On “Stepping Back and Letting Go”: The Role of Control in the Success or Failure of Social...

ON “STEPPING BACK AND LETTING GO” 1

On “Stepping Back and Letting Go”:

The Role of Control in the Success or Failure of Social Studies Simulations

Cory Wright-Maley

Assistant Professor

St. Mary's University

14500 Bannister Rd. S.E.

Calgary, AB, Canada, T2X 1Z4

[email protected]

403-254-3129

mailto:[email protected]


The social studies community has long advocated for strengthening the field (Pace, 2007)

with powerful teaching practices (National Council for the Social Studies [NCSS], 1994, 2008).

Despite the appearance of individual teachers’ powerful and ambitious pedagogies (Grant &

Gradwell, 2010; Yeager & Davis, 2005), this movement has gained limited traction in practice

overall (Cuban, 1986; Levstik, 2008; Russell, 2010). One possible reason for the lack of transfer

of powerful teaching practices in theory to practice may be the issue of control, and teachers’

perceptions about how much of it they should be exercising in the classroom. This paper is

situated within the context of a larger study on how teachers think about and implement

simulations effectively and the challenges they face in implementing their visions of practice

with simulations. It became clear throughout the study that control was a mediating factor. I will,

therefore, attend to two teachers’ uses of control as they attempted to facilitate simulations in

their social studies classes to highlight one facet of their teaching that emerged as both an

effective practice and a challenge with simulations. These two cases lend insight into the ways in

which control can serve as both a constructive and destructive force in mediating simulations.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Defining Simulations

Simulations are “pedagogically mediated activities used to reflect the dynamism of real

life events, processes, or phenomena, in which students participate as active agents whose

actions are consequential to the outcome of the activity” (Wright-Maley, In Press). To elaborate,

simulations share several essential elements. Simulations should reflect the dynamism of real life

processes, events, or phenomena (Leigh & Spindler, 2004; Wilensky & Stroup, 1999; Young,

Slota, & Lai, 2012) in a delimited way (Adlrich, 2006). They should incorporate participation

that positions students in active, decision-making roles that meaningfully impact the activities’


outcomes (Arnold, 1989; Butler, 1988; Colella, 2000). Finally, simulations must be

pedagogically mediated by the teacher to ensure that these other elements cohere into focused

and powerful learning experiences (Crookal, 2010; DeLeon, 2008; Gillespie, 1973; Smith &

Boyer, 1996; Wright-Maley, In Press). Defined this way, simulations represent powerful

teaching. These active forms of learning help students to develop skills and tacit knowledge

relevant to navigating a variety of human experiences and reconciling (often competing) value

that students must wrestle with in order to become critical citizens (NCSS, 2008).

Two recent studies investigated simulations’ impact on student achievement (Johnson,

Boyer, & Brown, 2011; Parker, Lo, Yeo, Valencia, Nguyen, Abbott, et al., 2013; Parker,

Mosborg, Bransford, Vye, Wilkerson, & Abbott, 2011). ( The findings of these studies

demonstrated that simulations played a role in increasing student achievement. In the case of the

former study, these improvements were seen in terms of a pre/post-test design in which students

demonstrated significant growth (p<.001), whereas the latter demonstrated significant student

improvements (p<.05) on both a pre-/post-assessment on a complex scenarios exam and the AP

exam in AP Government courseswhen compared to a control group using a more traditional

curriculum.

Other research focused on student engagement related to the use of simulations. The

research record validates the impact simulations have on various forms of engagement,

indicating that they increased students’ emotional engagement with the topics being simulated

(Schweber, 2003), drove interest in the curriculum and aspects of the world being simulated

(Bredemeier & Greenblat, 1981; Dunleavy, Dede, & Mitchell, 2009; Ganzler, 2010; Gehlbach et

al., 2008; Gehlbach, 2011; Ioannou et al., 2009), and generated greater interest in social studies

as a whole (Ganzler, 2010; Gehlbach et al., 2008; Yukhymenko, 2011).


perceptions (.

Instructionally, teachers have identified simulations as an effective means of addressing

differentiated learning needs, and are seen as particularly helpful for both high-performing and

low performing students (DiCamillo & Gradwell, 2012). are particularly useful for eliciting

empathetic responses to the content (Else, 2006; Maitles& McKelvie, 2010); aligning students

perceptions of their abilities with reality (Niv-Solomon, Janik, Boyer, Hudson, Urlacher, Brown,

et al., 2011); and altering the way students think about when to cooperate or compete (Williams

& Williams, 2007).

Researchers have also revealed that teachers’ reasons for employing simulations are

varied and often idiosyncratic (Blaga, 1978; DiCamillo & Gradwell, 2012; Ganzler, 2010), while

their reasons for avoiding simulations was frequently attributed to teachers’ and teacher

educators’ skepticism about their pedagogical value, as well as the amount of time that would be

necessary to commit to implementing them (Blaga, 1978; Fogo, 2014).

Research into teachers’ processes with simulations is scant; however, Schweber’s (2003,

2004) case study of Ms. Bess’s Holocaust simulation highlights the important role teachers play

in mediating simulations in their classrooms. Ms. Bess, as depicted by Schweber, deftly

balanced the structure of personal narratives with group experiences that made her simulation

effective. She was able to shepherd students through the simulation in a way that both

“substantiated her simulation’s ‘reality,’ enough for students to see what was both hidden and

revealed by the curtain” and “to understand the fictiveness of their classroom creations, and

ultimately to recognize its inability to represent more than a fiction of the past” (2004, p. 106).

This case revealed what may be possible when teachers are well prepared to use and manage

simulations effectively.


This issue is of particular concern with simulations because they are by their nature

“chaordic” activities (Chin, Dukes, & Gamson, 2009; Leigh & Spindler, 2004). This is to say

that simulations have an inherent order built into them, but that the actions of students are

necessarily chaotic because each actor in a dynamic system pursues their individual goals.

Enacting a simulation, therefore, places significant curricular and managerial demands on

teachers (Blaga, 1978; Gilley, 2004; Glavin, 2008), such as how to organize, prepare, monitor

and guide students who may have different goals within the simulation, and different ideas about

how to achieve them, as well as how to guide students toward the learning aims that underlie the

simulation. Given the multifaceted demands that they place on teachers, simulations represent a

formidable undertaking. Despite the difficulties that employing simulations present for teachers,

scholars have not sufficiently addressed the issue of teacher mediation of simulations in social

studies classrooms.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Habitus

Scholars have established that the ubiquity of defensive and deskilled teaching in social

studies classrooms (Apple, 2004; Giroux, 2010; McNeil, 1982, 1986; Ross, 2010) is explained

by a variety of social, cultural, political, and ideological factors that are deeply engrained in the

culture, from which teachers cannot easily extract themselves (McLaren, 2003, Pace &

Hemmings, 2007). Bourdieu (1977) conceptualized this idea as habitus, the dispositional culture

of teaching that is promulgated and reinforced by the very milieu in which teachers find

themselves working (see also Cornbleth, 2010). As habitus encapsulates the limits of the

professional imagination, the choices social studies teachers make are constrained by the culture


of the profession itself (Bourdieu, 1977) and reinforced by the climate in which they teach.

Professional constraints, such as a sense of time pressure, coverage orientations, curricular

demands, standardized testing, peer-pressure, lack of administrative support, or a desire to have

an orderly classroom, make it difficult for teachers to break from the practices of the past (see

Barton & Levstik, 2004, 2010; Cornbleth, 2010; Grant, 2010). This challenge is not a

consequence of teachers’ inability to imagine any alternatives, but because such constraints—

whether real or perceived—have been closely tied to traditional practices and systems of

management. This stagnating position is further reinforced by the “apprenticeship of

observation” (Lortie, 1975, p. 61), which inculcates a particular way of being and knowing

(Chomsky, 2003) that becomes complicated for new teachers to override (McLaren, 2003).

Therefore, the decisions teachers make regarding their practices—which are retrieved from the

repertoire they have developed and inhabited throughout their lives as students and teachers—

make sense to them because they recognize that their situation (i.e., teaching social studies)

requires a certain response prescribed by convention.

The limits of habitus, therefore, function as something of a cultural horizon, beyond

which novel possibilities remain hidden from view (Schatzky, 1996). The nature of habitus

precludes, or at least mitigates, the widespread adoption of unpredictably novel pedagogies

(Bourdieu, 1977) that might precipitate a paradigmatic shift (Kuhn, 1962) toward powerful

teaching practices in the social studies. Since habitus is conceived of as a horizon, educators

maintain the flexibility to pursue and expand it; however, it is only on the margins where

incremental and consequential changes are likely to be made (Schatzky, 1996). One such change

may be to alter the way in which teachers choose to manage curricular practices such that they

align with the aims of the NCSS (2008) statement on powerful social studies.


Hard vs. Soft Control

To conceptualize a difference between tow inhabited processes of classroom management

I borrow the concept of hard versus soft power from the field of international relations (Nye,

1990). Broadly speaking, hard power is the use of force to compel others to act as you want,

whereas soft power acts to influence others to ally with your interests. This distinction is

applicable in the classroom context insofar as it demonstrates the ways in which teachers can

choose to exert power. Teachers deliver differing moral messages that inform students’

conceptions of the nature and role of power and control in the classroom, which in turn impact

their responses to authority (Buzzelli & Johnson, 2002). For the purposes of this paper, then, I

have modified Nye’s (1990) nomenclature. Specifically, hard control, in this context, refers to

the teachers’ efforts to exert overt control over students as a means of compelling them to act in

particular ways within the classroom; soft control refers to the exertion of their efforts to

influence the dynamics of classroom events while maintaining student autonomy.

To this end, research has demonstrated that students’ perceptions of their teachers’ level

of, or desire to, control impacted their achievement. Eshel and Kohavi (2003) found that student

achievement was at its lowest when both teacher and student control were perceived as being

low. Kiany and Shayestefar (2011), however, discovered that learning outcomes were lowest in

classes where students perceived their teachers’ greatest concern to be the exertion of control.

