Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttps://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=upse20

Journal of Political Science Education

ISSN: 1551-2169 (Print) 1551-2177 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/upse20

Leveraging Size: Congressional Simulations in aLarge Lecture Course

Charles Battaglini, Jose Gomez, Ki Young Kim, James LaBelle, Casey Libonate,Oliver A. McClellan, Carly Roman, Julia Maria Rubio & Michael G. Miller

To cite this article: Charles Battaglini, Jose Gomez, Ki Young Kim, James LaBelle, CaseyLibonate, Oliver A. McClellan, Carly Roman, Julia Maria Rubio & Michael G. Miller (2019):Leveraging Size: Congressional Simulations in a Large Lecture Course, Journal of Political ScienceEducation, DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2019.1676252

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2019.1676252

Published online: 18 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 33

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Leveraging Size: Congressional Simulations in a LargeLecture Course

Charles Battaglini, Jose Gomez, Ki Young Kim, James LaBelle, Casey Libonate,Oliver A. McClellan, Carly Roman, Julia Maria Rubio, and Michael G. Miller

Columbia University

ABSTRACTThe large introductory classes at many universities present a particu-lar challenge for instructors wishing to guarantee participationopportunities for their students. Yet, large courses can actually affordadvantages for instructors looking to replicate many features of theU.S. Congress. We describe two separate Congressional simulationsin an Introduction to American Politics class of more than 300 stu-dents, including simulated committee hearings and markup, as wellas a floor debate. We demonstrate how simulations can be scaled toclasses of almost any size, regardless of whether they include teach-ing assistants.

ARTICLE HISTORYReceived 26 February 2019Accepted 9 September 2019

KEYWORDSSimulation; congress;active learning

Introduction

Simulations have long been part of political science instruction, which is no surprisegiven the interpersonal nature of most political institutions. Indeed, political scienceinstructors have simulated a number of political events in their courses, including cam-paigns (Pappas and Peaden 2004), legislative action (Baranowski 2006), courts(Bengtson and Sifferd 2010; Fliter 2009), and international relations (Asal 2005; Bridgeand Radford 2014; Goon 2011; Hatipoglu, M€uft€uler-Bac and Murphy 2014; Horn,Rubin and Schouenborg 2016). There is good reason to embed these activities intostandard courses, as pre-vious assessments have found that simulations can enhance notonly students’ learning (Frederking 2005; Mariani and Glenn 2014), but can also posi-tively impact other areas such as civic skills (Bernstein 2008) and/or small-group effi-cacy (Mariani and Glenn 2014).That said, not all classes are conducive to embedded simulations. The large introduc-

tory classes at many universities present a particular challenge for instructors wishing toguarantee participation opportunities for their students. If course sizes reach into thehundreds, it is not always clear how one can ensure active involvement in a floor debate,and depending on staffing, assigning students to dozens of committees might be simi-larly infeasible. Indeed, we are aware of no descriptions of legislative simulations con-ducted in a class of more than 100 students, which suggests that many instructors mightrationally conclude that a large class hinders opportunities for active learning exercises.

CONTACT Michael G. Miller mgmiller@barnard.edu Department of Political Science, Barnard College, ColumbiaUniversity, 3009 Broadway, New York, NY 10027, USA.� 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATIONhttps://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2019.1676252

We tested that assumption in the fall of 2018, when we taught a large Introduction toAmerican Government class. Our 308 students attended 2 weekly 75-min lectures in thetraditional lecture hall setting, as well as one of 20 50-min discussion sections led by asingle teaching assistant.1 Rather than allow the size of the class to dissuade us fromimplementing a simulation, we decided to leverage it. We implemented two separatesimulations. First, we exposed students to parliamentary procedure and congressionalspeech norms during a two-stage committee simulation including both a hearing and amarkup session on real legislation. We conducted these events during discussion sec-tions in groups of 20 students or fewer, so their dynamics are well in-line with manyaccounts of previous simulations in political science courses (e.g., Baranowski 2006).Our main goal of this simulation was to improve students’ understanding of the legisla-tive process, particularly with respect to parliamentary procedure and the importance ofparties in committee work.Once students had a basic grasp of legislative norms, we implemented a second simu-

lation: A large-scale floor debate. Our goal for this debate was to compel critical engage-ment with policy and to foster original argument. In the floor debate, we thereforesubmitted fictitious bills designed to have no natural partisan position. We alsodesigned this debate to maximize the opportunity for students to participate within theallotted class time. In tandem, our debates gave students experience both with playingthe role of rigid partisans and with making concise critical argument. Our approach isscalable and adaptable to a wide range of legislation and debate rules; we therefore dem-onstrate that simulations of both committee work and floor debates are viable optionsfor courses of all sizes.

