A question is raised in this paper about whether political science courses influence civic learning. The way the authors answer this question is by running a longitudinal study, examining the effects of a simulation of human interactions encountered in a political science class.

The paper touches on the sensitive topic of civic education. The goal of civic education is to produce informed, responsible participation in political life. To be effective, a citizen must acquire not only a body of knowledge and skills, but also certain dispositions. A free society must rely on the knowledge, skills, and virtue of its citizens, and of those serving in public office on their behalf. However, the knowledge and skills required for competent and responsible citizenship in our sophisticated and complex system of government are neither inherited, nor gained by untutored experience. Each generation must be taught, through systematic, rigorous, and stimulating instruction in civic education.

Simulations have been used as a tool for teaching in many areas and disciplines. The impetus behind using simulations as pedagogical tools is the idea that experience is the best teacher. If access to such experience in real-time is impossible, an artificial environment may be, if not ideal, at least sufficient. Modern interest in, and literature about, simulation as an educational tool appears to have developed from the 1960s on, on both sides of the Atlantic. Apart from an enduring interest in the use of simulation for military training, favorite early topics for such simulations in school and university classrooms included business management, political studies, geography, and international relations [1].

In this study, a role-playing simulation is presented. The authors tried to determine whether a difference in teaching style in a 100-student introductory American government course had an effect on student’s self-reported knowledge, political cynicism, and future political participation. The teaching style was based on the use of simulation, where groups of students played four different roles: members of the House of Representatives, the President and the President’s aides, interest group lobbyists, and members of the media. The way the authors present the design of the simulation, as well as their analysis and discussion of the results, is very good, with excellent references to relevant studies and reports. Their study was based on the use of a “treatment group” and a control group. As expected, the teaching style that used simulation affected the acquisition of knowledge and skills, and had positive effect on political participation. It did not do much about political cynicism.

The authors also performed a post survey: they asked learners about their political cynicism and political participation three years after the end of the course. Although the concept is interesting, the results obtained from the post survey should not have been related to the whole study. Informal learning, way of life, timing, and so on do affect people’s attitudes with regard to politics and politicians.

In conclusion, this paper addresses a very interesting issue. It enlightens teachers on how to change their style and create an active learning environment. It does not address, however, the need of syllabi to be revised to accommodate simulations. Moreover, computers can help teachers and learners in running simulations. Although, there is no broad consensus on whether simulation in general is superior to any existing teaching method, experiments need to be done. Papers like this one, and books like Camlelot[2], are valuable resources.