http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb302/is_2_30/ai_n29216309/?tag=content;col1
Brian McKenzie teaches the Western Civilization course at Dickinson College, a small liberal arts school in Carlisle, Pennsylvania (of which, by the way, I am an alumnus). In this article in Teaching History: A Journal of Methods, from the Fall of 2005 issue, he describes his experience in using simulations prompted by the availability of vast amounts of sources, primary documents mostly, in his course. His article is entitled “Simulations, Sources, and the History Survey Course: Making the Internet Matter.” He explains the purpose of his writing as: “to recommend classroom strategies and activities for the survey course that use digital resources and promote active learning.”
Brian had not used simulations in his survey course before, but he was prompted to try after reading about an American Historical Association’s project focusing on the impact of the digital age on teaching survey courses at 2 and 4 year universities. Because of the vast amount of primary source material now available in digitized form for students and because of a desire to come up with an engaging set of activities to keep the survey students interested, he felt it could work.
He designed three simulations for use in a 2 semester long survey course on Western Civilization. The simulations (basically a role play requiring the students to take the roles of key characters) included a Roman Civil War Truth and Reconciliation Commission (based on the purpose of granting amnesty to persons related to their war activities), a Religious Encounters Conversion Contest (where students adopted roles of Christian or Muslim in an effort to convince a “pagan” which religion he and his people should choose), and a Mock Trial of Napoleon (again with students adopting roles based on actual people of the time and dealing with Napoleon’s activities while governing France).
The key was that the simulations were made possible by the availability of vast internet sources that students could access to play their roles. Their assignment was not merely to play and act out their roles, but also to put together a portfolio in addition to the simulation, describing the basis for their character’s beliefs and actions. In the past, use of a simulation generally required the instructor to provide packets of relevant information, book cites, etc, but in this instance the instructor provided general guidance and sources, but the students were free to search and arrange sources as they saw fit. An internet workshop was given to help the students become comfortable with finding and using primary sources.
Both Brian and the students were very favorable on the learning activity. While some students complained about their roles and the difficulty of some of their arguments, most of the negative comments related to the format and content of the simulation, and not the research and primary source documentation behind it. Students got competitive and seemed to thoroughly enjoy the simulations. The author sums up by a comment that seems to be repeated time and again by professors using technology in their courses: “The work of the American Historical Association is an important contribution to our understanding of how the digital age can change the way History is taught. However, the development of active learning exercises, not the digital medium itself, should be emphasized.” McKenzie mentions that simulations are not new, particularly in business, economics and political science courses, but their use in History is now enabled by the digital availability of a vast amount of primary sources. Further, he indicates the source material on the internet lets the instructor move beyond “staid instructional methods” and “prepackaged sources.”
McKenzie does note that there is some authority that is skeptical that faculty who teach survey classes, especially at 2 year colleges, have sufficient opportunity to find primary materials or experiment with how it might be used in class. As an instructor at the community college teaching survey courses, I can identify with this skepticism. However, the simulation is an exciting option that I would consider for my US History survey classes to motivate and excite my students. Covering the time period from Columbus to the present day in two semesters does not leave a lot of time for experimentation. The downside that McKenzie identifies which seems to me to be a big obstacle is the simulations take time away from covering the core material of the course. Brian had three simulations in his survey class over the course of 2 semesters, each last roughly 3 class sessions. Figuring that he had two 15 week semesters or 30 weeks/classes, he took up nearly one third of the time with the simulations. Further, he dealt with relatively narrow time periods in his simulations. While he acknowledges this as a limitation, he clearly feels the simulations make up for it by getting the students to research as well as think and act like historians with primary sources.
I believe that my survey course on United States History could incorporate simulations, although maybe just one a term. I can envision a simulation dealing for example with Virginia and the debate that the state went through when deciding to secede from the Union, using primary sources from various Virginia sources in my US History 1 class. I can also visualize for example a simulation of a Congress debating adoption of a controversial bill, like health care or gun control, with students playing the roles of representatives and lobbyists in my US History 2 class.
Based on Brian McKenzie’s research and efforts the next time you walk down the hall of your school and pass a History classroom, you might hear something that sounds like “et tu Brutus?” coming from a kid who looks nothing like Julius Caesar.