The committee simulation

The hearing

Our first simulation occurred in two separate events during students’ discussion sec-tions. The first event was a committee hearing to consider a piece of legislation. Thisevent was designed to help students understand the importance of committee work inCongress. We randomly assigned each student to play a real-life Member of Congressseated on a committee—and by extension, the role of committee member, rankingmember, or chair.2 Next, we provided students with an assignment sheet describing thetwo-stage plan for evaluating their performance in the committee hearing. The firststage required students to write a four-page memo, submitted to the section teachingassistant prior to the hearing event. The memo required an analysis of the Member anddistrict; after completing this, students decided in advance whether they should support,oppose, or try to amend the bill. They also described the tactics or questions theyplanned to deploy in the hearing to move closer to that goal (see Appendix A.1).One student in each section was assigned the role of a witness affiliated with a rele-

vant interest group or bureaucratic agency.3 Compared to Members, witnesses wroteslightly different memos before the hearing (see Appendix A.1). Rather than describinga congressional district, witnesses analyzed the organization they represented, includingits legislative goals. They also clarified their position on the bill, identified the

2 C. BATTAGLINI ET AL.

committee members likely to be especially friendly or hostile, and described how theyhoped to advance their goals through their testimony.The second stage was the hearing simulation itself. We deviated somewhat from the

procedures of an actual committee hearing, dividing the section’s 50min into fiveunequal parts, including time for opening statements by all parties, witness questioning,and closing statements (see Appendix A.2 for procedures). We did this primarilyto ensure ample opportunity for all students to participate given time constraints in a50-min section, which was especially important in our larger sections. We evaluated stu-dents’ performance in the hearing in part by comparing what they did during the simu-lation to the strategy they had proposed in the memos. We awarded points for acommitment to that strategy, and also for well-organized and/or well-stated arguments.We also considered the extent to which the student worked with her party and its lead-ership. In total then, students participating in the committee hearing were rewarded forplanning and then executing a particular strategy.

The markup

Students also prepared memos for the second committee event, which simulated a billmarkup. In this memo, each student was tasked with proposing an amendment to thecommittee’s bill that would advance their member’s strategic goals. Student approacheson this assignment were wide-ranging. In some cases, students did research and pre-sented amendments their representative had actually proposed to previous versions ofthe bill. Other students suggested substantive and original changes, including a fewattempts at relatively sophisticated strategies. The markup assignment can be found inAppendix A.3.As with the first hearing, we imposed some necessary constraints to ensure that we

could achieve a modicum of debate in a 50min period of time (see Appendix A.4).Since there were as many as twenty submitted amendments in a section, the first deci-sion was therefore which amendments the committee would discuss. We decided togive committee chairs full control over selecting two amendments for debate in the sec-tion.4 Teaching assistants took a variety of approaches to help chairs make this decision.Some required an in-person meeting to discuss the amendments, while others simplyforwarded the sections’ amendments to the chair with no further instruction. Typicallyhowever, the teaching assistants provided some guidelines, such as asking chairs toselect one amendment from each party, to choose amendments that they thought wouldlead to the best debate, or to choose based on their goals as leaders.5

Size and scale in the committee simulation

While our simulation’s mechanics are similar to the typical setup in small- to moderate-sized courses, the large size of our class did allow for two important developments:First, rather than simulate the actions of one committee, we designated each of our 20discussion section as a distinct committee, and were able to incorporate most of thestanding U.S. House committees.6 Students therefore had a wide range of options interms of policy content. Students enrolled in sections after they attended the first

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 3

lecture, and the course syllabus included a section schedule with the committeeclearly listed.We identified the committee labels of sections in advance so students could enroll in

a committee whose substantive focus aligned with their own interest. We came to regretthis decision, however. Some sections did not attract sufficient enrollment and wereclosed; for administrative expedience we therefore relabeled some of the others, whichresulted in some dissatisfaction among students in those sections. We also learned thatsome students erroneously thought all section readings would be germane to the com-mittee. We therefore recommend revealing the committee after students have enrolledin sections. That said, we ultimately did not perceive any drop-off in energy in commit-tees that might be perceived as “boring,” such as Financial Services.We opted not to have students write their own legislation. We instead selected an

