Politikdidaktik und Simulationen: Die EU-Simulation Model European Union Mainz

Muño, Wolfgang; Meßner, Maria Theresa; Hahner, Natalie

doi:10.5771/1430-6387-2013-1-159

Cited by 10 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Student simulations are a good teaching method (Asal, 2005; Baranowski, 2006; Boyer, 2012; Muno, Meßner, & Hahner, 2013). However, conclusions for the real world must be made with caution.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulating a Climate Engineering Crisis

Matzner

Herrenbrück

2016

Simulation & Gaming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. At the 2015 Paris Agreement to limit global warming to a maximum of 2 degrees, climate activists and researchers began to look for alternative measures. Climate engineering (CE) - the deliberate manipulation of the planetary environment to decelerate climate change - emerges as a possibly effective, albeit risky and conflictual, option. Aim. This article aims both at simulating a plausible international scenario of negotiation over solar climate engineering deployment, and at utilizing the rules of Model United Nations (MUN) for collaborative learning in a university class. Furthermore, the article intends to provide a framework for simulations about CE that could easily be reproduced. Method. MUN is an established and well-tested foundation for a simulation with students, including preparation leading up to the simulation and feedback rounds afterwards. We repeated the simulation three times, recorded the sessions as well as the debriefings, and gathered interesting insight by comparing the results. Result. For our CE simulations, we discovered: 1. Divergent interests (e.g. global north vs global south). 2. Power struggle (e.g. role of the veto powers). 3. Scientific and political ignorance (e.g. decision-making under uncertainty). 4. Risk politics (e.g. trade-offs between climate change risks vs. CE risks). Conclusion. MUN qualifies well for simulating a CE crisis. However, known lacks in MUN settings (like underrepresentation of non-state actors) must be discussed during the debriefing. These simulations illustrate possible future conflicts over CE without being prescriptive in any way.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Simulating a Climate Engineering Crisis

Matzner

Herrenbrück

2016

Simulation & Gaming

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our contributions talk about research-led teaching by linking policy briefs and employability (Lightfoot 2020), responsive teaching in times of radical change (O´Mahony 2020), synchronous teaching among 13 universities (Plank and Niemann 2020), and teaching EU foreign policy via Problem-based learning (Tonra 2020). We decided not to include a paper on EU simulations because there is now a relatively established body of literature on EU simulations and role-plays Settembri 2012, 2014;Muno et al 2013;Muno et al 2018;Niemann et al 2015;Usherwood 2014;Van Dyke et al 2000).…”

Section: Questions Asked and Skills Addressedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction: Innovative Teaching on European (Foreign) Affairs

Maurer¹,

Niemann²,

Plank³

2020

JCER

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This special section seeks to extent our knowledge on teaching innovative methods in European Union (EU) Foreign Affairs in time of challenges, politicisation, and digitalisation. It shares the experience of established and early career colleagues on how they designed, implemented, and applied specific innovations in their teaching. The section focuses on these experiences and aims to provide guidance on how specific ideas were put into practice in a hand-on and reflective manner. It seeks to tip into what works and why and how we as educators deal with challenges. Contributions engage with teaching EU foreign policy via Problem-based learning (Tonra 2020), research-led teaching by linking policy briefs and employability (Lightfoot 2020), responsive teaching in times of radical change (O´Mahony 2020), and synchronous teaching among 13 universities (Plank and Niemann 2020). They offer insights into increasing the ownership of students, raise awareness of their subjectivity, stimulate critical thinking, or enhance student´s media skills as well as to foster their employability. All contributions showcase the added value of the applied innovations, but also discuss obstacles that need to be considered in the conceptualisation and implementation of the proposed active approaches. RATIONALE OF THIS SPECIAL SECTIONInnovating teaching and learning are high on the agenda of European universities in order to offer a better learning experience for students and to ensure universities remain internationally competitive. Moreover, multiple technological developments such as digitalisation and new learning spaces generate novel opportunities and challenges for teaching. Hence, university instructors are increasingly encouraged to apply innovative methods (Lieberman 2014;Mihai 2014; Lambeir and Ramaekers 2006). While teaching certificates and instructor training for academics are becoming increasingly the norm, the practical application of innovative ideas can feel challenging and overwhelming for any academic. Moreover, the traditionally complex and challenging character of European (Foreign) Affairs (Parker 2016) is increasingly confronted with growing politicisation of European Union policies, European (dis)integration, and contestation of its core values (de Wilde 2011, Börzel 2018, Vollaard 2018. Brexit, the rise of (right wing) populism and Euroscepticism, severe crises, the EU´s increasing engagement abroad, or the rule of law crisis have fuelled debates on European (Foreign) Affairs and of course also found their way into the classroom.There are only few analyses and insights on how to best adapt and implement innovative ideas in practice. While scholars have engaged in analysing methods such as simulations (Usherwood 2014, Niemann et al. 2015

show abstract