Similarly, in her case study of a ninth grade English teacher, Pace (2006) found that the

combined emphasis on student grades and classroom order led to resistance and reinforced

underachievement among her students. Such findings are further corroborated by Lamb’s (2012)

research into student voice. His study indicated that “even relatively strong learner identities”

among secondary students were put in jeopardy when increased teacher control led to decreased


student autonomy (p. 77). These studies suggest that hard control, which may be instinctively

preferable to many teachers in practice (McNeil, 1986), may result in outcomes that make it as

difficult to justify too much control as too little. As such, the form of control should be regarded

as consequential to teaching and learning.

Although it is unlikely that the horizon of social studies practice will change at a rate that

satisfies the profession, existing research in the field does make it possible to understand the role

that control plays in interrupting (or supporting) efforts to promote powerful social studies

teaching practices. I propose in this paper that the ways in which teachers choose to enact

control impact how student dynamics manifest in the classroom, and that instantiations of hard

and soft control may have qualitatively different outcomes when applied to simulations. Thus,

even while soft control would be better suited to achieving their pedagogical ends, it may be

difficulty to interrupt teachers’ inclinations to default to hard control. Thus, it is not enough to

consider only promising practices, but also the need to expand the imaginative limits of the

culture of teaching, such that more powerful teaching practices exist within the cultural horizon

of the profession.

RESEARCH DESIGN

To examine how teachers implemented their simulations effectively, I employed an

instrumental comparative case study design (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994; Stake, 1995)

that borrowed interviewing techniques from phenomenology (Seidman, 2006). The aims of this

studywere not driven by a desire to understand the particular participants as an end unto

themselves (i.e., an intrinsic case study), but rather to illuminate the participants’ efforts to use

simulations and to teach in more powerful ways (i.e., an instrumental case study; Stake, 1995).

To make these kinds of comparisons effectively, I studied two teachers who practiced in


different contexts in order to draw contextual and phenomenological comparisons between

participants while also providing sufficiently “thick description” of their teaching practices

(Geertz, 1973, p. 3; see also Brooks, 2014). In this way, it was possible to draw distinctions

between their management practices both across contexts and between classrooms.

Participants and Settings

More than a hundred potential participants were solicited through several regional

professional networks of teachers and evaluated using three sets of criteria: definitional,

experience-based, and performance-based markers (with which to evaluate the participants). To

do so, I used informal discussions, a pre-interview, and an observation of prospective

participants (see Table 1).The resulting pool of qualified candidates was slim—three, but each

participant met my criteria and had been identified by professional colleagues as teachers who

used simulations effectively, in terms of being able to manage these activities, engage students

meaningfully, and drive student learning. By way of these criteria and methodology, I was able

to determine that these participants were ideal candidates to provide rich cases of powerful

teaching with simulations. Of the three, one participant had scheduling challenges related to the

study’s timeline and was instead recruited to help in piloting the research instruments prior to

their use in the study.

Table 1

Meeting the Selection Criteria

Definitional The simulations participants used by the participants

met the criteria established for this study regarding

what counts as a simulation.

Experience Participants had five years social studies teaching

experience at the secondary level.

Participants had three years of experience using


simulations.

Participants had created or adapted simulations for

their own uses, indicating a deeper knowledge of

simulations.

Participants had regularly used simulations (at least

four different simulations in past year), indicating a

commitment to the pedagogy.

Performance The activities participants implemented during the

screening observation met criteria in each of the

sections of the NCSS powerful teaching framework.

Participants were actively involved in monitoring or

participating in the simulation during the screening

observation.

My participants were both experienced teachers with nine and ten years of teaching

experience teaching in New England high school social studies classrooms representing different

contexts used to address the concern that simulations are only for high powered students (see

DiCamillo & Gradwell, 2013). For the purposes of this paper, I will refer to them as Rosalie

Green and Josh Pollan1.

Rosalie Green presented herself with a tough acerbity that bolstered her no-nonsense

attitude toward her students. She demanded a lot and was not afraid to call students out

publically in harsh tones when they did not live up to her standards. Her imperiousness was

tempered, however, by the care and passion she demonstrated for her students and by the clear

affection they had for her. Her emphasis on 21st century skills pervaded her planning in her U.S.

history and international relations classes insofar as she wanted her students to leave her classes

with toolboxes full for their use in the future. Green teaches at Glendale Preparatory High

School, a jointly private-public institution with limited racial diversity (6% students of color) and

1 Both teacher and school names are pseudonyms


limited poverty (7% of students qualify for free or reduced lunch). The majority of Green’s

students entered her elective international relations classes from the AP and honors tracks, while

her U.S. history classes were split between AP and advanced college preparation tracks.

Josh Pollan has the disposition of a jovial philosopher, which was readily obvious in his

jocular interactions with students who appeared to appreciate his humor. His approach to world

history and economics was predicated on the big ideas of which he asked his students to wrestle,

and with which he grappled as well. He teaches at Oxford Community High School (OCHS), a

large public school whose student population is a microcosm of the state, both in terms of racial

and economic diversity. More than 42% of students at OCHS qualified for free and reduced

lunches, and the school—for all of its progress—remained quite segregated across the multiple

tracks of students that Pollan taught. To his credit, Pollan’s instruction varied only to the extent

that his lower tracked classes required greater scaffolding for his more complex tasks.

Context of the Study

As stated previously, the purpose of the study was to better understand teachers’ thinking

about, implementation of, and challenges with simulations. It is important to note that while my

purposes were to understand how teachers thought about and used simulations, these teachers

also had pedagogical purposes that were unique to their use of each simulation; for the purposes

of this paper, I touch only briefly upon this latter purpose. In order to illustrate my findings

related to control, I draw from observations and participant perspectives surrounding several

simulations (see Tables 2 & 3), which will be discussed in detail below.

Table 2

Simulations in Context


Participant Simulation Classes in which the

simulation was

implemented

Grade

level

Number of

students in

each class

Length of

Sim.

(class

periods)

Length

of Class

Periods

(mins.)

Rosalie

Green

Sudan Crisis

C-bloc I.R. (AP/Hons)

D-bloc I.R. (AP/Hons)

11/12

11/12

25

27 7 84

Constitutional

Convention

U.S. History (ACP) 10 25 3 84

Josh

Pollan

OPEC Economics (untracked) 12 17 2 85

Plague

(Chairs

Version)

3rd

P. World Civ. (Hons)

4th

P. World Civ. (CP)

5th

P. World Civ. (Gen)

6th


9

9

9

9

23

17

16

15

1 85

Plague (Paper

Version)

3rd


5th

P. World Civ. (Gen)

6th


9

9

9

23

16

15

1 85

Green’s simulations.

Sudan Crisis simulation. The seven-day Sudan Crisis simulation represented Green’s

final exam in her international relations course. It wasdesigned to allow students demonstrate

the diplomatic skills they had been developing throughout the semester. To structure the

simulation, Green used a Model U.N. format, in which each student was assigned to represent

the interests of a particular country or interested party (e.g., the United States, China, the

Janjaweed, etc.) during the crisis committee meeting. Students were expected to conduct

ongoing research to ensure that their reactions to events during the simulation accurately

reflected those of the party they represented. Students followed prescribed procedures for

introducing, discussing, and acting on motions and proposals of their choosing (see Robert,

Robert, Evans, Honemann, & Balch, 2011). Decorum and rules were maintained by Green.

Within this structure, students worked together to resolve the conflict between Sudan and South

Sudan, which had cultural (e.g., religious), internal-political (e.g., unionist vs. separatist


sentiments, human rights, claims of genocide), geopolitical (e.g., regional stability, aid, the arms

trade), and economic (e.g., development, access to resources) dimensions that students had to

consider. As students began to come to agreements on the issues they had already raised, Green

introduced a fresh “newsflash” event that precipitated a new element of crisis for the students to

resolve in order to bring the larger crisis between Sudan and South Sudan to a close by the end of

the 7th

class period.

Constitutional Convention simulation. The Constitutional Convention simulation

followed a parallel design to the Sudan Crisis simulation, except students were assigned to a

particular founding father at the Constitutional Convention. Green aimed to teach students about

the contentious nature of the convention. At the outset of the simulation, Green’s conducted

research on their historical figures and the positions they held (e.g., whether federalist or anti-

federalist, views on slavery, etc.). At the beginning of the simulation, each student stood at the

podium to introduce themselves as the founding fathers they represented and talked about their

lives leading up to the convention. Students were then tasked to resolve the major historical

conflicts facing the Continental Congress over the period of the next two days.

Pollan’s simulations.

OPEC simulation. In the OPEC simulation, Pollan aimed to teach his students about why

oligopolies fail to act as monopolies and to illustrate the free-rider effect. Pollan’s students were

paired up to collaborate as representatives of a member country of OPEC (e.g., Saudi Arabia,

Venezuela, Iraq, Indonesia, and Nigeria). The simulation required that each pair of students refer

to a sheet detailing the oil production reserves and goals of the country they represented. In each

round of the simulation, students were awarded points for the amount of money they earned—

weighted differently for each country based on the amount of oil produced and the price of oil


(which fluctuated based on the classroom supply of oil in any given round). At the beginning of

each round, students decided how to compete and cooperate in order to try to negotiate both their

collective and national oil production levels, such that the class achieved the highest prices and

their nation earned the highest income possible. At the end of each round, students submitted

their national production levels to Pollan in secret. Pollan then calculated the aggregate supply,

and the corresponding price of oil for the round. National production levels remained secret until

the end of the simulation, completed after ten rounds. Once concluded, students tallied their

point totals and shared them with the rest of the class.

Plague simulation (chairs). The plague simulation (in both forms) was intended to

model the spread of the plague in medieval Europe, and to help create an emotional connection

to an event that is so distantly remote to his students. Pollan’s students were seated in the center

of the room on chairs arranged in a checkerboard pattern. A student was selected at random and

told that they had contracted plague. When the infected student was revealed, the students seated

at their diagonals were “exposed,” and stood up to use a random number generator that

determined whether their exposure to plague led to “infection.” There were three possible

outcomes: (1) if a student generated a number below 70, they were infected; (2) if their number

was between 70 and 90 they were exposed, but not infected (these students could sit down); and

(3), students who generated a number between 90 and 99 became immune and could also sit.

The original student then rolled to see if they survived their infection. If they generated a

number between zero and 80, they “died” and were sent to one side of the classroom. If they

generated a number between 81 and 99 they recovered. This process was repeated until the

plague had nowhere left to spread. This simulation was then repeated to challenge students to

think about where they would like to position themselves as they “repopulated” the village.