actual bill recently submitted under the relevant House committee’s jurisdiction, favor-ing brief bills in high-salience policy areas to stimulate student interest.7 For instance,students on the Agriculture Committee debated the 11-page “Marijuana Justice Act”—which de-criminalized marijuana—while students on the Judiciary Committee took onthe “Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act,” a 29-page bill mandating that all states recognizeconcealed carry permits granted in others.Second, since we had many committees meeting on each day of the week, we were

able to quickly assess what was working well in the sections that met on Mondays, sowe could make changes to improve the experience for students whose sections met laterin the week. This is one area in which the size of our class afforded us an advantagethat would not have existed for a course with only one committee, or several commit-tees meeting on the same day. That said, while we prove this simulation concept in anexceptionally large class, we believe that our approach to committee simulation can bescaled to courses of any size. Classes with a smaller number of discussion sections cansimply employ fewer committees, and small lecture classes with no attached discussionsections can simulate a committee by using lecture time instead of section time.

Assessing the committee simulation

We began circulating reports made by teaching assistants with Monday sections amongall instructional staff at the end of each day of the hearing week in order to help usmake real-time adjustments. These reports suggested a number of aspects that could beimproved. For instance, compelling uniform participation was a challenge early on;some of the students were less willing to speak, and more vocal students dominatedsome committees. This problem was particularly noticeable in sections where the chairswere either not well-prepared or did not take control of the committee. In these cases,the teaching assistants often had to intervene more to keep the debate flowing.8 Wealso noted an occasional tendency for the hearing to fall out of order, as studentsstarted debating between themselves instead of asking a question to the witness. Finally,memo-guided participation was evident; because the grading scheme assessed students’performances by comparing their actions with the strategy described in their memo, insome cases students were less-focused on debate and asking questions, because theywere adhering strictly to their memo strategy.

4 C. BATTAGLINI ET AL.

There were also elements of the markup event that could be improved. For instance,students were generally well-prepared to defend their own proposals and to pursuestrategies they had planned for, but sometimes they were unable to see how their owngoals fit with their party’s objectives—particularly in sections where the teaching assist-ant did not stress this dynamic. In the future, we believe that adding advance instruc-tion along these lines in all sections will improve the markup quality for students.Similarly, some chairs did not reveal their chosen amendments until a few days beforethe session, and in some sections this announcement occurred at the session. This dis-parity was consequential; students did not always have a chance to fully consider theamendments ahead of time, and there was a significant research advantage for individu-als whose amendments were chosen.9

That said, we also observed positive developments in both events. In the hearing, ourstructure helped participation. While some teaching assistants observed that structurecould take away some spontaneity and creative elements of the simulation, overall webelieve that more students participated in the sections where the proposed structure wasfollowed more closely.10 In the markup—which allowed more time for debate and cul-minated in a vote on each amendment—students typically showed more willingness toplay their roles and actively participate than they had in the first hearing. Students alsoshowed more strategic thinking in the markup, on average.11 As expected, markupdebate also generally followed partisan lines. In committee, students in the majorityultimately voted to table a bill after a moderating amendment was passed—though theamended bill was still better for them than status quo, and some of them had voted forthe amendment.In total, while students entered the two-stage committee simulation often reticent and

unaware of most parliamentary procedure, we felt that they became more comfortableas the simulation progressed. In particular, our ability to adjust on-the-fly—whichexisted largely due to the size of our class—as well as to provide feedback after the firstevent, positively affected student participation. Our decision to “break simulation” andstep in to provide instruction also enhanced students’ understanding of appropriate par-liamentary procedure.12 Moreover, offering their own amendments to actual lawsencouraged critical thinking about these policies within a well-established parti-san framework.Nonetheless, we felt that students had come a long way by the conclusion of the

committee simulation. They had grown more accustomed to speaking on issues, hadlearned some parliamentary procedure and the mechanics of debate, and had beenexposed to the importance of party leadership in shaping debate. With these skills, wefelt that the students were generally well-equipped to participate in the next simulation.

Floor debate

The second simulation occurred during the penultimate lecture session of the semester,when we held a floor debate in our usual lecture room with all 300 students assembled.We allocated our full 75-min lecture period to debate two bills. We decided to debatetwo bills instead of one to maintain a high energy level that would keep studentsengaged. In order to manage such a large room, we also told students to retain the

