The Comparative Politics Game Show: Using Games to Teach Comparative Politics Theories

Abstract

Undergraduates often struggle with theoretical perspectives in political science. Often students can get a better handle on theories if they are able to relate them to something tangible in their experience. Lichbach and Zuckerman lay out cultural, rational actor, and structural perspectives as a way to think more systematically about comparative politics but often students struggle with these meta-theories and the different ways they encourage us to think theoretically about comparative politics. In this paper, we discuss a set of exercises that enable students to get a better handle on cultural, rational actor, and structural perspectives on comparative politics by making them "lab rats in their own experiments." We group these exercises together and treat them as a Comparative Politics Game Show. In this paper, we describe the different exercises and how they were used and our view of the utility of this approach for teaching comparative politics theory.

Mini-Games for Teaching Political Science Methodology

“…The main motivation of this exercise was to demonstrate a need for precision in definitions (i.e., because students offered the right to vote as a proxy for democracy), temporal considerations (i.e., how those who could vote changed over time), and group inclusion (e.g., females and various minority groups). In our experience, the conversation (Asal et al 2013;Pettenger, West, and Young 2013). 2018 ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... …”

“…Based on our classroom successes using games to teach theories, we created several mini-games to help students gain an intimate understanding of methodology aspects in a new and engaging way. These mini-games require their active participation such that the knowledge is constructed and perceived through their own learning experience by playing roles in the exercises (Asal et al 2013; Pettenger, West, and Young 2013). Our design of the mini-games adopted techniques described by Schacht and Stewart (1990; 1992) as “gimmicks” in the sense that students themselves are the data points or objects of theory applications.…”

“…Lane and Tang (2000) observed that this type of active-learning approach generates more effective teaching outcomes and better students’ performance.Based on our classroom successes using games to teach theories, we created several mini-games to help students gain an intimate understanding of methodology aspects in a new and engaging way. These mini-games require their active participation such that the knowledge is constructed and perceived through their own learning experience by playing roles in the exercises (Asal et al 2013; Pettenger, West, and Young 2013). …”

Theoretical Theatre: harnessing the power of comedy to teach social science theory

“…Theories are at the heart of social science teaching, the centre piece used to foster students' analytical capacities and their ability to interpret the world. Yet, teaching social science theories can be a very complicated endeavour (Asal et al 2014). On the one hand, teachers have to convey the usefulness of theories to students who may never have felt a need for them.…”

How Dangerous Are Virtual Worlds Really? A Research Note on the Statecraft Simulation Debate

“…Recent years have seen a move toward incorporating cutting-edge approaches in the international relations classroom, including games and simulations (Asal, Sin, Fahrenkopf, & She, 2013; Shellman & Turan, 2006). Just like the use of simulations in other fields of study, international relations simulations present students with an opportunity to take part in a simulated but simplified version of reality, which attempts to bring to life complex political dynamics and abstract theories (Ehrhardt, 2008; Giovanello, Kirk, & Kromer, 2013, p. 199).…”