Plague simulation (paper). The rules of this version of the plague simulation were

exactly the same as the chairs version. The notable difference was that each student—seated in

their own desk—received a handout with a checkerboard pattern on the paper. With their own

populated village in front of them, students were asked to conduct the simulation on their own

using calculators or phones to generate random numbers. Students then determined whether

people in their villages were exposed, infected, or immune, and then whether they recovered or

died if they were infected. Once the plague could no longer spread in each of their paper

villages, students shared with the class how many people were infected and died. Pollan used

these statistics to generate an overall mortality rate for the plague.

Table 3

Simulations’ Educational Outcomes

Participant Simulation Educational Objective

Rosalie Green Sudan Crisis Students will be able to demonstrate the ability to

overcome a crisis situation by negotiating their way to a

diplomatic solution.

Students will develop 21st century skills.

Constitutional

Convention

Students will be able to recognize the challenges of

resolving the core disagreements at the heart of the

Constitutional Convention.

Students will develop 21st century skills.

Josh Pollan OPEC Students will be able to articulate why oligopolies

cannot function monopolistically.

Students will be able to recognize that individual success

depends on collective effort.

Plague Students will be able to connect to the plague

emotionally.

Students will be able to describe how the environment in

which they live can shape their destiny.


Data Collection and Analysis

Interviews. To ensure the study’s rigor, multiple forms of data collection were used

(Denzin, 2009). A three-stage individual interview process was followed by a peer-led group

interview. All interviews—nine with Pollan and seven with Green—were recorded and

transcribed. The length of interviews ranged between 35 to 90 minutes in length (this variation

was dependent on the depth of participants’ answers). On average, Green’s interviews tended to

be shorter than Pollan’s. These interviews were triangulated with observations, participant

created vision statements, detailed research memos, and collected documents that related to the

school contexts and to their simulations.

In the first individual interview (see Appendix for protocols), participants were asked to

answer questions related to their teaching contexts, experiences, philosophies of teaching,

thinking and practices with simulations, as well as questions regarding their initial simulations.

The second interview was used following each simulation as a debriefing exercise, and occurred

between 3-7 days after the simulation to balance the need for reflection—on the part of both

researcher and participant—while ensuring that memories of the simulation remained fresh.

Along with questions from the first interview protocol that were necessary to contextualize

subsequent simulations, clarifying questions regarding teachers’ practices specific to the

simulation were added to this second interview. Finally, the third interview protocol was broken

into two parts: first, questions relating to participants’ visions of practice in general; and second,

questions that employed a concept mapping exercise (in which participants created concept maps

during the middle of the interview that reflected their ideal visions of practice with simulations).

This last exercise was video recorded. The concept map served as a means to externalize

participants’ conceptual ideas (Chang, 2007; Novak & Cañas, 2008), which helped facilitate the


discussion on their visions of practice. This third interview took place between 5 and 10 days

after the final iteration of the second interview protocol in order to allow the memory of the

previous interview to fade (Seidman, 2006), and to provide time for participants to write their

vision of practice statement.

Peer-led interviews. I designed this novel form of group interviewing to increase the

validity of this study by way of authentic opportunities for sharing knowledge (Guba & Lincoln,

2000) by providing participants with an authentic audience with whom to share their experiences

with simulations. The interview panel consisted of three novice peers (two preservice teachers

and one teacher with two years of teaching experience, each of whom wanted to use simulations

in their practice). They asked questions of concern to them about simulations that were directed

toward both participants (who were seated together). Participants responded to questions and to

each other’s comments and ideas. My role was limited to note-taking, and to initiating and

closing the interview. In the months prior to the interview, the novice peers’ were provided with

guidelines on how to design their questions, which they then submitted (see Appendix). I then

screened the questions they created for relevance before use. The novice peers were also briefed

on the participants’ simulations prior to the interview. . This interview also served to triangulate

participants’ responses with those provided to me during one-on-one interviews.

Observation. Finally, observations of each simulation, in which detailed running-record notes

were recorded, were used corroborate participants’ perspectives. I observed a total of 54 block

period classes, which included multiple simulations for both teachers over a seven month period

(see Table 4). Specifically, I observed how the participants set up and executed their

simulations, as well as how they engaged themselves and interacted with their students in the

process.


Table 4

Observations per simulation by participant

Green Pollan

Simulation

Name

Number of

Courses

Observed

Using the

Simulation

Number

of Class

Periods

Observed

Simulation

Name

Number of

Courses

Observed

Using the

Simulation

Number

of Class

Periods

Observed

Screening Obs N/A 1 Screening Obs N/A 2

NGO Forum 2 11 Democracy 3 8

Sudan Crisis 2 16 Trading I 2 4

Const. Conv. 1 3 OPEC 1 2

Plague-chairs

Plague-paper

4

3

4

3

Total Class Periods

Observed

31 Total Class Periods

Observed

23

Instruments. A full pilot study was conducted during the year prior to this project, which

I used to improve and expand my instruments (observations and peer-led interview).

Additionally, all of the instruments used in this study were piloted by the third qualified

participant (described previously). Feedback from this participant, as well as observations about

the emergent gaps in the data collected, helped to strengthen the instruments used in this study.

Data analysis. I employed a basic interpretive approach to data analysis (Merriam,

2009). My first goal was to clarify events, concepts, and examples as discussed by participants.

To do this, I reviewed the audio recordings of the interviews then clarified outstanding questions

and interpretations with participants in person or via email. During this initial analysis, I made

notes regarding common patterns that emerged from the data (Merriam, 1998). Such patterns

included “teaching and learning beliefs,” “challenges,” and “rationale for simulations.” These


patterns alerted me to possible themes that might emerge. Setting aside these initial patterns, I

utilized inductive coding strategies to allow codes to emerge organically (Ruona, 2005; Strauss

& Corbin, 1998; Thomas, 2006). Among the codes that emerged were: “control,” “time,”

“student frustration,” and “simulation management.” At this point, I enlisted a peer examiner to

test and challenge my coding scheme. I provided him with a representative selection of data as

well as my emergent codes for him to use to affirm and challenge my existing codes. Using his

critique, I made changes to reflect his feedback.

As further interview transcripts were completed, I continued to allow codes to emerge

inductively, but I also used my revised scheme to code new data in a more deductive manner.

Throughout the coding process, I continually reviewed the codes and categories and used

constant comparative analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) in order to account for drift (Creswell,

2009). I used these techniques to revise and adjust codes to reflect my evolving interpretations

of the data based on the salient themes and patterns that emerged across the participants’

interviews (Glesne, 1999; Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). As these patterns developed, I

employed NVivo software to facilitate axial coding by moving, combining, and categorizing

codes into tentative categories (Merriam, 1998), which were finalized after they were tested and

affirmed by my peer examiner. All substantive changes were thoroughly documented in regular

memos, providing an audit trail (Merriam, 2009). As my interpretations matured, I included my

participants in the process of member checking (Creswell & Miller, 2000) to ensure the accuracy

of the interpretations of events and the veracity of my conclusions.

FINDINGS

The findings in this paper represent only a small slice of the overall data revealed by this

study, which looked at a variety of challenges, efforts to prepare students to participate


effectively, consistency of orientations, and visions of practice with implementation. Among the

numerous challenges identified by Green and Pollan, the difficulties and successes they faced

relating to control stood out as the most salient and interesting issue. Both Green and Pollan

utilized control to shape and direct their simulations in ways they believed would improve the

quality of their simulations. In this section, I use examples from a selection of their simulation

practices to demonstrate that the ways in which their use of control had a material effect on the

dynamics of the simulation. When Green and Pollan engaged in soft control, their simulations

appeared to maintain the dynamic nature characteristic of these exercises. Whereas, when they

engaged in hard control, their actions seemed to weaken the dynamism of their simulations in

ways that exacerbated their concerns about student participation and classroom management.

The following discussion will detail the ways in which each participant utilized hard and soft

control as well as consequences of their control choices.

Green: Employing Hard Control

Green, in particular, found the issue of hard control a pressing concern. She explained

that “relinquishing that control, that’s still, I think, something really difficult for me.” The extant

literature indicates that this sentiment is shared with many other social studies teachers. With so

much time invested in her international relations simulations, Green said she “fear[s students]

failing and not having [a] good experience,” because “if they don’t have a good experience then

the next time” they won’t be so willing to participate, which would undermine her future

simulations. This concern only intensified her desire to control the dynamics of the simulation.

In the same way that Pace (2006) characterized the “helping” ethic of the English teacher in her

study, Green’s efforts to “help” her students was tied to strictures of hard control, which became

a hindrance instead of a benefit. Unlike other teachers, Green is highly self-critical, and it is this


capacity, I believe, that led her to be conscious that her need to control this situation rested

ultimately with her. Even still, without our follow-up interview, in which my questioning made

space for her to consider her conduct during the simulation, she may not have come to this

conclusion on her own.

The most substantial aspect to emerge for her as part of this challenge of control was

trust. Green stated early on in the study that “you have to give up control and you have to trust

that [students are] going do what you want them to do. And that can be really hard.” She had to

constantly reminded herself to trust the process as the chaos of the simulation unfolded around

her. The primary challenge for her was “just learning how to let go and allowing the chaos to

happen.” Like all developing aptitudes, however, she did not always succeed in “letting go.”

Finding this a particularly telling statement of Green’s use of control, I will further examine her

struggle as it unfolded in her sophomore U.S. history class as she attempted to modify her

Constitutional Convention simulation for an unusually quiet class of students.

From early on, Green reported that she had “low expectations for the class,” not because

they were not intellectually capable, but because they were reticent to speak in class. Even

before the simulation beganGreen had established in her mind how the Constitutional

Convention simulation was likely to play out. At the outset of the simulation, students began by

introducing themselves, and then raising issues of importance to their assigned characters. The

participation lacked some of the vigor of Green’s elective international relations classes, but

students were, nevertheless, participating by sharing their points and responding to the comments

of their peers. Interestingly, Green perceived that “you see like three kids talking [and] the rest

of them just staring off blankly into space.” As a result of this perception, she quickly and

continuously interjected to ask follow-up questions and to challenge students’ ideas, which was


the work their peers were meant to be doing. Green’s perception of her students’ level of

interaction was, however, contradicted by my observation notes that revealed a much higher rate

of participation (and the students who were not speaking appeared focused on the simulation).

