This article was downloaded by: [Kartika Kusumaningtyas]

On: 30 January 2015, At: 06:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

College Teaching
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vcol20

Using Simulation Games to Increase Student and

Instructor Engagement
a
Corinne Auman
a
Elon University
Published online: 28 Sep 2011.

To cite this article: Corinne Auman (2011) Using Simulation Games to Increase Student and Instructor Engagement, College
Teaching, 59:4, 154-161, DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2011.602134

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/87567555.2011.602134

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 COLLEGE TEACHING, 59: 154161, 2011
Copyright

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 8756-7555 print / 1930-8299 online
DOI: 10.1080/87567555.2011.602134

Using Simulation Games to Increase Student

and Instructor Engagement
Corinne Auman
Elon University

Instructors are often reluctant to alter their current pedagogies in favor of engaged learning
Downloaded by [Kartika Kusumaningtyas] at 06:48 30 January 2015

alternatives. In this article the author describes the development and implementation of an
engaged learning, simulation-based pedagogy designed to increase student and instructor
engagement. Student learning was examined across simulation and non-simulation classes.
Results indicated that equivalent learning occurred across classes, with simulation classes
reporting high levels of classroom engagement. The costs and benefits of this pedagogical
change are examined.

Keywords: educational psychology, higher education, instructional design, role playing,

simulation, undergraduate education

This class is like a good parent. It has certain boundaries
that I have to uphold, but I have room to move around and be
myself within those boundaries, and enjoy living up to those
expectations. . . I thought that this class would be difficult,
but the truth is that in other lecture-style classes where my
presence isnt needed for anyone other than me, I wouldve
missed many more classes, been more distracted and cared
less about both the subject and listening to what the teacher
had to say. MacKenzie1
This response from a student in my Educational Psychol-
ogy (EP) class illustrates the value of an engaged learning ap-
proach in my classroom. It also supports my decision to alter
my pedagogy from a teacher-focused, lecture-based class-
room to a student-centered, active-learning environment. In
this article, I will discuss what led me to make this change,
the process of doing so, and benefits of implementing such a
change in the classroom.
In recent years, much attention has been given to the con-
cept of engaged learning in the teaching and learning litera-
ture. Evidence clearly demonstrates that, too often, instruc-
tors focus too much on teaching content and not on engaging
students. Instead, students must be actively engaged in the
learning process in order for meaningful and lasting learn-
Correspondence should be sent to Corinne Auman, Elon University,
Department of Psychology, 2337 Campus Box, Elon, NC 27244, USA.
E-mail: cauman@elon.edu
ing to occur (Barkley 2005; Pascarella & Terenzini 1991;
Edgerton 1997; Shulman, 2002).
Although instructors may know of the benefits of en-
gaged learning, determining how to adapt a teacher-focused,
lecture-based class into a new format can be an overwhelm-
ing process. This endeavor may seem particularly daunting
when instructors are unsure if a methodology will work, or
how students will respond. Indeed, Lean, Moizer, Towler, and
Abbey (2006) identified the three barriers that educators face
when trying to implement such new pedagogies: suitabil-
ity, resources, and risk. Suitability means determining if the
teaching pedagogy can effectively achieve the intended learn-
ing objectives and if materials for such pedagogies are read-
ily available. Resources means having the time to effectively
plan and implement the new pedagogy, as well as tangible
(e.g., materials, infrastructure, money) and intangible (e.g.,
personal creativity) resources available. Risk means assess-
ing the variables of the new pedagogy, such as lack of control
within the classroom and student reactions (Moizer, Lean,
Towler, & Abbey, 2009). Thus, even though we are aware that
engaged learning is important, we dont make changes to ad-
dress it in our classrooms because of the barriers we perceive.
This article will describe my experiences developing an
engaged, collaborative learning (CL) methodology, specifi-
cally a simulation, for an EP class that I had been teaching
in a lecture-based format. Although the process was daunt-
ing, it was worthwhile not only for the benefits it brought
for the students in the class (engaged learning and devel-
opment of team-work skills), but also for the benefits the

