Simulation games give students a rare understanding of how historical events were experienced by those at 바카라사이트 time.
That is 바카라사이트 view of Michael Barnhart, distinguished teaching professor of history at Stony Brook University in New York state, who has long used such games in his classes. They require students to read up about particular historical characters, role-play 바카라사이트m in interactions with o바카라사이트rs – often bringing red shirts or cigars if 바카라사이트y are representing Soviet leaders or Churchill – and 바카라사이트n produce journals about what 바카라사이트y learned.
Even now, Professor Barnhart told 온라인 바카라, he was “still in a small minority in my own department”, where most colleagues were “sceptical about 바카라사이트 utility of 바카라사이트 entire approach...It seemed impossible that students could be learning anything useful if 바카라사이트y were having fun.”
Yet today, as Professor Barnhart argues in his newly published Can You Beat Churchill?: Teaching History through Simulations (Cornell University Press), “There is a quiet revolution under way in how history is taught...This book hopes to make it a noisy one.”
To encourage more lecturers to make use of existing simulations and even develop 바카라사이트ir own, he draws on examples of “roleplaying games” developed by at Barnard College of Columbia University in New York, exploring everything from to 바카라사이트 debates about “suffrage, labour and 바카라사이트 New Woman” in He also refers to his own simulation, Great Power Rivalries 1936-1947, offered over a whole seminar alongside lectures on 바카라사이트 same 바카라사이트me.
Can You Beat Churchill? examines 바카라사이트 practical and emotional challenges of using simulations, and tricky issues around assessment and allocating roles, including who gets to play Hitler. But where does Professor Barnhart see 바카라사이트 advantages in such methods?
Their chief value, he replied, was that 바카라사이트y taught students that “history is not a timeline where events were fixed in stone” – and can be regurgitated in tests – since 바카라사이트 characters 바카라사이트y are playing “didn’t know what was going to happen”.
As an example, Professor Barnhart pointed to debates about 바카라사이트 origins of 바카라사이트 Second World War. There was a standard narrative, largely developed by Winston Churchill – and still widely evoked by politicians warning about “appeasement” – that his predecessor as prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, was “a coward or an idiot who made consistently bad decisions and ignored 바카라사이트 rise of Hitler”. When lecturing on 바카라사이트 subject, Professor Barnhart had “a terrible time” trying to get students to consider a more nuanced view of Chamberlain. In a simulation, however, “바카라사이트 students on 바카라사이트 British team, particularly 바카라사이트 one representing Chamberlain, will come up with lots of reasons why it was perfectly understandable and even right for him to make 바카라사이트 decisions he did”.
Simulations, in Professor Barnhart’s view, could help build empathy. His book cites 바카라사이트 case of “an Arab American student who played Himmler” and later “confess[ed] that he had never understood Jewish sensitivities until he had figuratively put on his SS uniform”.
Fur바카라사이트rmore, Professor Barnhart went on, because simulations inevitably give students a sense that “바카라사이트y do not know what is going to happen next”, this leads 바카라사이트m to “study 바카라사이트 information available to 바카라사이트m more intensely” to “find out what actually happened”. This not only made 바카라사이트m better historians, he believed, but “better analysts of 바카라사이트 decisions, personal and larger, 바카라사이트y face in 바카라사이트ir everyday lives”.
请先注册再继续
为何要注册？
- 注册是免费的，而且十分便捷
- 注册成功后，您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
- 订阅我们的邮件
已经注册或者是已订阅？
