Learning about Conflict and Negotiations through Computer Simulations: The Case of PeaceMaker†

This paper is based on a cross-national experimental study conducted among American, Turkish, Israeli-Jewish, and Israeli-Palestinian students using a computer game called “PeaceMaker.” The game is a highly realistic and complex simulation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. PeaceMaker was used for educational and experimental purposes in a classroom setting and each student played the game in both Israeli and Palestinian decision maker roles. Our purpose was to evaluate the game's effectiveness as a pedagogical tool in teaching about conflict and its resolution, especially with regard to generating knowledge acquisition, perspective taking as a crucial skill in conflict resolution, and attitude change. We were also interested in understanding whether these effects changed depending on whether the participants were direct parties to the conflict or not. In order to gauge the effect of the game in these areas, we used a pre- and post-intervention experimental design and utilized questionnaires. We found that the game increased the level of knowledge about the conflict for the Israeli-Jewish, Israeli-Palestinian, American, and Turkish students. We also found that the game successfully contributed to perspective taking among Turkish and American students only on a contemporary issue related to the conflict.

[1]  Michael J. Hannafin,et al.  In search of a future: A critical analysis of research on web-based teaching and learning , 2003 .

[2]  Tim Sweeney,et al.  PeaceMaker: A Video Game to Teach Peace , 2005, INTETAIN.

[3]  Victor Asal,et al.  Playing Games with International Relations , 2005 .

[4]  N. Ebner.  Online Dispute Resolution: Applications in E-HRM , 2012 .

[5]  Hal Movius,et al.  The Effectiveness of Negotiation Training , 2008 .

[6]  Negotiating for Money: Adding a Dose of Reality to Classroom Negotiations , 2007 .

[7]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  Bridging the Gap: Face-to-Face Negotiations with an Automated Mediator , 2011, IEEE Intelligent Systems.

[8]  Leanne C. Powner,et al.  Evaluating Hypotheses about Active Learning , 2008 .

[9]  Sarit Kraus,et al.  AutoMed: an automated mediator for multi-issue bilateral negotiations , 2012, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[10]  Lelyn D. Saner,et al.  Learning to Stand in the Other’s Shoes , 2013 .

[11]  Chad Raymond,et al.  Do Role-Playing Simulations Generate Measurable and Meaningful Outcomes? A Simulation’s Effect on Exam Scores and Teaching Evaluations , 2010 .

[12]  Jeffrey S. Lantis,et al.  Active Teaching and Learning: The State of the Literature , 2010 .

[13]  Noam Ebner,et al.  Using Tomorrow's Headlines for Today's Training: Creating Pseudo-Reality in Conflict Resolution Simulation-Games , 2005 .

[14]  Michelle Lebaron,et al.  Death of the Role-Play , 2009 .

[15]  Andri Ioannou,et al.  Increasing interest in social studies: Social perspective taking and self-efficacy in stimulating simulations , 2008 .

[16]  J. Wilkenfeld,et al.  Mediating International Crises , 2003 .

[17]  Noam Ebner,et al.  Using Role-Play in Online Negotiation Teaching , 2011 .

[18]  Jeffrey Loewenstein,et al.  The Challenge of Learning , 2000 .

[19]  Amira Galin,et al.  E-negotiation versus face-to-face negotiation what has changed - if anything? , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[20]  A. Boin,et al.  Crisis Simulations: Exploring Tomorrow’s Vulnerabilities and Threats , 2004 .

[21]  J. C. Lay,et al.  Simulating a Senate Office: The Impact on Student Knowledge and Attitudes , 2006 .

[22]  Druckman,et al.  From Research to Application: Utilizing Research Findings in Negotiation Training Programs , 1998 .

[23]  Jeffrey S. Lantis,et al.  Building Knowledge? Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Global Problems Summit Simulation , 2006 .

[24]  Lantis.  Simulations and Experiential Learning in the International Relations Classroom , 1998 .

[25]  Daniel Druckman,et al.  Onstage or behind the scenes? Relative learning benefits of simulation role-play and design , 2008 .

[26]  Torney-Purta.  Evaluating Programs Designed to Teach International Content and Negotiation Skills , 1998 .

[27]  Victor Asal,et al.  Constructing International Relations Simulations: Examining the Pedagogy of IR Simulations Through a Constructivist Learning Theory Lens , 2013 .

[28]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Attitude structure and function. , 1998 .

[29]  James N. Druckman,et al.  e-Mediation: Evaluating the Impacts of an Electronic Mediator on Negotiating Behavior , 2004 .

[30]  Hayley J. Mayall,et al.  The GlobalEd Project: Gender differences in a problem-based learning environment of international negotiations , 2003 .

[31]  Teaching Negotiation and Dispute Resolution in Colleges of Business: The State of the Practice , 1997 .

[32]  Matthew Krain,et al.  The Effects of Different Types of Case Learning on Student Engagement , 2010 .

[33]  Leigh Thompson,et al.  Learning Negotiation Skills: Four Models of Knowledge Creation and Transfer , 2003, Manag. Sci..

[34]  Matthew Krain,et al.  Starving for Knowledge: An Active Learning Approach to Teaching About World Hunger , 2006 .

[35]  A. M. Baylouny.  Seeing Other Sides: Nongame Simulations and Alternative Perspectives of Middle East Conflict , 2009 .

[36]  Victoria Williams.  Assuming Identities, Enhancing Understanding: Applying Active Learning Principles to Research Projects , 2006 .

[37]  S. Chaiken,et al.  Attitude strength and resistance processes. , 1995, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[38]  Scott W. Brown,et al.  Introduction: From digital dirt road to educational expressway: Innovations in web-based pedagogy , 2003 .