Simulation Story: Baltic Security Crisis

Baltic Security Crisis

Why I use this simulation:

I chose Baltic Security Crisis because it presented my Moldovan students with an opportunity to explore some of the intense and complex issues surrounding ethnic identity, language use, geopolitical conflict, and public policy making in the context of another former Soviet Republic whose identity politics echo, but are nonetheless different from, those here in the Republic of Moldova.

How ICONS connects with my course:

This first-year course in the Master in International Relations program in the Faculty of International Relations at the State University of Moldova introduces students to the core terms and concepts related to multiculturalism and globalization, then becomes progressively more in-depth and complex as students explore the variety of meanings of “multiculturalism” and “globalization” and the debates surrounding both, including their inter-linkages. The simulation was the ideal culmination for such a course, and also a highly unusual activity in an education environment that is still so very rooted in traditional sage-on-a-stage “delivery” of information.

It should be noted, though, that I took the simulation beyond my course and involved also students in the undergraduate American Studies and International Relations majors at the university, as well as students in the Diplomatic Translation major at another university: the International Relations Institute of Moldova. All together, we had both masters and undergraduate students working on joint teams, representing 4 different programs at 2 different universities, 30 students in total. We also had a facilitator from each program present at the Saturday event. The fees were supported by a small grant from the US Embassy in Chisinau.

Time I allot to each phase of the simulation (preparation, online negotiation, debrief):

I allotted:

• 1 ½ hours of in-class preparation (including introducing the simulation interface and scenario),
• 3 hours for online negotiation (which was done in person with each team occupying a different classroom and working together),
• 1 hour for debrief, and
• In-class final presentations of 15 minutes each in which student teams analyzed the scenario and connected it directly to class themes.

Instructor and student roles during the simulation:

As facilitators, our role was to set up and kick off the live negotiation, which happened in real time, all together in a single university building that we took over for half of a Saturday. None of the other facilitators had ever participated in a simulation of any kind, let alone an online one, so it served also as a capacity-building activity for Moldovan faculty. We managed challenges as they arose, determined the pacing of the injects, and determined when the negotiations were closed. I led the de-brief afterwards.

The simulation was simultaneously conducted in 3 languages — English, Romanian, and Russian — which was fitting since the crisis in the simulation centered on language minorities. Correspondence was in English, written by a dedicated scribe — the strongest English speaker on each team — but the vast majority of the teams’ internal discussions were in Romanian or Russian or both. It was an intense afternoon!

Learning objectives and assessment:

Objectives:

1. At the end of the simulation, students were expected to be able to:
   • Employ diplomatic language--in English--in working through real-world problems.
   • Discuss the roles of states in managing globalization and the dynamics of multicultural societies.
   • Articulate ways in which globalization and multiculturalism manifest and what the effects of these are.
   • Have a greater understanding of the dynamics of crisis negotiation and management.
   • Strengthen cognitive, intrapersonal, and interpersonal skills.
2. Faculty will be able to:
   • Incorporate new forms of active learning into courses.
   • Challenge students to build critical thinking, teamwork, and negotiation skills.
   • Develop students’ professional writing capacity.

My advice for instructors preparing to participate in an ICONS simulation for the first time:

• Read through all of the material carefully, including all of the role sheets.
• Familiarize yourself with how the interface works, including by logging in as another role so you can see how it looks for your participants (which is different from how it looks for SimCon). Give ample time in class for students to ask questions and maybe even play around with the interface a bit.
• Choose your sim carefully — some require research out of class (a lot of it!) and significant background knowledge; some provide most everything you need inside the sim itself. These must be planned and run very differently. Some can also handle considerably more participants than others. ICONS staff is great at helping you select the best sim for your needs.
• I also recommend, if possible, running the sim in real time with all the players together (ideally not all teams located in the same room, but all members of a particular team should be in the same room) so that texting is not the only way for team members to communicate with each other. It will feel faster paced, more urgent, and more exciting this way. You can also run it over more than one day and lock down the sim in between and allow only for back-channel talks (or none) between sim days.

Final Thoughts:

This is my 3rd or 4th ICONS sim and the first time I’ve done it with students from another country (in my regular life I’m a University of Maryland professor), especially students who have never been exposed to these before. It was just as fun, just as intense, and we all learned just as much. Thanks, ICONS!

Do you have a story to share about how you incorporated an ICONS simulation into your instruction? ICONS would like to post it in this special section of our website. Please email us at icons@umd.edu or call us at (301) 405-4172 to participate.