Guasti, P., Muno, W. and Niemann, A. (2015) ‘Introduction – EU simulations as a multi-dimensional resource: From teaching and learning tool to research instrument’, European Political Science, in press. Hofstede, G J., de Caluwé, L. and Peters, V. (2010) ‘Why simulation games work – In search of the active substance: A synthesis’, Simulation and Gaming 41(6): 824–843. Jozwiak, Joseph (2013) ‘Vegelate’ and Greece: Teaching the EU through simulations’, European Political Science (12): 215–230. Krain, M. and Lantis, J.S. (2006) ‘Building knowledge? Evaluating the effectiveness of the global problems summit simulation’, International Studies Perspectives 7(4): 395–407. Morgan, A. L. (2003) ‘Toward a global theory of mind: The potential benefits of presenting a range of IR Theories through active learning’, International Studies Perspectives 4(4): 351–370. Oberle, M. (2015) Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln: Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung heute, Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Oberle, M. and Tatje, C. (2014) ‘Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln – Vorschläge für eine kompetenzorientierte EU-Didaktik’, in S. Manzel (ed.) Politisch mündig werden. Politikkompetenz in der Schule aufbauen und diagnostizieren, Opladen: Barbara Budrich, pp. 63–78. Peters, V., Vissers, A.M and Geert, A.N. (2004) ‘A simple classification model for debriefing simulation games’, Simulation and Gaming 35(1): 70–84. Raiser, S. and Warkalla, B (2011) Konflikte verstehen. Planspiele und ihr Potenzial in der Lehre der Friedens- und Konfliktforschung. Center for Conflict Studies, Philipps Universität Marburg. CCS Working Papers no. 10, Marburg. simon raiser et al

european political science:14 2015

239

Raiser, S. and Warkalla, B. (2015) ‘Auf das Lernziel kommt es an - Planspiele in der europapolitischen Bildungsarbeit’, in: M. Oberle (ed.) Die Europäische Union erfolgreich vermitteln: Perspektiven der politischen EU-Bildung heute, Wiesbaden: Springer VS. Raymond, C. and Usherwood, S. (2013) ‘Assessment in simulations’, Journal of Political Science Education 9(2): 157–167. Shekleton, P. (2009) ‘Model European union simulations: A brief primer’, European Union Students Association Review 22(1): 7–9. Susskind, L. and Corburn, J. (2000) ‘Using Simulations to Teach Negotiation: Pedagogical Theory and Practice’, in D. Herz and H. Blätte (eds.) Simulation und Planspiel in den Sozialwissenschaften, Münster: LIT, pp. 63–89. Van Dyke, G. J., DeClair, E. G. and Loedel, P. H. (2000) ‘Stimulating simulations: Making the European union a classroom reality’, in: International Studies Perspectives 1(2): 145–159. Wessels, W., Linsenmann, I. and Hägele, S. (2001) ‘Teaching European integration. A core curriculum on European integration studies. basic assumptions and proposals’. Paper presented at the ECSA Seventh Biennial International Conference in Madison, Wisconsin; 31 May–2 June. Zeff, E. E. (2003) ‘Negotiating in the European council: A model European union format for individual classes’, International Studies Perspectives 4(3): 265–274.

About the Authors Simon Raiser (1974, Geneva) holds a degree in Political Science from FU Berlin. After his studies he worked as a research fellow in the German parliament, and then as a project coordinator and research fellow at FU Berlin. He is founder and co-director of Berlin-based planpolitik. Annegret Schneider (1986 Karl-Marx-Stadt) holds a Master in European Studies from EuropaUniversität Viadrina. Since joining planpolitik in 2010 she has been responsible for the conception and realization of interactive event formats on European politics. Björn Warkalla (1975 Oldenburg/Holstein) holds a degree in Political Science from FU Berlin. After his studies he worked at the German parliament, the German Foreign Office, and then as a research fellow at FU Berlin. He is founder and co-director of Berlin-based planpolitik.

240

european political science:14 2015

simulating europe