process gave me along the way (renewed interest in class
material, motivation, and a more enjoyable classroom expe-
rience).
Why Change?
Too often, teaching the same course repeatedly over many
semesters is both emotionally and intellectually draining.
It is sometimes difficult for teachers to maintain enthusi-
asm for the material that once excited them. Staying fresh
and relevant takes effort but is essential for quality teaching
(McKeachie, 2002; Palmer, 1998). This struggle to maintain
vitality in my lecture-based EP class was the motivation be-
hind developing a new pedagogical approach. Although I had
once been passionate about the topic, my enthusiasm had di-
minished after years of teaching it, and my student feedback
Downloaded by [Kartika Kusumaningtyas] at 06:48 30 January 2015
on course evaluations reflected this. Student comments such
as less lecturing so students can be engaged in class and
lectures sometimes boring and dull made me realize that I
was no longer connecting with my students. I knew that in
order to convince my students that the material was valuable,
I needed to be just as engaged as I expected them to be.
About this same time, I was involved in a campus work-
shop discussing the Langer book The Power of Mindful
Learning. One aspect of engaged learning Langer (1997)
discusses is the idea of novelty and how as learners we are
attracted to novelty, paying mindful attention to novel sit-
uations. This mindful attention increases both performance
and retention of information, making novelty an important
engagement and learning tool. This discussion eventually led
to the topic of simulation games. I was intrigued by this ap-
proach and began to think about how simulation games could
be adapted to my class. I believed that by making this shift,
I could engage both myself and my students with the EP
material and promote engaged learning in my classroom.
Collaborative Learning
In developing my class pedagogy, one important aspect was
an emphasis on CL. CL is defined by having students work
together in small groups to achieve shared learning goals.
These shared learning goals provide an intentional structure
to the groups that shape student action and learning. This
intentional structure also promotes meaningful learning, ar-
guably the most important characteristic of CL. When it is
most effective, CL deepens the knowledge and understand-
ing of the material being examined in a class (Barkley, 2005;
Bruffee, 1999).
CL is an attractive methodology due to its ability to
address several issues related to student learning. Barkley
(2005) examines key areas where CL benefits the learning
process:
1. Knowledge building. Much research has demon-
strated that students must engage with material and ac-
SIMULATION GAMES AND ENGAGEMENT 155
tively build their own knowledge (Pascarella & Teren-
zini, 1991; Edgerton, 1997; Shulman, 2002).
2. Interpersonal skills. The work world in todays soci-
ety values individuals who can interact with others in
a productive way. Thus, students need to learn inter-
personal skills before entering the work world.
3. Ability to Understand. The diversity of todays soci-
ety requires us to help develop students into citizens
who can listen carefully to others, think critically about
what has been said, and participate constructively in
collaboration (Bruffee 1999).
In my class, each of these areas comes into play dur-
ing the process of creating a real-world simulation. Simu-
lation weaves substance-specific information into real-life
problems in meaningful ways that students can understand
(Hertel & Millis 2002, 1). It can also help meet the goals of
most general education programs by helping students transfer
and apply knowledge and skills to a new situation. Addition-
ally, simulation benefits students and teachers by stimulating
motivation. Because it is a form of engaged learning (i.e.,
built around the idea that students will actively participate
in a variety of roles focused on class learning objectives), it
allows them to take classroom leadership in ways that are not
possible in traditional lecture-style classrooms. This leader-
ship role can be highly motivational (Hertel & Millis 2002).
To teach a course using a simulation requires a major shift
in classroom pedagogy to what Finkel (2000) terms inquiry-
based learning. The instructor must identify a problem or
issue that provides a strong platform for engaging the course
material. Once this problem is introduced, the following in-
vestigation and discussion is where the learning takes place.
If students are interested in the problem, they will be highly
intrinsically motivated to learn what is necessary to solve it.
Limited or no extrinsic rewards are needed to keep students
engaged.
Developing the Game Simulation
In order to adapt the game simulation to my class, one of the
first things necessary was to formulate ideas for what contro-
versial EP issues could be discussed. Suitable games needed
a central conflict that the participants could debate, sufficient
detail to be challenging and engaging, and realistic enough
to both draw the students in and appeal to their imagina-
tions (Brown 1994). These issues deal directly with the issue
of suitability of the games for particular classrooms (Lean
et al. 2006; Moizer et al. 2009), as they need to accomplish
preset learning outcomes. For this class, my issues needed
to be current and relevant to students who are planning to
work in educational fields. Moreover, because the class was
focused on education and learning issues, and many of the
students in this class were planning to become educators, in-
troducing them to a new pedagogy was very relevant. Thus,