As a result, students were no longer looking to each other—but to her—for the next comment.

Feeling frustrated by the apparent low level of participation, she ended the discussion abruptly

and prompted students to get into small groups where they formed constitutions of their own

with like-minded characters, addressed the major compromises of the Constitutional Convention,

and then presented their constitutions to the class to wrap up the activity. Instead of the dynamic,

chaotic, and unexpected outcomes characteristic of her other simulations, the Constitutional

Convention was staid, sober, and yielded few surprises.

Green believed that she was preventing her students from a failing participation dynamic,

that necessitated her jumping into the large group discussion and “driving everything.” Although

I did not directly point out the apparent contradiction between her perceptions of the students’

participation and my observations of their participation, she later indicated that she recognized

that her active role may have interfered with students’ participation. Yet, she did not know how

to extract herself from the simulation’s discussion. Green’s actions appear intuitive given the

situation. This leads me to speculate that a teacher’s lack of trust in their students’ ability to

participate effectively could lead teachers to default to hard control strategies (e.g., “driving” the

discussion), which in turn could undermine the core processes necessary for the success of

simulations. Green’s constant involvement in the simulation made her the central actor in the

simulation, which appeared to have dampened even the tepid participation dynamics rather than

bolstering them as she had hoped. Although it is beyond the scope of this study to say with

certainty that Green’s efforts to control the direction and dynamics of this simulation caused it to


fall flat, it is readily apparent that those efforts did little to help infuse the simulation with greater

student energy. It would seem that Green’s use of hard control impeded her abilities to achieve

her pedagogical goals.

Pollan: Employing Hard Control

Unlike Green, who carried the burden of hard control with her daily, Josh Pollan did not

feel quite the same weight of it,. He admitted that “stepping back and letting go” of controlling

student participation is “not natural” and that simulations are “a very different kind of lesson

where you’re not in command.” This lack of control can be intimidating for teachers, even for a

seasoned teacher like Pollan. Even though the desire for control is perhaps less pressing for

Pollan than for Green, he replicated the practice of hard control a similar fashion and achieved

similar results. Unlike Green, who felt a lack of trust with her particular set of students, Pollan

reported that he believed there was too much downtime during his Plague simulation.

It was fortunate to have two version of the simulation to compare during my

observations. Pollan planned to run his usual chairs version of his plague simulation in addition

to assigning a modified paper version (where students would complete the activity on paper at

their desks). This decision was instigated by Pollan’s perception that there was a “sort of social

nonsense going on” among the students who had “died.” In contrast to Pollan’s perception that

students were misbehaving, however, it was particularly noteworthy how quietly students in the

classroom graveyard appeared to be paying attention to the spread of the disease in the center of

the classroom. This, it appeared, was because there was a palpable sense of dread that they

shared with their “living” friends, who they did not want to see perish. This was especially

notable in his 3rd

period honors class because this boisterous and fidgety class was almost never

quiet. To be sure, some mild “nonsense” behaviors did occur briefly one of the four periods,


which required Pollan to address the situation verbally, promptly ending the disruptive

behaviors. In both cases, the students’ “nonsense” declined noticeably during the simulation

compared to the preceding lecture, in direct contrast to Pollan’s perceptions of events. This is

striking as it seemed that Pollan’s perception of control was tied to his belief that students were

off task, rather than that his students actually were off task. Pollan’s perceptions of the class

were likely influenced by the fact that he could not focus on what all students were doing—as his

focus was on helping individual students calculate the probabilities that determined the spread of

the plague. Like Green, his perceptions superseded what was actually occurring in his

classroom, which led him to make control choices that undermined the strengths of his activity.

In order to mitigate these perceived behavioral dynamics, Pollan decided to assign the

alternative, paper version of the plague simulation. In light of his perception, Pollan hoped to

domesticate the activity’s dynamics of the simulation where students could enact the simulation

alone at their desks. He thought that by tightly controlling how students interacted (or did not

interact), he could mitigate the most stressful aspects of the simulation for him, while also

maintaining the learning aims of the simulation. This supposition turned out to be false. Not

only were a significant number of students desperately confused by how they were supposed to

conduct the spread of the disease (even after having completed the chairs version of the activity

two days earlier), but the paper simulation also exacerbated the behavioral issues Pollan was

attempting to ameliorate, particularly in his lowest tracked, general level class. During this class

period, several students disengaged. Their behaviors included visible frustration, head shaking,

and off-topic discussions, one student slumped over his desk in defeat, and a physical altercation

occurred between two others.


Further observation of the paper version showed that students in all classes did not

exhibit the same degree of care as they did for those who perished in the chairs version. In

Pollan’s 6th

period honors class, however, students worked diligently and without confusion to

complete the task. In part, their clarity of purpose was connected to the fact that Pollan had

learned from his previous failures the day before. Their behaviors also made conspicuous the

fact that the highly controlled simulation was most effective for shaping the behavior of the

students whose actions needed the least shaping, and that the more chaordic simulation resulted

in fewer negative behaviors among both his general level and his energetic honors classes whose

behaviors were the main source of his anxiety. It is possible that the deployment of hard control,

in which students are forced to act in particular and tightly constrained ways, elicits student

behavior that is both unintended and counterintuitive.

It also appeared that the different ways in which Pollan conducted these nearly identical

simulations may have entirely altered students’ perceptions of the activities. Students in his

general class were baffled by Pollan’s claim that the paper version of plague simulation was the

same as the chairs version. To them, his claim seemed preposterous: “How is this like last

class?” And, “yeah, it was active, this is just on paper.” It seemed that the participatory

dynamism inherent in the chairs simulation was simply not present in the paper version. The

lesson was not lost on Pollan who told me later that “feedback from the students has convinced

me that this is not a replacement” for the more dynamic chairs version. What is less clear is

whether Pollan realized that in his effort to control student dynamics by instituting a structure

that reflected the principles of hard control (i.e., students were compelled to work quietly on their

own or with one partner), that he eliminated the dynamic and embodied aspects of the simulation

that students appeared to find most meaningful. Such a loss may have aggravated the kinds of


behaviors he hoped he would resolve by instituting this second, more controlled version. In both

Green’s and Pollan’s cases, the use of hard control interfered with student participation in such a

way as to exascerbate the outcomes they had hoped to avoid.

Green: Employing Soft Control

Having established the effect of hard control during simulations, I want now to illuminate

the degree to which Green’s and Pollan’s deployment of soft control appeared to act as an

effective check against the excesses of student-driven decision making in simulations. As

previously mentioned, it was more typical of Green to act as an ancillary participant during her

simulations. The vast majority of her actions, as detailed in my observation notes, include her

making procedural statements regarding time and decorum or scribbling notes as students spoke

during the simulation. At times she would walk around to listen to students’ negotiations, but

more frequently she observed carefully from her seat in the forum’s circle.

I was therefore surprised to see her take sudden, almost frantic action to stem the tide of

students’ decisions as their negotiations in her C-bloc began to sour during the Sudan Crisis

simulation. This hostile turn took the form of a group of students who began instigating for war.

As students continued down this path, Green jumped in and said: “whatever you do has to be

plausible.” This was the first moment where she tried to shape their decision making because it

“was [an] improbable” outcome that she wanted to avoid. Despite her efforts the student

representing Chad continued to advocate for war. Momentarily, Green asserted herself using

hard control: “I set this up so that you can’t declare war. You can’t declare war!” She appeared

to recognize, however, that this effort to control her students was not fruitful. Green instead

implored the group “to think outside the box.” In retreating from her initial hardline approach,


most of the students backed away from the plan, but Chad still declared war, with France’s

support in the subsequent caucus. Obligingly, Green allowed Chad to declare war. At first

glance, this scenario appeared to be a failure on Green’s behalf, but instead it opened an

opportunity for her to reclaim the direction the simulation without undermining the dynamism of

the scenario.

First, Green told the class, “This is what happens when the Security Council doesn’t take

any action.” This scenario provided a lesson for her students and enabled those who felt

similarly against war to find their voice in the forum. For example, the Chinese envoy expressed

her disdain: “Now that war has been declared, the failure of this council is clear and issues

haven’t been passed because of Western bias or whatever.” Second, after the class was

dismissed, Green assured a concerned student in confidence: “Don’t worry…I will fix it for next

week.” At the beginning of the next class, she followed up this promise by including, as part of

her daily news bulletin, an update that that stated the conflict had been resolved, thereby

circumventing war. She let the “war” occur—despite her wishes to the contrary—thus allowing

her student to act autonomously based on his principles. By employing soft power techniques,

Green pushed students to recognize the collapse of their diplomacy as a failure and used her

position of authority to “rescue” rather than impede them. Scholars in the related field of gaming

tell us that these kinds of mistakes are essential for students (see Gee, 2009). This is a fine, but

important distinction insofar as her initial reaction to employ hard control may have instead

precluded this important lesson from appearing while also alienating the group of students by

overtly disallowing actions they viewed to be meaningful. In turn, doing so may have negatively

impacted these students’ future participation in the simulation.


Green stated that she had a clear interest in ensuring war was not viewed by students as a

solution to international conflict. She contended that “high school kids…don't grasp how hard it

is to make that decision. I think in a high school simulation it's very easy to say, ‘I'm gonna

declare war on you.’ And to them it's so abstract.” For her, “declaring war in class is an easy

way out. They don't have to think diplomatically, come to a compromise, and try and understand

where the other person's coming from.” Green’s role was not easy: students must be moved into

a framework in which they would learn the hard lessons of diplomacy (rather than seek the “easy

way out” through war). Green had to balance her actions so that the students did not feel as

though they only had one option (which would be obvious if she had not backed away from her

stance against war). Such a responsibility poses something of a conundrum for teachers like

Green, for whom the ends of the simulation are non-negotiable, but the means of getting there

must be dynamic and student driven. By steering clear of hard control in favor of soft control in

her ultimate response to the threat of war, Green succeeded in maintaining the integrity of both

the means and ends of the simulation while also reviving the dynamism inherent in the students’

more productive efforts to hammer out diplomatic solutions.