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 5

same party affiliation they had during the committee simulation, but to use their ownnames rather than the Member they previously simulated. We did this so that we couldmore easily identify them as they spoke. Similarly, we labeled each row of seats in thelecture room with a teaching assistant’s name; “Republicans” sat on the right,“Democrats” sat on the left, and all students sat in their teaching assistant’s “zone.”This arrangement allowed the teaching assistants to effectively observe a small part ofthe room for grading and vote-counting—while still ensuring party cohesion—and caneasily be scaled to large simulations with any number of staff. For instance, in courseswith no teaching assistants, instructors could create a leadership position such as “clerk”to record the names of students who speak, and to assist with vote-counting.An experienced (non-student) parliamentarian served as a guest speaker; he brought

the sessions to order and the course professor read the bills and kept time.13 With thoseexceptions, the entire floor debate was student-run. As such, given the large class size,we felt it was important to both create a hierarchical leadership structure and to trainleaders in advance. Several weeks before the simulation, we invited students to volunteerfor leadership positions, and then conferred among ourselves to select gender-balancedfloor leaders for each of the two debates. Once selected, students attended an hour-longtraining session. Each debate had one leader and assistant leader per party, and a teamof four to five whips on each side (smaller classes would need fewer whips). Weexplained both role responsibility and the debate format at the training session. We alsotaught leaders the parliamentary procedure they would need for the debate, andinstructed them how to use their allotted time effectively.We ran each bill debate in the same fashion, swapping out leadership in between.

Students began with a 3-min party conference in which Democratic and Republicanleaders convened their parties on either side of the room and told them what positionthe party would take on each bill.14 We then opened debate, which proceeded inrounds, with the majority Republicans proceeding first in each round. The first roundwas a 1-min opening statement from each leader. In each of the next two rounds, par-ties were allocated 5min of speaking time, which the leaders assigned as they wished.15

Finally, each leader had 2min for a closing statement during which she could yield onlyonce. Roughly half of the leaders yielded all or part of their closing statement to theirassistants, in an apparent attempt to give them a chance to speak. Bill debate closedwith a hand vote; each teaching assistant counted votes in her own zones on the floor,which we tabulated within 4min. Party leaders managed debate effectively. Whipsroamed the floor during debate, looking for students who wished to speak. Most whipsworked on their own party’s side of the room, though each party also sent one whip tothe opposite side. Once a speaker was identified, the whip wrote the student’s name andintended speaking points on a note card. This card was then delivered to the assistantleader, who organized the cards for the leader. Leaders, in turn, were responsible forstructuring arguments and allocating time to the students who would support theirpoints. We observed that floor leaders were able to manage this by physically arrangingthe note cards on a table before them, in a two-person collaborative effort.While a student-led debate organized by party was by then familiar to our students, our

floor debate had a different feel, which reflected a slightly different goal of this exercise. Inthe floor debate, we wanted students to draw on the materials from the course to build

6 C. BATTAGLINI ET AL.

effective arguments that could be made in a short time. While we could have (and maybeshould have) favored a realistic experience by bringing two amended bills from our commit-tees to the floor, for this simulation we decided instead to create conditions in which stu-dents could make critical arguments at the juncture of academic study, public policy, and“real-world” considerations. As such, we intentionally structured the simulation to achievethis goal, mainly through the legislation we asked students to debate.First, we wrote and released compelling fictitious bills well ahead of time that forced

students to build arguments from their knowledge of institutions, elections, representa-tion, and federalism–some of the core content areas of the course. The first bill was the“American Lotterocracy Act,” which proposed to end popular election in the UnitedStates House of Representatives and replace it with a lottery that selects members ran-domly. The second bill was the “Weed Wall Act,” which proposed federal legalizationand taxation of marijuana, with the proceeds devoted to shoring up Social Security andnational defense, as well as establishing a wall on the Southern border of the UnitedStates. We felt that this bill would force students to make complex judgments amongcountervailing incentives.While these bills compel critical thinking, it is not immediately clear which party

would bring them forward in the “real world.” The nonpartizan nature of each bill wasan intentional feature. Having already exposed students to a rigidly partisan simulationin the committee events, here we wanted them to engage with the policy before decid-ing whether they would support it. This may not be strictly “realistic,” but it is in-linewith the goals of our second simulation. While as noted above we had students retainthe party affiliation from their committee role—thereby ensuring a Republican major-ity—in the floor debate we encouraged them to develop their own position on each bill,factoring a combination of their simulated partisan affiliation, the material they learnedin the class, and their own judgment.The default amount of time that leaders granted to rank-and-file speakers was 30 s. In

such a brief window, we wanted students who chose to speak to focus on one or two corepoints that could be quickly and clearly communicated. We believed that these bills wouldchallenge students to move outside of partisan concerns, and to form positions based ontheir own critical evaluation of the bill text. This reflects our choice to stress critical, con-cise verbal argument during the floor debate rather than impose a strict simulation.In short, it was essential in our minds for this simulation not only to be a learning

moment, but also to be fun and enjoyable. We therefore made a point to tell both lead-ers and rank-and-file members that we wanted them to prioritize robust, entertainingdebate. To keep order, we instructed the Republican majority to support each bill (withDemocrats opposed), but we encouraged all students to speak their mind—regardless ofparty. In a pre-debate email to students, we encouraged “dramatic and passive aggres-sive shots,” which we felt would put them in the appropriate mood. In tandem withtheir learning parliamentary procedure on-the-fly, our instructions led to a lightheartedsession; we observed passionate and witty arguments.