this class was perfectly suited to try something new. The
 156 AUMAN
pros and cons of the experience could be used as fodder for
classroom discussion.
The lack of publicly available games is another dimension
of suitability that can be a barrier to implementing game
simulations (Moizer et al., 2009). The ideas for my games
were based on topics from the Taking Sides: Clashing Views
in Educational Psychology textbook (Abbeduto & Symons
2009). This textbook is a great starting place for the games,
because for each topic it offers a pro and con argument, as
well as references for other sources that the students can
use for their literature search. However, any book that offers
multiple perspectives on a current issue would be suitable.
Essentially, all that is needed to start developing a game
simulation is a controversial issue related to the focus of the
class material.
I chose topics based on the issues that were most im-
Downloaded by [Kartika Kusumaningtyas] at 06:48 30 January 2015
portant to cover, based on the needs of education students
preparing to take teaching-licensure exams. Additionally,
topics needed to be sufficiently complex so that numerous
connections to class material could be made. One example
simulation, Moral Education vs. Discipline Policies, is pro-
vided in the appendix. Moral education is a hotly debated
topic in education today and involves various classroom ap-
proaches that attempt to help students develop their moral
thought, affect, and behaviors.
Students were given the simulation information, along
with their assigned role (parent, teacher, etc.) and their win-
ning objective. In order to win the game, students would
need the school board members (neutral students) to vote to
implement their winning objective (e.g., to implement a new
discipline policy without a moral education program).
On game day(s), the school board members decide how
to run the class for the day (with instructor help as needed),
based on what they need in order to make a wise decision.
A typical day might include each faction (individuals with
the same winning objective) presenting an opening state-
ment, fielding questions from the board and other factions,
and then having a closing statement. However, class ses-
sions have been run in a variety of ways (Q & A, roundtable
discussion, group presentations, etc.) and been successful at
helping students discuss and explore the issues in depth. My
role on these days was to listen and observe the class while
making sure that students didnt present frivolous or false
information. However, I intervened as little as possible to
allow the students to wrestle with the topics independently.
Student Learning Goals and Assessment
There are two main learning goals for the class:
1. Educational Psychology topics. Students needed to
learn about the EP topics related to each game. For ex-
ample, in the Moral Education game (See Appendix),
these include, but are not limited to, moral education,
theories of moral development, zero-tolerance policies,
theories of learning and motivation, identity develop-
ment, cognitive development and readiness, parent-
school relationships, school-society relationships,
bullying/social aggression, socio-economic status, and
the fundamental attribution error. Thus, no one game
only covers one topic. Instead the games are designed
to help demonstrate the complexities of EP topics and
their applications in real-world settings.
2. Utilization of Educational Psychology research.
Students needed to learn how to find, understand, and
utilize EP research. Through the process of researching
their roles and assigned perspectives on the topics, stu-
dents learned what databases to use, what constitutes
an original vs. secondary source, how experimen-
tal and correlational studies are different, and how to
use the research to support their written and oral argu-
ments in class.
Multiple assessments of student learning were conducted
over the course of the semester to determine if these learning
goals were being met in class. Additionally, the key areas
where CL benefits the learning process (knowledge build-
ing, interpersonal skills, and understanding of multiple per-
spectives) were also examined. Assessment for each game
consisted of six components (learning goals and key areas
related to each assessment are listed in italics):
1. Position paper. Each student was required to write an
approximately five-page paper stating their position in
the debate and providing supporting evidence. This pa-
per was written from the perspective of their assigned
role and could take any format they chose (e.g., re-
search paper, letter to the board, etc.). The intended
audience was the school board, and students were told
that their job with the paper was to convince the board
that their winning objective was the best choice. Learn-
ing goals and key areas: EP topics, utilization of EP
research, knowledge building.
2. Peer review. Faction members met in class to read and
review each others papers. Each student was given
a list of questions to answer about the papers read
and points were awarded based on completion of the
questions. Learning goals and key areas: EP topics,
knowledge building, interpersonal skills.
3. Media campaign. On the third game day, each faction
presented a media campaign. This could be in the for-
mat of a video (e.g., a Public Service Announcement)
that might air on TV, a pamphlet or brochure that might
be distributed, or a PowerPoint presentation that would
be made during a board meeting. The intended audi-
ence was the school board and the factions were to
use this campaign to persuade the board that their win-
ning objective was the best choice. Learning goals:

Understanding multiple perspectives, knowledge
building, interpersonal skills, EP topics.
4. Reflection paper. At the end of each game, students
wrote a short reflection on what they learned about
the topic, what went well during the game, and what
they could improve for the next game. Learning goals:
Understanding multiple perspectives, EP topics.
5. Class engagement. I graded each individual student
on class engagement during the game sessions. This
grade was based on class attendance, speaking during
the game, the quality of what was said in relation to
EP and their role, and group feedback about each indi-
viduals participation in faction preparation. Learning
goals: knowledge building, interpersonal skills, under-
standing multiple perspectives, EP topics, utilizing EP
research.
Downloaded by [Kartika Kusumaningtyas] at 06:48 30 January 2015
6. Quiz. At the end of each game, a short, multiple-choice
quiz was given to assess student knowledge about the
basic EP concepts addressed in the game. Learning
goals: EP topics.
Rubrics were created to assist with grading for the position
paper, media campaign, reflection paper and class engage-
ment2.
Evidence of Student Learning and Engagement
In order to determine if my change in methodology was
successful, I needed to assess knowledge building (Barkley
2005) of fundamental EP material in my simulation class
to make sure students were learning the same material that
I had been teaching in previous semesters, and was being
taught in other sections of EP. To assess this, I created pretest
(taken during the first week of class) and posttest (taken
during the last week of class) quizzes, which students in all
sections of EP could take. These were optional for students to
complete; however, students who participated received extra
credit. Scores on the pretest and posttest did not impact class
grades in any way and were not reviewed until the semester
was over.
The pretest and posttest were based on content questions I
had used on exams in previous semesters to assess knowledge
of EP information. Additionally, the pretest asked for basic
background information (gender, year in school, previous
psychology classes), and both the pretest and posttest asked
about students comfort and confidence level in dealing with
EP research.
The pretest and posttest were administered over two
semesters and six sections of EP (three simulation classes,
two traditional classes, and one service learning class), re-
sulting in 129 participants. Fifty-one participants were from
the traditional or service learning sections of EP, and 78
were from simulation classes. The majority of students were
sophomores (N = 90), followed by juniors (N = 20), seniors
(N = 14), and freshman (N = 4). One student did not report
SIMULATION GAMES AND ENGAGEMENT 157
a year in school. Most of the students were education majors
(N = 58) or psychology majors (N = 23), with the remain-
ing students reporting a variety of majors or undeclared status
(N = 48). The majority of students had previously taken a
psychology course (N = 109), with only 19 students report-
ing no previous psychology experience and one student not
responding.
To examine differences in posttest scores for the simula-
tion vs. non-simulation classes, an Analysis of Covariance
(ANCOVA) was conducted. Pretest scores were included as
a covariate to control individual differences in EP knowl-
edge when students entered class. The covariate, pretest, was
significantly related to posttest scores, F(1, 126) = 66.04,
p < .00, r = .58. However, there was no significant effect
for class (simulation vs. non-simulation) after controlling for
pretest scores F(1, 126) = 1.31, p = .25, r = .10. These re-
sults indicate that knowledge gains made over the course of
the semester were equivalent across the classes (See Table 1),
and are consistent with other research on simulation-based
pedagogies (Krain & Lantis, 2006).
To examine differences between the classes in comfort
and confidence when dealing with EP research, three ques-
tions were examined (see Table 2). Students were asked these
questions on both the pretest and posttest. An ANCOVA was
conducted examining the posttest responses to these ques-
tions, using pretest responses as a covariate to control for
previous experience with EP research. There were no sig-
nificant effects for class, indicating learning was equivalent
across classes. These results show that all students improved
in their comfort and confidence when dealing with EP re-
search.
Student Reflections on Learning
Once I had determined that my new approach was successful
in teaching important concepts, I also needed to understand
if students had a positive reaction to the approach. One of the
risks associated with trying a new pedagogy is that students
will be resistant and/or have negative reactions (Moizer et al.
2009). When the games were first introduced, most students
were excited to be in a classroom that was non-traditional,
where students would be taking a more active role. How-
ever, they were also nervous, because this novel classroom
approach was somewhat unsettling to them, given they did
not know what to expect or how to prepare for the first game.
TABLE 1
Average Pretest and Posttest Scores by Class for
Educational Psychology General Knowledge