Pollan: Employing Soft Control

Pollan’s use of soft control was subtler than Green’s as it did not teeter on the edge of

hard control. This was, in part, because he tended to intervene less and was more curious about

unpredictable student-driven outcomes. His OPEC simulation provided a particularly good

illustration of his use of soft control. Through his actions during the simulation, Pollan

continually sowed the seeds of discord among the groups, thereby ensuring that no one team had

a particularly easy time dominating the others. He explained:


The [OPEC simulation] has a will of its own…I can’t control it...[But] I try to influence it

a lot of times, if I see it going one way, if I see one team dominating, I’ll throw rumors

out there, I’ll compensate, I’ll leak information; I’ve been known to do it…. [For

example], I'll go over to Saudi Arabia and I'll say, “You know you're the big dog,

right?”…because they don't know who they are yet...[or] how dominant they are in terms

of their resources. They haven't seen any other [students’ info] sheets….They’ll say,

“Yeah, we're the big dog! What does that mean?” So then I have to talk to them, you

know, "what can you do?" And then I have to go provoke the other side and say, “Boy,

Saudi Arabia is acting like a real bully, aren't they?”

In this way, Pollan pushed students to engage in ways that might not otherwise be possible

without his intervention. Because of his insinuations, students seemed to infer key information

about other groups that compensated for their lack of understanding about the countries they and

their peers represented. Once students were adequately engaged, Pollan sought to rebalance the

power dynamics within the simulation by using his provocations to complicate students’ efforts

at negotiation.

In one instance, as Saudi Arabia and Iraq were negotiating, it was obvious that the

Saudi’s were savvier negotiators than their Iraqi counterparts. Pollan interjected: “You know

there’s nothing preventing you from showing each other your papers.” These papers contained

students’ oil production figures and goals, which they needed in order to score points for each

round. His comment hung in the air for a moment before igniting a thought in one of the students

in the Iraqi group: “Yes. People are lying!” One of the Saudis glared at Pollan before stating

playfully, “You’re such an enabler, Mr. Pollan!” Unlike the representatives of OPEC in the real

world (who are savvier and keenly aware of the system in which they operate), some students


recognized the elements of game theory that were at play in this simulation, whereas others

approached the task with naiveté. Pollan, keenly aware of this disparity, acted to counterbalance

these varying levels of understanding through his interventions. In using this type of soft

control, Pollan may have actually bolstered the verisimilitude of the simulation, and ensured that

his weaker students were not taken advantage of by their more adept peers.

At the same time, he pushed his students to recognize why a lack of transparency and

trust keeps oligopolies from acting monopolistically. Through soft control, Pollan managed to

influence his students and bend the simulation to suit his curricular needs; the students came

away with the realization that transparency can put them “at a competitive disadvantage” when

they could not trust that others would do the same. At no point did Pollan insinuate himself in a

way that told students that they must (or must not) share their information, tell students that they

had to honor to their agreements, nor did he explicitly direct students’ negotiations (as one would

expect to see in a classroom where hard control was employed). Instead, Pollan’s subtle

suggestions led students to choose from alternatives freely. Furthermore, his use of soft control

served to redirect the simulation by priming, rather than compelling, students to act in ways that

would effectuate the pedagogical ends Pollan pursued.

Summary of Findings

Green’s and Pollan’s efforts to manage their simulations necessitated the use of control,

but the means by which they did so were consequential for the outcomes of their simulations.

Unlike their implementations of hard control, their use of soft control effectuated outcomes that

can be seen as desirable when using simulations. Their uses of hard control, on the other hand,

diminished their simulations in terms of verisimilitude and dynamism, and hindered their

pedagogical aims. Additionally, the weakening of their simulations also exacerbated the


participation problems they had hoped to avoid. In contrast, their more subtle—even

manipulative—forms of soft control preserved student autonomy, thereby maintaining a balance

between the chaotic and orderly aspects inherent in simulations. Soft control helped Green and

Pollan to nudge their students toward ends that aligned with their pedagogical intentions, and

enabled them to shape their simulations in ways that more closely reflected reality.

DISCUSSION

This study tentatively affirms the importance of the features of simulations articulated

earlier in this paper (Wright-Maley, In Press), and adds to the literature that suggests student

participation and dynamism are central to the nature of simulations (Arnold, 1989; Butler, 1988;

Colella, 2000; Leigh & Spindler, 2004; Wilensky & Stroup, 1999; Young et al., 2012).

Simulations enable students to engage in powerful social studies practices because they help

teachers to facilitate opportunities to wrestle with the complexities of human action and to

develop critical skills used in navigating an uncertain world. These findings also suggests that

while teachers may be required to make subtle adjustments to maintain the verisimilitude of the

simulations, and to further their pedagogical intentions, that their choices regarding how they

control and shape these dynamics is consequential both for the outcomes of these simulations as

well as for students’ willingness to engage meaningfully in the social studies classroom.

The work of Eshel and Kohavi (2003), Kiany and Shayestefar (2011), Lamb (2012), and

Pace (2006) each attest to the impact that student perceptions of teacher control have upon

student achievement. Their works forward the notion that students need to have a clear sense

that the classroom is controlled, but not see the teacher as controlling. When students perceive

that a teacher is overly concerned with control that diminishes students’ autonomy (i.e., hard

control), their achievement appears to suffer. Although these relationships should not be seen as


causal, the relationship is intriguing. The present study does not address student achievement,

but it may help to enrich to the discussion of control inasmuch as it suggests that social studies

scholars should not see all types of control as problematic. On the contrary, the implication from

this study is that soft control may be beneficial for students, while hard control may instead

attenuate student participation and disrupt the natural flow of simulations.

Some scholars have noted that both student participation and flow are crucial to student

achievement and classroom management (see LePage et al., 2005). This observed attenuation

effect did not appear to occur when participants instantiated soft control to guide their

simulations. Instead, the use of soft control appeared to enhance their simulations’ fidelity to

reality without disrupting the dynamic quality of students’ participation in the simulation. This

distinction should not be understated and raises an issue of special concern, namely that

defaulting to hard control) may be an approach that is wholly incompatible with not only the use

of simulations, but also with other pedagogies that require a devolution of responsibilities to

students.

The results of this study raise two important questions about control:How should we to

think about the role of soft control in the social studies classroom? And, how do we support

preservice and novice teachers to instantiate practices that eschew hard control in favor of soft

control?

Addressing the first question, it may be fruitful to consider soft control within the

constructs of freedom for those upon which power is levered. Scholars have long established

that when a person perceives a high degree of control over their destiny, it leads to more positive

outcomes. Alternatively, a perceived lack of control leads to more negative outcomes (Deci &

Ryan, 1985). Despite these contentions, teachers work within a habitus that requires them to


design and implement learning tasks that are imposed on students. It is incumbent on teachers,

therefore, that they recognize the extent to which the power dynamics between student and

teacher are necessarily imbalanced. This is not to suggest that teachers should make an effort to

tip the balance of power—doing so may not be realistic within the current habitus—but rather,

that they take action to minimize their use of control as form of “will to power,” which may

inspire the reciprocal will among their students (see Nietzsche, 2008). This study suggests that

teachers ought to wield control with discernment and temperance, in ways that allow both

teachers and students to partake in shared (albeit imbalanced) control (Crawford, 2008; Kiany &

Shayestefar, 2011) while the teacher still exerts influence over the direction of classroom

proceedings toward pedagogically useful ends.

Toward the goal of supporting teachers to more effectively shift their control practices,

teacher educators may find it useful to discuss the distinction between hard and soft control.

This instruction may also help further the current endeavor by some teacher educators to alter

preservice teachers’ perception that classroom management necessitates hard control. The

consideration of soft control as tool to help shape students’ experiences within a richly

autonomous environment may work in concert with Pace’s (2010) efforts, which aim decouple

authority and control. This conceptualization of control may also be useful in refocusing the

discussion of control by centering classroom relations in a way that seeks to balance student

engagement and the management of student behavior (Pace & Hemmings, 2007). If preservice

and novice teachers are left with the notion that hard control may actually undermine their ability

to balance these two important features of classroom relations—and consequently erode their

authority—and that soft control may be a means of bolstering both, then it may become clear that

control and authority are not one and the same. In this way, teacher educators may be able to


further decenter the teacher’s role in the classroom, such that authority becomes a more practical,

and even obvious, way for teachers to consider their management of the classroom. Although

this is an ambitious claim, even a small step in this direction may help to facilitate a shift that

makes it possible for more teachers to recast their roles in the classroom as co-creators of

knowledge (Armaline, 2009).

Within this construct, research suggests that students may achieve set goals at higher

rates (Kiany & Shayestefar, 2011) or at least not be stymied by teachers’ control practices

(Crawford, 2008; Pace, 2006). If scholars are able to free preservice and novice teachers from

the burden that accompanies the belief that their authority is incumbent on their use of hard

control, they may instead be able to start shifting teachers’ attention toward the kinds of powerful

teaching and learning experiences that can lead students and teachers to take cooperative

ownership over the learning process (Dewey, 1997 [1938]; NCSS, 2008). Furthermore, this shift

in control strategy may lead to further “fault lines” (Levstik, 2008, p. 59) through which teachers

can foster the implementation of more powerful practices, such as simulations, that have more

complex instructional and pedagogical demands than strategies more closely aligned with hard

control management orientations.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

While this case study has limitations in its power to generalize its findings to the social

studies discipline as a whole, it is suggestive of the ways in which the nature of control may

impact student participation dynamics. Specifically, these two cases demonstrate that even

excellent and experienced practitioners of their craft can struggle to instantiate control practices

that do not undermine their goals. At the same time, this study indicates that teachers may be

able to learn how to implement control in classrooms in ways that foster, rather than diminish,


student participation. This studyhighlights that the chaordic nature of simulations hinge on

students’ ability to act autonomously in order to imbue simulations with dynamism, and that the

actions teachers take within simulations have the power to foster or attenuate student autonomy

in ways that can, respectively, strengthen or weaken—even extinguish—the simulation. Taken

more broadly, these findings speak to the need to revisit control in the classroom as the social

studies profession continues to consider how to engage students in more powerful and student-

centered practices.

