Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T04:42:55.075Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutions and Arguments: Simulating the US Policy-Making Process

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2021

Lucy Britt Open the ORCID record for Lucy Britt [Opens in a new window]  and
Ryan J. Williams Open the ORCID record for Ryan J. Williams [Opens in a new window]
Lucy Britt
Affiliation:
Gettysburg College, USA
Ryan J. Williams
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In US government courses, simulations have been shown to increase students’ engagement and knowledge retention. We present an original simulation that focuses on both the interactions between political institutions that contribute to policy making and the normative ideas underlying politics. By exploring a civil rights or liberties policy area, students learn about the importance of both political institutions and foundational political ideas such as liberty and equality. Students role-play members of Congress, lobbyists for a pro- or anti-natural gas pipeline group, and Supreme Court justices. Although the goal of simulations in many US government courses is to teach students about the ways that institutions shape policy, this is the first (to our knowledge) that also integrates normative reflection on the ideas behind political arguments. Assessment indicates that the simulation was effective in increasing students’ knowledge of and/or interest in American political institutions and eminent domain.

Type
Article
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 2022 , pp. 176 - 181
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alberda, Gayle. 2016. “Campaign Simulations for American Government: An Active Learning Approach to Campaigns and Elections.” PS: Political Science & Politics 49 (4): 872–75.Google Scholar
Archer, Candace C., and Miller, Melissa K.. 2011. “Prioritizing Active Learning: An Exploration of Gateway Courses in Political Science.” PS: Political Science & Politics 44 (2): 429–34.Google Scholar
Auerbach, Arthur H. 2013. “United States Supreme Court Confirmation Simulation: Learning through the Process of Experience.” PS: Political Science & Politics 46 (4): 808–12.Google Scholar
Baranowski, Michael, and Weir, Kimberly. 2015. “Political Simulations: What We Know, What We Think We Know, and What We Still Need to Know.” Journal of Political Science Education 11 (4): 391–403.10.1080/15512169.2015.1065748CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernstein, Jeffrey L. 2008. “Cultivating Civic Competence: Simulations and Skill-Building in an Introductory Government Class.” Journal of Political Science Education 4 (1): 1–20.10.1080/15512160701815996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Britt, Lucy, and Williams, Ryan J.. 2021. “Replication Data for: ‘Institutions and Arguments: Simulating the US Policy-Making Process.’” Harvard Dataverse DOI: 10.7910/DVN/M2SCN0.10.7910/DVN/M2SCN0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Dick M., and Dunn, Joshua M.. 2018. “Simulated Complexity: A New Classroom Simulation to Teach about Campaign-Finance Laws.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (2): 445–50.Google Scholar
Chin, Jeffrey, Dukes, Richard, and Gamson, William. 2009. “Assessment in Simulation and Gaming: A Review of the Last 40 Years.” Simulation & Gaming 40 (4): 553–68.10.1177/1046878109332955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciliotta-Rubery, Andrea, and Levy, Dena. 2000. “Congressional Committee Simulation: An Active-Learning Experiment.” PS: Political Science & Politics 33 (4): 847–52.Google Scholar
Deslauriers, Louis, Schelew, Ellen, and Wieman, Carl. 2011. “Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class.” Science 332 (6031): 862–64.10.1126/science.1201783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fliter, John. 2009. “Incorporating a Sophisticated Supreme Court Simulation into an Undergraduate Constitutional Law Class.” Journal of Political Science Education 5 (1): 12–26.10.1080/15512160802611955CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frederking, Brian. 2005. “Simulations and Student Learning.” Journal of Political Science Education 1 (3): 385–93.10.1080/15512160500261236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Scott, Eddy, Sarah L., McDonough, Miles, Smith, Michelle K., Okoroafor, Nnadozie, Jordt, Hannah, and Wenderoth, Mary Pat. 2014. “Active Learning Increases Student Performance in Science, Engineering, and Mathematics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (23): 8410–15.10.1073/pnas.1319030111CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gosen, Jerry, and Washbush, John. 2004. “A Review of Scholarship on Assessing Experiential Learning Effectiveness.” Simulation & Gaming 35 (2): 270–93.10.1177/1046878104263544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., Aronow, Peter M., Bergan, Daniel E., Greene, Pamela, Paris, Celia, and Weinberger, Beth I.. 2011. “Does Knowledge of Constitutional Principles Increase Support for Civil Liberties? Results from a Randomized Field Experiment.” Journal of Politics 73 (2): 463–76.10.1017/S0022381611000107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hertel, John P., and Millis, Barbara. 2002. Using Simulations to Promote Learning in Higher Education. Sterling, VA: Stylus.Google Scholar
Kaddoura, Mahmoud. 2013. “Think Pair Share: A Teaching Learning Strategy to Enhance Students’ Critical Thinking.” Educational Research Quarterly 36 (4): 3–24.Google Scholar
Kahn, Melvin A., and Perez, Kathleen M.. 2009. “The Game of Politics Simulation: An Exploratory Study.” Journal of Political Science Education 5 (4): 332–49.10.1080/15512160903253707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levin-Banchik, Luba. 2018. “Assessing Knowledge Retention, With and Without Simulations.” Journal of Political Science Education 14 (3): 341–59.10.1080/15512169.2017.1405355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raymond, Chad, and Usherwood, Simon. 2013. “Assessment in Simulations.” Journal of Political Science Education 9 (2): 157–67.10.1080/15512169.2013.770984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sands, Eric C., and Shelton, Allison. 2010. “Learning by Doing: A Simulation for Teaching How Congress Works.” PS: Political Science & Politics 43 (1): 133–38.Google Scholar
Shellman, Stephen M. 2006. “Do Simulations Enhance Student Learning? An Empirical Evaluation of an IR Simulation.” Journal of Political Science Education 2 (1): 1–14.10.1080/15512160500484168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidelinger, Robert J. 2010. “College Student Involvement: An Examination of Student Characteristics and Perceived Instructor Communication Behaviors in the Classroom.” Communication Studies 61 (1): 87–103.10.1080/10510970903400311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waitkus, Jane. 2011. “Active Learning in Humanities Courses: Helping Students to Think Critically.” Journal of College Teaching & Learning 3 (10): 57–62.Google Scholar
Williams, Ryan J., and Chergosky, Anthony J.. 2019. “Teaching Judicial Politics Through a Supreme Court Simulation.” Journal of Political Science Education 15 (1): 17–36.10.1080/15512169.2018.1493997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunische, Adam. 2019. “Lecture Versus Simulation: Testing the Long-Term Effects.” Journal of Political Science Education 15 (1): 37–48.10.1080/15512169.2018.1492416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Britt and Williams dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/M2SCN0
Link
Supplementary material: File

Britt and Williams supplementary material

Britt and Williams supplementary material

Download Britt and Williams supplementary material(File)
File 36.2 KB