Classroom Pretest Posttest Mchange
Simulation 13.95 16.40 2.45
Non-simulation 12.60 15.01 2.41
Note. Scores are out of a possible 25 points total.
 158 AUMAN
TABLE 2
Average Pretest and Posttest Scores by Class for Educational Psychology Research Questions
Question 1
Classroom Pretest Posttest Mchange Pretest
Simulation 4.37 5.23 .85 4.29
Non-simulation 3.98 4.86 .88 3.98
Note: Question 1) How comfortable would you be looking up Educational Psychology journal articles in the library? 2) How confident are you that you
could find the information you were looking for when searching through the Educational Psychology journal articles? and 3) How confident are you that once
you have found Educational Psychology journal articles on the topic you needed, you would be able to read and comprehend the research that was being
reported? Each question used Likert-scale responses ranging from Very uncomfortable (numerical value = 1) to Very comfortable (numerical value = 6).
Some students were skeptical about the entire classroom set-
up. They doubted that the approach would work, or that it
would be interesting. Some argued that students would not
get engaged or participate, because they would not care much
Downloaded by [Kartika Kusumaningtyas] at 06:48 30 January 2015
about the games. Student Madeleine indicated her skepti-
cism:
I am typically not the biggest fan of group work. . . I usually
see group assignments as an opportunity for people to slack
off and therefore certain individuals do not get as much out
of the unit as they potentially could. Additionally, I saw the
debate as something similar to group presentations which
I tend to zone out during and lose engagement. . .
Similarly, Taylor stated: I wasnt sure how well it would
go, and also unsure if everyone would really commit to the
game and get involved.
Lauren shared this skepticism: At first I didnt think that
I would like this type of learning. It seemed like a lot of work,
stress and public speaking.
However, after playing the games, the overall feedback
was positive and class engagement was very high. For in-
stance, Madeline, Taylor, and Lauren all changed their views:
By being encouraged to take on our assigned roles, my class-
mates and I seemed to become instantly passionate about our
arguments. I found myself personally putting in extra time
after class in order to find more information that could prove
why my voice needed to be heard. Madeleine
Debating with my peers forced me to do my research and to
do it thoroughly. I made sure to double check my sources so
that I could stand confidently in front of the class, knowing
my information is correct. The game setting made us think
about various sides of this argument, and try to cover all
of our bases. I got caught up in the game, I found myself
thinking about it after class time and getting excited about
new points to bring up. Taylor
Yes, it is time demanding, but it has high expectations and
lots of structure, which keeps me in check. Because I have
to attend every class/meeting, and have a group counting on
me, this is the class that I put the most effort into. I enjoy
going to every class in that it is never tedious or dull, and I
Question 2 Question 3
Posttest Mchange Pretest Posttest Mchange
5.05 .76 4.44 5.01 .57
4.62 .64 4.24 4.68 .44
have to pay attention for the sake of myself and my group.
Lauren
These latter quotes reflect the general feedback from stu-
dents about the class. They often report that the class was de-
manding but also highly enjoyable. The progression of these
comments, from unsure and nervous to satisfaction with the
game experience, is consistent with other qualitative assess-
ments of role-play or game simulations (Loui, 2009). These
comments are also dramatically different than those from
previous lecture-based semesters, where students reported
that the class was dull, boring, or they requested more
ways for them to be engaged.
Additionally, students commented on their learning in this
class, as compared to more traditional, lecture-focused set-
tings:
the different roles allowed us to think about things in a new
way that we probably would not have if we were just lectured
on the material. . .I learned more because I was actively tak-
ing part in discussions and had to learn about each opinion
in order to fully promote my beliefs. Jennifer
The downside to the lecture-type class is that students would
not have been exposed to viewpoints other than their own.
For example, if I were lectured to about moral education I
would have been biased towards its benefits. Being forced to
defend the opposite viewpoint made me research and learn
the topic in a well-rounded way. Kevin
The games greatest attribute. . .is the depth that it brings to
a topic. In searching for information and arguing pros and
cons, we effectively cover almost every imaginable issue
raised by moral education. Rob
Finally, student feedback was gathered by the University
Center for the Advancement of Teaching and Learning and
end-of-course evaluations. A representative from the Center
came into class each semester and conducted focus-group
type evaluations. Students were asked, What aspects of
this course are most helping you learn? The most common
answers included: (1) the debates and discussions during
the games (reported by 96% of students); (2) the personal