Given the dearth of research into teaching practices with simulations, it is important to be

cognizant that while the attenuation of student participation was meaningful in these two cases,

the sparse case literature makes it difficult to extrapolate these results more broadly. There is,

therefore, a need for social studies scholars to develop a meaningful case literature, which may

help ground the findings of this study, and others like it, within a larger context of teachers’

practices with simulations. In light of this gap, social studies scholars may wish to explore the

extent to which social studies teachers’ control practices, in general, lead to or contradict the

findings of this study. Such research could address the attenuation effects that relate to student

participation, curricular engagement, and achievement. It is also possible that attenuation effects

may apply not only to students, but to pedagogical activities themselves. If simulations are

indeed prone to collapsing because of the attenuation of student participation, so too might other

classroom activities.

Finally, future research might also explore: (1) the factors that influence teachers to adopt

either hard or soft control practices; (2) which, if any, factors lead preservice and novice

educators to shift their control orientations; and (3) the extent to which teachers are more capable

of discerning when and how to engage in more productive forms of control without interfering


unduly with students’ participatory experiences. The latter suggestion may include research into

how teachers act and react during chaordic classroom activities. Such research would assist in

illuminating the kinds of management deficits and strengths teachers have that relate to their

ability to be successful with activities like simulations. The findings of such research would help

to nuance the current understandings regarding teaching and control, and may well have

implications for how we train social studies teachers to teach in more powerful ways.


REFERENCES

Achinstein, B., & Barrett, A. (2004). (Re)framing classroom contexts: How new teachers and

mentors view diverse learners and challenges of practice. Teachers College Record, 106(4),

716-746. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00356.x

Adler, S. (2008). The education of social studies teachers. In L. S. Levstik & C. A. Tyson (Eds.),

Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 329-351). New York, NY: Routledge.

Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Armaline, W.T. (2009). Thoughts on anarchist pedagogy and epistemology. In R. Amster, A.

DeLeon, L.A. Fernandez, A.J. Nocella, & D. Shannon (Eds.). Contemporary anarchist

studies: An introductory anthology of anarchy in the academy. London, UK: Routledge

Arnold, T. (1998). Make your history class hop with excitement (at least once a semester):

Designing and using classroom simulations. History Teacher, 31(2), 193-204.

Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2004). Teaching history for the common good, Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Barton, K. C., & Levstik, L. S. (2010). Why don’t more history teachers engage students in

interpretation? In W. C. Parker (Ed.), Social studies today: Research & practice (pp. 35-42).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Blaga, J. J. (1978). A study of teachers' perceptions and utilization of simulations in public

secondary social studies classrooms in Ohio. (Doctoral dissertation). doi: 7902076

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press.

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the

contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books.


Bredemeier, M. E., & Greenblat, C. S. (1981). The educational effectiveness of simulation

games. Simulation and Games, 12(3), 307-332.

Brooks, S. (2014). Connecting the past to the present in the middle-level classroom: A

comparative case study. Theory and Research in Social Education, 42(1), 65-95. doi:

10.1080/00933104.2013.860068

Brown, E. R. (2003). Freedom for some, discipline for “others.” In K. J. Saltman, & D. A.

Gabbard (Eds.), Education as enforcement: The militarization and corporatization of

schools (pp. 127-151). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Butler, J. T. (1988). Games and simulations: Creative educational alternatives. Techtrends, 33(4),

20-23.

Buzzelli, C. A., & Johnston, B. (2001). Authority, power, and morality in classroom discourse.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 873-884. doi: 10.1016/S0742-051X(01)00037-3

Buzzelli, C. A., & Johnston, B. (2002). The moral dimensions of teaching: Language, power and

culture in classroom interactions. New York, NY: Routledge.

Chang, S. (2007). Externalising students' mental models through concept maps. Journal of

Biological Education, 41(3), 107-112.

Chin, J., Dukes, R., & Gamson, W. (2009). Assessment in simulation and gaming: A review of

the last 40 years. Simulation & Gaming, 40(4), 553-568.

Chomsky, N. (2003). The function of schools: Subtler and cruder methods of control. In K. J.

Saltman & D. A. Gabbard (Eds.), Education as enforcement: The militarization and

corporatization of schools (pp. 25-36). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Colella, V. (2000). Participatory simulations: Building collaborative understanding through

immersive dynamic modeling. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 371-500.


Cornbleth, C. (2010). What constrains meaningful social studies teaching? In W. C. Parker (Ed.),

Social studies today: Research & practice (pp. 215-223). New York, NY: Routledge.

Crawford, T. (2008). Winning the epistemological struggle: Constructing a cultural model of

shared authority in an elementary classroom. Teachers College Record, 110(8), 1706-1736.

Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (3rd

ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into

Practice, 39(3), 124-130.

Crookall, D. (2010). Serious games, debriefing, and simulation/gaming as a discipline.

Simulation & Gaming, 41(6), 898-920.

Cuban, L. (1986). Persistent instruction: Another look at constancy in the classroom. Phi Delta

Kappan, 68(1), 7-11.

Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms, 1890-

1990. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

DeLeon, A. P. (2008). Are we simulating the status quo? Ideology and social studies simulations.

Theory and Research in Social Education, 36(3), 256-277.

Denzin, N. K. (2009). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods.

Piscataway, NJ: Transaction publishers.

Dewey, J. (1997 [1938]). Experience and education. New York, NY: Touchstone.

DiCamillo, L., & Gradwell, J. M. (2012). Using simulations to teach middle grades US history in

an age of accountability. RMLE Online, 35(7), 1-16.


DiCamillo, L. & Gradwell, J. (2013). To simulate or not to simulate? Investigating myths about

social studies simulations. The Social Studies, 104 (2013): 155-160. doi:

10.1080/00377996.2012.716094

Dunleavy, M., Dede, C., & Mitchell, R. (2009). Affordances and limitations of immersive

participatory augmented reality simulations for teaching and learning. Journal of Science

Education and Technology, 18(1), 7-22.

Else, L. (2006). An unforgettable lesson. New Scientist, 192(2581), 52.

Eshel, Y., & Kohavi, R. (2003). Perceived classroom control, self-regulated learning strategies,

and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 249-260.

Fehn, B., & Koeppen, K. E. (1998). Intensive document-based instruction in a social studies

methods course and student teachers' attitudes and practice in subsequent field experiences.

Theory & Research in Social Education, 26(4), 461-484.

Fogo,B.(2014). Core practices for teaching history:The results of a Delphi panel survey. Theory

and Research in Social Education, 42(2), 151–196, http://dx.

doi.org/10.1080/00933104.2014.902781.

Gabbard, D. A. (2003). Education is enforcement! The centrality of compulsory schooling in

market societies. In K. J. Saltman & D. A. Gabbard (Eds.), Education as enforcement: The

militarization and corporatization of schools (pp. 61-78). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Ganzler, L. M. (2010). Simulated citizen: How students experienced a semester length legislative

simulation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.


Gee, J. P. (2009). Video games, learning, and “content”. In C.T. Miller (Ed.), Games: Purpose

and potential in education (pp. 43-53). New York, NY: Springer Science+Business Media.

doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-09776-6_3.

Geertz, C. (Ed.). (1973). The interpretation of culture: Selected essays. New York, NY: Basic

Books.

Gehlbach, H. (2011). Making social studies social: Engaging students through different forms of

social perspective taking. Theory into Practice, 50(4), 311-318. doi:

10.1080/00405841.2011.607394

Gehlbach, H., Brown, S. W., Ioannou, A., Boyer, M. A., Hudson, N., Niv-Solomon, A., … &

Janik, L. (2008). Increasing interest in social studies: Social perspective taking and self-

efficacy in stimulating simulations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33(4), 894-914.

doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.11.002

Gillespie, J. A. (1973). Designing simulation/games in social studies: The game doesn't end with

winning. Viewpoints, 49(6), 21-27.

Gilley, J. W. (2004). Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction. In M. W.

Galbraith (Ed.), Adult learning methods: A guide for effective instruction (3rd ed., pp. 361-

381). Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing.

Giroux, H. (2010). Teachers as transformative intellectuals. In A. S. Canestrari & B. A. Marlowe

(Eds.), Educational foundations: An anthology of critical readings (2nd ed., pp. 197-204).

Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Adeline.


Glavin, R. (2008). Developing your teaching role in a simulation center. In R. H. Riley (Ed.),

Manual of simulation in healthcare (pp. 115-124). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers. New York, NY: Longman.

Grant, S. G. (2010). High-stakes testing: How are social studies teachers responding? In W. C.

Parker (Ed.), Social studies today: Research & practice (pp. 43-52). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Grant, S. G., & Gradwell, J. M. (Eds.). (2010). Teaching history with big ideas. Lanham, MD:

Rowman & Littlefield Education.

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging

confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative

research (3rd ed., pp. 191-216). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Ioannou, A., Brown, S. W., Hannafin, R. D., & Boyer, M. A. (2009). Can multimedia make kids

care about social studies? the GlobalEd problem-based learning simulation. Computers in

the Schools, 26(1), 63-81.

Johnson, P. R., Boyer, M. A., & Brown, S. W. (2011). Vital interests: Cultivating global

competence in the international studies classroom. Globalisation, Societies and Education,

9(3-4), 503-519.

Johnson, V. G. (1994). Student teachers' conceptions of classroom control. Journal of

Educational Research, 88(2), 109-17.

Kaufman, D., & Moss, D. (2010). A new look at preservice teachers' conceptions of classroom

management and organization: Uncovering complexity and dissonance. Teacher Educator,

45(2), 118-136.


Kiany, G. R., & Shayestefar, P. (2011). High school students' perceptions of EFL teacher control

orientations and their English academic achievement. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 81(3), 491-508.

Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.

Lamb, T. E. (2012). Fragile identities: Exploring learner identity, learner autonomy and

motivation through young learners' voices. Canadian Journal of Applied Linguistics/Revue

Canadienne de Linguistique Appliquée,14(2), 68-85.

Lefstein, A. (2002). Thinking power and pedagogy apart—Coping with discipline in

progressivist school reform. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1627-1655.

Leigh, E., & Spindler, L. (2004). Simulations and games as chaordic learning contexts.

Simulation & Gaming, 35(1), 53-69. doi:10.1177/1046878103252886.

LePage, P., Darling-Hammond, L., Akar, H., Gutierrez, C., Jenkins-Gunn, E., & Rosebrock, K.

