 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
International Negotiation Seminars
Purpose
The first two years of college are a risky time for students, especially at large research universities. There, many freshmen and sophomores wander aimlessly from one large lecture course to another, rarely able to engage intellectually either their peers or their instructors or to understand the relationship between curriculum requirements and the process of becoming educated. Bored and discouraged, too many drop out before their collegiate experience becomes meaningful.
The plight of these students motivated the creation of the International Negotiation Seminars model. This initiative was launched by the International Communication and Negotiation Simulation (ICONS) project, which has been teaching students to negotiate via multisite computer-assisted simulations since the early 1980s. On the University of Maryland campus, ICONS had previously been relegated to upper-division political science seminars, where it had been shown to greatly enhance the undergraduate experience of social science students. The seminars project brought this mode of interactive learning to lower-division undergraduates, through the creation of a new course, "Introduction to International Negotiation." Key aspects of the model were adapted to courses at other participant universities as well.
During five semesters, more than 400 University of Maryland students and 800 students elsewhere in the United States and in Europe took part in the "New Europe Simulation." In Maryland, participating institutions included the University of Maryland-College Park, and Frostburg State and Morgan State Universities. The Cooper Union in New York, James Madison University in Virginia, and Whittier College in California also took part in the simulations. The European partners included the American University of Bulgaria; Budapest University of Economic Sciences and Eotvos Lorand University, Hungary; Novosibirsk State University, Russia; Jyvaskyla Technical University, Finland; and the University of Warsaw, Poland.
Innovative Features
The new negotiation course transformed the passive, large lecture situation into a dynamic experience for fewer students. The resulting cross-disciplinary course combined lectures with small-group seminars and emphasized collaborative decision-making, cross-cultural experience, and introduction to technology via synchronous and asynchronous electronic communication with students in other universities in Europe and the United States.
The weekly discussion section, which usually complements lectures in large introductory classes, was used instead to prepare students for the "New Europe Simulation," based on scenarios focusing on ethnic, security, economic, and environmental issues. Each section of about 16 students was assigned to represent a European country, and with the help of a graduate assistant the students researched the issues, formulated policy, and negotiated with teams representing other countries. The cross-disciplinary aspects of the course were addressed by faculty guest lecturers and graduate assistants from other departments, such as economics and environmental sciences.
Evaluation and Project Impact
Project staff collected data from 185 University of Maryland students early and late during four semesters. Evaluation instruments included "concept maps" and pre- and post-questionnaires. Evaluators used concept maps on the topic of migration in Europe to learn about students' prior knowledge, and subsequent changes in and reorganization of that knowledge. The maps showed that early in the semester students concentrated on why people leave their home countries, whereas in the cognitive maps from the end of the semester attention shifted to more complex questions of reception in the host country and continuing relations with the country of origin. Late maps show heightened awareness of the interplay of domestic and foreign policy and economic and political issues at global, national, and regional levels.
Students were also asked to elaborate on questions about economic strength, European Union expansion, and environmental standards. The difference in quality of elaboration between early and late in the semester reached significance for EU expansion and environmental standards but not for economic strength. Late responses tended toward greater sophistication and revealed awareness of the interrelatedness of problems and issues. On certain factual questions, such as "Is your country a member of the EU?" correct responses went from 25.3 percent early in the semester to 88.5 percent late in the semester. Other questions were harder to code as right or wrong, but students did show more knowledge of their assigned country late in the semester.
Asked how they felt about various aspects of the course, students generally said that their knowledge of economics, politics, and the environment had increased during the semester. Regarding students' reactions to the course as a whole, on a 7-point scale the mean for "interested" ranged from 5.5 in the lowest semester to 5.8 in the highest. The mean for "challenged" ranged from 5.2 to 5.3. The mean for "identified with country" ranged from 5.1 to 5.6.
Two queries-"The course helped me to learn to think creatively" and "The instructor encouraged knowledge sharing"- matched questions on the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences course survey. The International Negotiation Seminars received ratings of, respectively, 4.0 and 4.16 on a 1-5 scale on these items, as opposed to mean ratings of 3.7 and 3.9 for all courses in the college. A 1996 evaluation of courses meeting the Distributive Studies Requirement in Behavioral and Social Sciences included a question about the course's ability to elicit active involvement in learning. On this item, International Negotiation Seminars received an average rating of 4.26 on a five-point scale, as compared to a mean of 3.37 for the other courses surveyed.
Concerning their work in country teams, students said that they were cognitively engaged, tried to make sure everyone participated, and listened to others. There appeared to be a significant correlation between high involvement in the course and self-reported learning from the policy position paper, online conferences, and e-mail exchanges.
Assessment of the innovative features of the project early-on revealed a number of weak spots. As with most active learning models, some students were prone to marginalization in the classroom. Once participant faculty were alerted to this, they responded by developing a syllabus that clearly outlined expectations-including quizzes and writing assignments-on a weekly basis. Some students were uncomfortable with the grades they received for group research and participation. Faculty addressed this problem by giving students a measure of direct responsibility in grading, through formal peer review and self-evaluation.
It also became clear that students were viewing the visits by interdisciplinary guest lecturers as less important than regular lectures. To counter this, project staff set guest faculty to work as mentors with groups of students as they did their research. Despite these efforts, however, the instructors estimated that about 20 percent of the students on each team remained less than optimally engaged.
Project Continuation
Since the grant ended, the Introduction to Negotiation course at the University of Maryland has been offered once a year. Given the absence of external funding now, faculty must rely on "volunteer" guest lecturers and can no longer hire graduate assistants from outside the department to assist with the course. However, the core experience of the course-a small-seminar within a large lecture course-continues. Students rotate between the Europe simulation and another exercise on the Americas.
Dissemination and Recognition
Subsequent to the International Negotiation Seminars Project, ICONS collaborated in the implementation of a FIPSE-funded "Negotiation Modules Project" for community college faculty and students in California. In 1997, ICONS received FIPSE funding for an initiative that is focused on Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Hispanic-Serving Institutions.
In 1994 the Negotiation Seminars project won first place in the Instructional Category of the Maryland Association for Higher Education's Distinguished Program awards. The project has been the subject of a number of articles and presentations, including some by the evaluator.
Available Information
Further information is available from:
Jonathan Wilkenfeld
Brigid Starkey
Project ICONS
Department of Government and Politics
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742
Telephone: 301-405-4172
[University of Connecticut] [Table of Contents] [University of Michigan]
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||
| |
||||||||||||