accountability created by the game setting (e.g., having to
find research and defend a position; reported by 74% of
students); and (3) the interactive classroom environment (re-
ported by 53% of students). End-of-course evaluations also
demonstrated the positive changes. Student evaluations re-
mained equivalent or increased when compared to previous
semesters. These evaluations use a Likert-type rating scale
ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree).
The average score increase over all 10 questions was .75, with
the greatest increases observed on questions such as The in-
structor stimulates my thinking about the subject (.88), The
instructor expresses concern about student progress in the
course (.93), The instructor provides useful feedback on
exams and assignments (1.37), and The instructor clearly
indicates how my work will be evaluated (1.28).
This feedback indicates the many benefits gained from
Downloaded by [Kartika Kusumaningtyas] at 06:48 30 January 2015
this type of learning. Due to the class structure, students had
to be prepared for class or it would be clearly evident. Stu-
dents were engaged with the class and the class material,
developed team-work and interpersonal skills, and rose to
the challenge of stating and defending their positions in front
of their classmates, thus developing stronger abilities to un-
derstand others and public speaking skills (Barkley 2005).
Thus, although students in both classes learned EP material,
there were clear benefits to being in an active, collaborative
learning environment.
Instructor Reactions and Feedback
One of the main benefits of this pedagogical adjustment was
how dramatically it changed my engagement in the class.
First, I became much more interested simply because I had
to think creatively about the material in order to develop the
game simulations. As classes have played the games over
several semesters, I continue to see how other EP concepts
could be integrated into them and the multiple different links
between concepts. In other words, I keep learning! Using this
approach has allowed me to be both a teacher and a learner
in the classroom. I teach the students about the concepts, but
they continue to teach me new and creative ways to apply
the concepts to the debate at hand. I have learned something
new every semester, and this has made me a better teacher
of the material overall, because my understanding is much
more complex.
Another benefit for the instructor is sharing some class-
room control. Although many instructors perceive this as
a risk associated with active, student-focused pedagogies
(Moizer et al. 2009) I would argue that this is a pos-
itive. Giving the students a large amount of control on
game days can be highly motivational to them and help
their class engagement. Students know that what happens
in class depends on them, and they do not want to let
their peer group down or be embarrassed in front of the
class.
SIMULATION GAMES AND ENGAGEMENT 159
There are, of course, some costs associated with making
the switch to this type of pedagogy, particularly in terms of
resources such as time (Moizer et al. 2009). One such cost
is the grading workload. During the games, the work that
needs to be graded comes in quickly and students need fast
turn-around so that feedback can help them with the game.
However, I have found that creating rubrics has helped make
the grading less difficult.
Another cost is the amount of coaching that students
need, particularly for the first game. Because students are
unfamiliar with this pedagogy, the first game requires in-
struction about how to prepare. Additionally, once the game
begins, the instructor must monitor what is being said for ac-
curacy (and correct any false information being presented), as
well as make sure that students are adhering to their roles
and advocating their assigned perspective. However, these
are front-end issues. Once the game begins these issues fade
quickly.
I have found a few strategies to make the coaching issues
more manageable. One such strategy is to make the connec-
tions between the lecture/textbook material and the games
obvious. Before each game, I present the related material in
a traditional lecture format. At first, I made little reference
to the upcoming game. I thought that the students would see
the obvious connections between the lecture/textbook mate-