(2005). Classroom management. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing

teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 327-357).

San Francisco: CA: Jossey-Bass.

Levstik, L. S. (2008). What happens in social studies classrooms: Research on k–12 social

studies practice. In L. S. Levstik and C. A. Tyson (Eds). Handbook of research in social

studies education (pp. 50-62). New York, NY: Routledge.

Levstik, L. S, & C. A. Tyson (2008). Introduction. In L. S. Levstik and C. A. Tyson (Eds.),

Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Routledge.

Lipman, P. (2003). Cracking down: Chicago school policy and the regulation of black and Latino

youth. In K. J. Saltman & D. A. Gabbard (Eds.), Education as enforcement: The


militarization and corporatization of schools (pp. 81-101). New York, NY:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press.

Maitles, H., & McKelvie, E. (2010). "Why does wearing a yellow bib make us different?”: A

case study of explaining discrimination in a west of Scotland secondary (high) school.

Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 8(1), 245-261.

McLaren, P. (2003). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of

education (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

McNeil, L. M. (1982). Defensive teaching and classroom control (Report) Washington DC:

National Institute of Education. Retrieved from Eric database. (ED221958).

McNeil, L. M. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New

York, NY: Routledge.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.).

San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A source book of new methods

(2nd ed.). London, UK: Sage.

Milson, A. J., & King, K. P. (2001). Investigating science-technology-society issues with

prospective elementary school teachers. The International Social Studies Forum, 1(2), 77-

87.


National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (1994). Expectations of excellence: curriculum

standards for social studies. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.socialstudies.org/standards/foreword

National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS). (2008). A vision of powerful teaching and

learning in the social studies: building social understanding and civic efficacy: A position

statement of national council for the social studies. Retrieved from

http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/powerful

Nietzsche, F. (2008). Thus spake zarathustra: A book for all and none (Trans. Thomas Common).

Retrieved from http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm

Niv-Solomon, A., Janik, L. L., Boyer, M. A., Hudson, N., Urlacher, B., Brown, S. W., …&

Maneggia, D. (2011). Evolving beyond self-interest? Some experimental findings from

simulated international negotiations. Simulation & Gaming, 42(6), 711-732. doi:

10.1177/1046878109341764

Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct

and use them. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition Pensacola Fl. Retrieved

from http://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/

theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.htm.

Nye, J. S., Jr. (1990). Soft power. Foreign Policy, 80, 153-171.

Pace, J. L. (2006). Saving (and losing) face, race, and authority: Strategies of action in a 9th

grade

English class. In J. L. Pace & A. Hemmings (Eds.), Classroom authority: Theory, research,

and practice (pp.87-112). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

http://www.socialstudies.org/standards/foreword

http://www.socialstudies.org/positions/powerful

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1998/1998-h/1998-h.htm

http://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.htm

http://cmap.ihmc.us/publications/researchpapers/theorycmaps/theoryunderlyingconceptmaps.htm


Pace. J. L. (2010). Studying authority in a secondary teacher education class. In E. E. Heilman,

R. F. Amthor, & M. T. Missias (Eds.), Social studies and diversity education (pp. 57-62).

New York, NY: Routledge.

Pace, J. L., & Hemmings, A. (2007). Understanding authority in classrooms: A review of theory,

ideology, and research. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 4-27.

Parker, W., Mosborg, S., Bransford, J., Vye, N., Wilkerson, J., & Abbott, R. (2011). Rethinking

advanced high school coursework: Tackling the depth/breadth tension in the AP U.S.

government and politics course. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 43(4), 533-559.

Parker, W. C., Lo, J., Yeo, A. J., Valencia, S. W., Nguyen, D., Abbott, R. D., ... & Vye, N. J.

(2013). Beyond breadth-speed-test toward deeper knowing and engagement in an advanced

placement course. American Educational Research Journal, 50(6), pp. 1424-1459. doi:

10.3102/0002831213504237

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Robert, H. M., Robert, S. C., Evans, W. J., Honemann, D. H., & Balch, T. J. (2011). Robert's

rules of order: Newly revised (11th

ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Da Capo Press.

Ross, E. W. (2010). Exploring Taylorism and its continued influence on work and schooling. In

E. E. Heilman, R. F. Amthor, & M. T. Missias (Eds.), Social studies and diversity education

(pp. 33-37). New York, NY: Routledge.

Ruona, W.E.A. (2005). Analyzing qualitative data. In R.A. Swanson & E.F. Holton (Eds.),

Research in organizations: Foundations and methods of inquiry. San Francisco, CA:

Berrett-Koehler Publishers.


Russell, W. B. (2010). Teaching social studies in the 21st century: A research study of secondary

social studies teachers' instructional methods and practices. Action in Teacher Education,

32(1), 65-72.

Saltman, K. J. (2003). Introduction. In K. J. Saltman & D. A. Gabbard (Eds.), Education as

enforcement: The militarization and corporatization of schools (pp. 1-23). New York, NY:

RoutledgeFalmer.

Schatzki, T. R. (1996). Social practices: A Wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the

social. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Schweber, S. A. (2003). Simulating survival. Curriculum Inquiry, 33(2), 139-188.

Schweber, S. A. (2004). Making sense of the Holocaust: Lessons from classroom practice. New

York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Seidman, I. E. (2006). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education

and the social sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Smith, E. T., & Boyer, M. A. (1996). Designing in-class simulations. PS: Political Science and

Politics, 29(4), 690-694.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures

and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data.

American Journal of Evaluation 27, 237-246.

Thornton, S. J. (2008). Continuity and change in the social studies curriculum. In L. S Levstik

and C. A. Tyson (Eds.), Handbook of research in social studies education (pp. 33-49). New

York, NY: Routledge.


Vinson, K. D., & Ross, E. W. (2003). Controlling images: The power of high-stakes testing. In

K. J. Saltman & D. A. Gabbard (Eds.), Education as enforcement: The militarization and

corporatization of schools (pp. 241-257). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.

Watzke, J. L. (2007). Foreign language pedagogical knowledge: Toward a developmental theory

of beginning teacher practices. Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 63-82.

Wilensky, U., & Stroup, W. (1999). Learning through participatory simulations: Network-based

design for systems learning in classrooms. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings

of the Computer Supported Collaborative Learning Conference (pp. 667-676). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,.

Williams, R. H., & Williams, A. J. (2007). In pursuit of peace: Attitudinal and behavioral change

with simulations and multiple identification theory. Simulation & Gaming, 38(4), 453-471.

Yeager, E. A., & Davis, O. L. (Eds.). (2005). Wise social studies teaching in an age of high-

stakes testing. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Young, M. F., Slota, S. T., & Lai, B. (2012). Comments on "Reflections on 'a review of trends

in serious gaming'". Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 296-299.


APPENDIX

Data Collection Protocols

Interview Protocol #1

1. Tell me about the context of where you teach.

2. What are your teaching responsibilities here at _________ high school.

3. Tell me about the students in the class(es) you teach in which you use simulations.

4. In thinking about high school social studies, how would you describe your philosophy of

teaching?

5. In your view, what is the purpose of social studies?

6. Thinking about your ideals, what does good teaching look like?

7. How do you think students learn social studies best?

8. What is your ideal role as the teacher of a social studies classroom?

9. Tell me about the first time you remember being a part of a simulation (either as the

teacher or as a student)?

a. What do you remember about it?

b. What stands out in your memory?

10. What initially motivated you to start using simulations in your curriculum?

11. How often do you use simulations in your classes?

12. What simulations do you use in your classes?

13. Tell me about a simulation that you are going to have me observe. Please describe for me

how the simulation works. Walk me through it.

14. How did you come across this simulation?

15. How did you first decide to use this simulation in your classes?

16. What do you remember about the first time you used this simulation in your classroom?

17. As teachers we know that there are plenty of teaching strategies we may choose from,

why did you choose this teaching strategy over others you might have chosen?

18. How does this simulation fit within the larger unit you are teaching?

19. How much preparation do your students receive from you prior to starting the

simulation?

20. What happens once the simulation itself is complete? How do you move forward from

there?

21. What role, or roles, do students play during this simulation?

22. When I come in to observe your simulation, what are some key things you think I will

notice about what is going on in your classroom?

23. What is it about this simulation that makes you want to continue using it?

24. Our next interview will give you the opportunity to think about simulations more broadly

following my observation of the simulation. During the interview I will ask you to

comment on some of the promises and pitfalls you see are possible with this simulation,


so I want you to make a note (mentally or in writing) about those while you are going

through the process of the simulation.

25. Is there anything else you would like to say about the topics we’ve discussed today that I

haven’t given you a chance to express? Or, questions you would like to ask?


I want to let you know how appreciative I am to have seen the ____________ simulation in

action. I am eager to talk to you about it further today. The focus of today’s interview will be

for you to discuss the _________ simulation with me, both in terms of what you experienced

today and what you have experienced in past years or classes.

1. I want you to imagine we are at a cocktail party. You’ve just finished telling me what the

simulation is about. And I ask you, “what are you thinking about while you’re guiding

students throughout this whole process?”

2. Tell me about a few key moments during the process that exemplifies why you use this

simulation.

3. What aspect(s) of this process do you find most challenging?

4. How do you attempt to deal with the challenges you’ve described?

5. Have these challenges changed over the time that you’ve been using the simulation?

a. If so, what helped you to overcome your previous challenges?

6. What do you think your students get out of participating in this simulation?

7. As teachers we are in a position to see evidence of learning. What do you think students

are learning during this simulation?

8. Can you describe for me what you see or do that lets you know that learning is occurring?

9. What is it about this simulation that allows the learning you have just described to occur?

10. If I weren’t a researcher, but your superintendent coming in to observe a simulation in

your classroom, what compelling evidence would I be likely to observe that would

demonstrate to me that simulations are valuable teaching tools?

11. On the other hand, what evidence might I observe that could make me question the value

of simulations as teaching tools?

12. Tell me about your role during this simulation. Why have you chosen to take on this

particular role?

13. What changes or modifications (if any) have you made to this simulation in order to

make it more effective?

a. Why did you think you needed to make these changes?

b. Why do you think this helped make it more effective?

14. What aspects of your context here at _______________ school did you need to consider

as you were thinking about implementing this simulation?

15. Are there elements of the simulation that you haven’t yet nailed down that you’re still

trying to tweak to make them work more effectively?


16. Is there an “Aha!” moment (or multiple ahas) for students that come about as a result of

this simulation?

17. Tell me about your most memorable moment with this simulation.

18. We’ve talked a little about what it is about the ________________ simulation that keeps

you returning to it related to today’s experience. I was wondering if there is anything

more you would like to say about it in light of your whole experience with this

simulation?

19. Moving on to the next simulation you are going to have me observe, please tell me about

the simulation. Please describe for me how the simulation works. Walk me through it.

20. How did you come across this simulation?

21. How did you first decide to use this simulation in your classes?

22. What do you remember about the first time you used this simulation in your classroom?

23. As teachers we know that there are plenty of teaching strategies we may choose from,

why did you choose this teaching strategy over others you might have chosen?

24. How does this simulation fit within the larger unit you are teaching?

25. How much preparation do your students receive from you prior to starting the

simulation?

26. What happens once the simulation itself is complete? How do you move forward from

there?

27. What role, or roles, do students play during this simulation?

28. When I come in to observe your simulation, what are some key things you think I will

notice about what is going on in your classroom?

29. What is it about this simulation that makes you want to continue using it?

30. Is there anything else you would like to say about the topics we’ve discussed today that I

haven’t given you a chance to express? Or, questions you would like to ask?


Last time we talked about how you use the ____________________ simulation. Today I’d like

to give you the opportunity to think more reflectively about simulations. We’ll begin by talking

about your vision of practice and then lead into the interview itself. I would like to ask you to

talk to me about your vision of practice.

1. Now that you have completed your concept vision of practice, is there anything that

stands out to you as the core elements?

2. On a scale of 1-10 (ten being your ideal) how close are you to your ideal vision of your

practice right now? – Say More.

3. On a scale of 1-10 (ten being your ideal) how close were you to your ideal vision of your

practice when you first used this simulation?

a. What changed in your practice that allowed you to get closer to your ideal?


4. What barriers do you see in front of you that are currently keeping you from reaching

your ideal?

5. If you have complete control over all aspects of your teaching (the school, the

curriculum, the rules, everything) what would be different?

Now I would like to ask you to create a mind map that visually depicts how you would ideally

like to be able to use simulations in your curriculum. <Provide participant with the instruction

sheet>

6. If you were advising a student teacher, or mentoring a new teacher, what would you

emphasize as the most important thing they should know about teaching with

simulations?

7. What aspect of simulations do you think a new teacher is most likely to get frustrated by?

8. New teachers can sometimes be turned off by challenging pedagogies like simulations.

What advice would you have for a teacher who was unsure about using them in their

classroom?

9. What has helped you to become more successful with using simulations over the years

that you’ve been using them?

10. What is it about simulations that leads you to continue using them in your class?

11. In addition to what you’ve just mentioned, are there any other advantages to teaching

with simulations that you’d like to add?

12. On the other hand, what are some downsides connected with using simulations?

13. Some recent research suggests that relatively few social studies teachers use simulations

in their classes. Why do you think that is?

14. If you had the opportunity to speak to teachers who don’t use simulations, what might

you say to them?

15. Now thinking back on the concept map that we’ve been discussing, are there any final

comments you would like to make about its contents, or concluding statements you want

me to walk away with.

16. This brings us to the end of my questions. Is there anything you would have liked me to

ask you about that I didn’t give you the chance to talk about?

17. Do you have any questions for me at this time?

Vision of Practice Statement Instructions

A vision of practice is a statement that is used to represent a teachers’ mental picture of their

ideal practice, or what masterful practice looks like. This is not meant to be a statement that is so

idealistic that it can never be reached. On the contrary a vision of practice is a realistic ideal that

a person could strive towards and conceivably put into action in the future. There is no one right


or correct vision; a vision of practice is as unique as the person creating it and should be true to

their own mental conception of his/her ideal.

What I would like for you to do is to create your own personal vision of practice.

In your vision please discuss:

1. Your ideal role as the teacher

2. What your ideal for teaching and learning in your classroom looks like

3. What obstacles you need to overcome to get to your ideal

4. What supports you have in your professional life that may help you reach your ideal

Your vision statement can be as long as you need it to be. I would ask that you please provide

plenty of detail, explanations, and examples that you feel would help me to understand your

vision clearly. (To this end, it is also okay to add explanatory footnotes or quotes or anything

else you think will help clarify your ideas for me).

Concept Map Instructions

Using the whiteboard, please create a concept map of your own design. There is no one correct

format; rather the intent of this exercise is for me to better understand your thinking on this topic

and to more accurately represent your views. As we discussed previously I will video tape your

creation of the concept map while you talk me through it so that I can more accurately represent

your ideas.

1) I would like for you to begin with one central category:

My ideal vision of my practice with simulations

2) After writing this phrase on the board, I would like you to draw any and all concepts that you

think about which are connected to it. Please include any sub-components or related ideas you

feel are essential in order to communicate your thinking in this visual format.

3) While you are constructing this concept map, I would like you to conduct a think-aloud. In

other words, please tell me what you are thinking as you work your way through it.

4) You will also have the opportunity to comment on your finished product at the end of our

discussion. That way if there are connections you worry I may not understand, you will be able

to elaborate at that time.

5) You may rearrange elements of your concept map at any point during the process.


Peer-Led Group Interview Guidelines

Thank you for your willingness to participate in this group interview session. This will

be an opportunity for you to ask some teachers who have experience using simulations questions

about their practice, including the promises and challenges they face.

Format:

During the group interview, you (the peer-interviewer) will be asking questions of the

participants about their experiences with and beliefs about simulations. I will only be listening to

the conversation and recording who is speaking. When you ask a question of the participants,

they will each have the opportunity to answer if they choose to do so. Prior to the interview, I

will have you prepare 10-15 questions that you would like to ask the participants. I will screen

these questions in advance of the group interview and I may cut some because they may not

serve the purposes of the study (see below) may be asked by another participant, or I may add a

question that I would like you to ask of the participants. Below are some guidelines that will

help you to develop questions that are in line with the research.

Questions to Avoid:

Please avoid questions having to do with classroom tactics. These would include

questions about how they implement a simulation, what they hand out to students, or how they

assess the simulation. Given that this study is focused on bigger picture issues related to

teachers’ use of simulations I would encourage you to ask questions that are more targeted for

those ends.

Questions to Ask:

Instead ask questions that are related to issues of their professional practice that you think

will help you to think more broadly about simulations so that you could be successful using any

simulation, or to design your own, such as what the participants think are the key components of

successful social studies practice with simulations. Also questions relating to what aspects of

their practice and context have helped or hindered their success that you may want to be aware of

for your own practice. Finally, one facet of this study is looking at teacher motivation and

visions of ideal practice. Questions that relate to these topics are encouraged. Other big picture

questions that stray from these guidelines are strongly encouraged

Please have a list of 10-15 questions you would like to ask prepared at least one week in

advance for me to review. Additionally, please put them in order of most to least important, as it

is possible you may not have the opportunity to ask participants all of the questions.


Final Peer-Interviewer Questions

Darren’s Questions:

1. What inspired you to start using simulations in your practices?

2. Which do you find to be a bigger take away for students: The direct learning (like content)

from a simulation, or the indirect learning (like critical thinking, problem solving,

leadership skills, research collaboration, etc.) that students engage in while doing

simulations?

3. Has your teaching style changed over time?

a. How are simulations part of that professional growth?

4. How do you revise your simulations over time?

5. I want to know how to create an authentic simulation, so I want to know: How do you

create a simulation that is open ended, yet realistic?

a. Are there elements or specific patterns that you use to identify or create

simulations?

6. What advice would you have for me, as a new teacher who is interested in simulations that

might not occur to me before I try using a simulation for the first time?

If there is time:

7. What is your experience with using pre-designed simulations versus simulations you

created yourself?

8. What resources do you recommend for me to find or create a simulation?

9. Is technology a large part of the simulations you use? Are they pre-packaged? How has

technology’s presence changed your planning of simulations?

Kate’s Questions:

1. What is it about simulations that makes it worth all of the effort to create and use them?

2. When designing simulations how do you incorporate student accountability as a facet of

the simulation?

3. How do you teach the procedures that accompany the simulations? Is this something that

is addressed at the beginning of the year or is it something that is more specific to each

simulation?

4. To what extent can you effectively assess student learning with simulations alone without

any additional tools?

a. Do you use additional different assignments that cover the information in the

simulation in different formats?

5. What kinds of topics do you think lend themselves best to simulations?

6. Do you believe it would be possible to organize an entire course around simulations (for

example, use them as a keystone for different topics)?


a. If so: What would you have to consider before implementing this course

b. If not: Why not?

7. How effectively do simulations address historical empathy with students?

8. Do students seem to embrace their roles when they are obligated to act in the way that

their character did/ does?

a. Do they embrace this role more if they are given a historical script to follow?

If there is time:

9. What are your thoughts on multiple teachers taking part in simulations and having classes

compete or work with each other?

Scott’s Questions:

1. How much of a consideration is how you will cover the content when you’re deciding

whether to use a simulation?

2. In your experience what has been the main downfall of using classroom simulations? If

they failed what was it that made them unsuccessful?

3. Has your motivation for using simulations changed over time?

4. Because of testing pressures, many schools are requiring more traditional teaching. What

would you say to someone who suggests that this is not the right time to be using

simulations?

5. In your experience, what is the most effective way to introduce simulations into the

classroom in order to make students interested while also keeping them focused?

6. What has been the most consistent trouble with classroom simulations in the planning,

execution, and reflection stages?

7. If you could choose one item (a general practice, tool, or trait in the teacher) that is the

most necessary to the successful implementation of simulations in the classroom what

would it be and why?

If there is time:

8. Do you think it is possible for the students to be too excited about the content?

9. How much time do you devote to planning the different aspects a simulation?

10. What made you interested in using simulations in your classroom?

11. What kind of outside resources do you like to use when creating simulations?

On “Stepping Back and Letting Go”: The Role of Control in the Success or Failure of Social...

Documents

Transcript of On “Stepping Back and Letting Go”: The Role of Control in the Success or Failure of Social...