rial and their game role, and subsequently use this material
appropriately. However, this was not the case. Students often
failed to use the class material at all, choosing to use only
the information from their literature searches. Additionally,
in their reflections on the class, students said that they didnt
see the point in the lectures since they werent used in the
games.
To help make the connections between the lec-
ture/textbook material and the games obvious, I suggest mak-
ing the student roles as specific as possible. At first, I made
the student roles very general and asked them to use the
psychological literature and theories to back up their points.
This worked, but there was redundancy in their arguments,
and we didnt cover the amount of material or make all the
connections I thought we would. Now, each role has a spe-
cific EP element that students are required to integrate into
their papers and oral arguments. This has helped stimulate
their thinking and the complexity of the discussion in relation
to EP research.
Second, during my lectures, I make specific references
to the upcoming debate and why particular theories/ideas
are relevant to it. At first, I felt this was spoon-feeding stu-
dents, but they needed this focus. Making these connections
helps student see the link between the class material and
the roles they have been assigned, giving them a starting
point for applying the theoretical ideas to a real-life situa-
tion. The extent to which they do this effectively is then up
to them.
Finally, at the end of each lecture I ask the students
to pick one topic that was covered that day and write
 160 AUMAN
a brief statement on why that topic is relevant to their
assigned role. This only has to be a few sentences, but
it gets the students thinking about making the connec-
tions to the game while the material is still fresh in their
minds.
CONCLUSIONS
As teachers, we know that active engagement in the class-
room benefits student learning and makes the classroom ex-
perience more enjoyable. In this article, I have presented my
experience in developing a simulation-based, CL pedagogy
for my EP class. I believe that this pedagogy could effec-
tively be implemented in many different classrooms with
great effect.
Downloaded by [Kartika Kusumaningtyas] at 06:48 30 January 2015
The benefits of such a pedagogical switch far outweigh
the costs. Although such a switch can be daunting, I have pro-
vided the basic structure for how this can be accomplished
in an effort to make the process more manageable. Addition-
ally, I have supplied evidence that this pedagogy does not
diminish student learning of the material, compared to more
traditional classes, and offers great benefit to class engage-
ment. Allowing students a more active role in the classroom,
and giving them more responsibility for the material covered
and learned, increases their motivation to pay attention in
class, as well as think about the material outside of class.
This increased engagement and motivation may also lead to
deeper learning and greater long-term retention of the class
material.
The increase in student engagement is beneficial not only
for the students but for the instructor, as well. When your
students are engaged, it is infectious. I went to class excited
to hear what students had to say and see what they would
teach me about the topics. This new approach to the class has
reinvigorated my interest in the material and in my teaching
approach overall. I am constantly looking for ways to get
my students more actively involved in the learning process,
because of the benefits I have seen it bring to the entire class
experience.
NOTES
1. This research was approved by the Universitys Insti-
tutional Review Board. All student names have been
changed to protect privacy.
2. Copies of assignments and grading rubrics can be ob-
tained by contacting the author.
3. This example is for classroom purposes only. Further
information on these topics can be found in: Abbeduto,
L. and F. Symons. 2009. Taking sides: Clashing views
on controversial issues in educational psychology. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
REFERENCES
Abbeduto, L., & F. Symons. 2009. Taking sides: Clashing views on contro-
versial issues in educational psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Barkley, E. F., K. P. Cross, & C. H. Major. 2005. Collaborative learning
techniques: A handbook for college faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brown, K. M. 1994. Using role plays to integrate ethics into the business
curriculum: A financial management example. Journal of Business Ethics
13: 10510.
Bruffee, K. 1999. Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdepen-
dence, and the authority of knowledge. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hop-
kins University Press.
Edgerton, R. 1997. Higher education white paper. Pew Charitable Trusts.
Finkel, D. L. 2000. Teaching with your mouth shut. Portsmouth, NH: Boy-
ton/Cook Publishers.
Hertel, J. P., & B. J. Millis. 2002. Using simulations to promote learning in
higher education: An introduction. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.
Krain, M., & J. S. Lantis. 2006. Building knowledge? Evaluating the effec-
tiveness of the global problems summit simulation. International Studies
Perspectives 7: 395407.
Langer, E. J. 1997. The power of mindful learning. Cambridge, MA: Da
Capo.
Lean, J., J. Moizer, M. Towler. & C. Abbey. 2006. Simulations and games:
Use and barriers in higher education. Active Learning in Higher Education
7: 22742.
Loui, M. C., 2009. What can students learn in an extended role-play sim-
ulation on technology and society? Bulletin of Science, Technology, and
Society 29: 3747.
McKeachie, W. J. 2002. Teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for
college and university teachers. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Moizer, J., J. Lean, M. Towler, & C. Abbey. 2009. Simulations and games:
Overcoming the barriers to their use in higher education. Active Learning
in Higher Education 10: 20724.
Palmer, P. J. 1998. The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of
a teachers life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Pascarella, E. T. & P. T. Terenzini. 1991. How college affects students:
Findings and insights from twenty years of research. San Francisco: Jossy-
Bass.
Shulman, L. S. 2002. Making differences: A table of learning. Change 34:
3644.
APPENDIX
MORAL EDUCATION VS. NEW DISCIPLINE POLICIES
GAME EXAMPLE3
The scene:
Due to a recent rash of fights and drug-related activity at
the schools, a group of parents, teachers, and administrators
has been placing pressure on the school board to implement
moral education and/or new discipline policies in the schools.
This is a new situation, given that the school system does not
have a history of excessive violent activity. The school board
wants to be proactive, but has reservations due in part to
the legal issues surrounding the change, as well as pressures
from other parents, teachers and administrators who do not
see school as the place for moral education and who dislike
broad discipline policies.
Where set:
Springfield County School District is located in Texas.
It is a medium sized county, with one main city. The school
district encompasses the entire county, so it is a mix between
 SIMULATION GAMES AND ENGAGEMENT 161

the city and the rural surrounding areas. It has 7 high schools, 3. Teachers who are for the change
7 middle-schools, and 20 elementary schools. It currently 4. Teachers who are against the change
enrolls approximately 22,500 students. The game will be 5. Parents who are for the change
played at the school board meeting. 6. Parents who are against the change
Violence stats: In the last school year, there were 6.5 vi- 7. Educational psychologists for the change
olent acts per 1000 students. Reported acts included: assault 8. Educational psychologists against the change
involving use of a weapon, assault on school personnel, etc.
(Note: A full list of the violent acts was given to the students) The Board can vote 1 of 4 ways:
Your role in the meeting:
You are a resident of Texas. You are an adult, and you 1. To implement BOTH new discipline policies and moral
are accorded all of the rights of a US citizen and a citizen education programs
of Texas. In the meeting you are free to speak on whatever 2. To implement a moral education program without a
issues you wish, after being recognized by the chair. new discipline policy
The main factions: 3. To implement a new discipline policy without a moral
education program
1. Administrators for the change 4. To refrain from implementing any changes (No moral
Downloaded by [Kartika Kusumaningtyas] at 06:48 30 January 2015

2. Administrators against the change education or new discipline programs)