Assessing the floor debate simulation

We believe that the timing of the floor debate—at the end of the semester—was animportant aspect of a successful simulation. By that time, students had been exposed

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 7

not only to debate mechanics via previous simulations, but also to the entirety of thecourse material. They were therefore maximally prepared to do well at that point, com-pared to any other in the semester. Holding the simulation at the end of the semester(rather than earlier, such as during the Congress unit) also probably led some studentsto participate in order to receive points.Other factors also contributed to the successful floor debate. Establishing clear

responsibilities for each leadership team member allowed the debate to flow well, andso we believe that creating defined leadership positions is essential no matter how largea floor debate simulation is. The energy of a full room also contributed to the floordebate’s success. To ensure attendance, we created a staggered scoring system, andmade floor debate performance worth five points, which students received for simplyarriving on-time and attentively watching the debate. Students received another fivepoints (which amounted to extra credit) for either serving as leaders or speaking on thefloor. This system therefore incentivized both attendance and participation; almost allstudents arrived on-time and well more than 100—fully one-third of our class—spokeduring the debates. We believe this is evidence that there are participation opportunitieseven in very large simulations conducted in a short, 75-min period of time.Overall, both we and the students felt that the floor debate was a great success—so

much so that it is difficult for us to point to obvious necessary changes. Our university’sstandard evaluation allows space for students to offer open-ended comments about theclass. While we do not believe it is possible to separate the effects of the committeesimulation from the floor debate on how students judged their experience, we note that25% of our students wrote open-ended comments about the simulation on their evalua-tions. Of these, 88% were positive. Of the negative comments, all but two focused on alack of clear guidelines and direction (as opposed to the experience itself), which wethink stems from our first time deploying a simulation in this course.We were able to test for some effects, however. While the floor debate was a memor-

able experience, we hoped that experiencing it after completing a two-stage committeesimulation would raise students’ perceptions of the centrality of committee work inCongress relative to the floor debates that might be more commonly associated with thelegislative process. We therefore asked students to complete a survey during the first 2weeks of class—before the commencement of the simulation events—and during thelast week of class, once the simulation had completed. While this simple pre-post designdoes not feature a control group for comparison (see Baranowski (2006)), it is a directassessment of whether we were successful in shaping students’ views of committee and/or floor business.We assessed shifts in students’ perspective by having them position a slider between

0 and 100 to indicate how important committees and floor debates are “in the lawmak-ing process.”16 Table 1 depicts results from paired t-tests of students’ responses beforeand after participating in the simulation; 243 students took our survey in both waves.As is apparent in Table 1, students’ mean slider responses on the importance of com-mittees increased from 82.4 before the simulation to 86 after, indicating a statisticallysignificant (p¼ .0003, one-tailed) increase in perceived importance of committees to thelawmaking process. We also find that the mean slider response for the importance offloor debates decreased by about nine points, which is also a statistically significant

8 C. BATTAGLINI ET AL.

result (p< .0001, one-tailed). These results are consistent with our expectation thatspending the bulk of their semester “in committee” would enhance students’ views ofthe centrality of committee work, though as noted above it is impossible to separate theeffect of the simulation from that of experiencing the standard parts of the course,which featured a unit on Congress.

Conclusion

Legislative simulations have long been effective additions in small to mid-sizedAmerican politics courses (e.g. Baranowski 2006). While there are aspects we willchange in the future, on the whole our experience demonstrates that both committeeand floor debate simulations are viable options for instructors in courses of all sizes—regardless of their level of instructional support. Despite the large size of our class, stu-dents participated actively in each of the simulation stages. Following the simulation,students reported an increased belief in the importance of committees to the legislativeprocess and a greater understanding of the legislative process overall, and expressedpositive feelings about the experience in their evaluations. These results are similar tothose reported in smaller simulations (Baranowski 2006). We therefore believe thissimulation was a valuable ad-dition to the course, and encourage instructors not toallow large class sizes to deter them from implementing legislative simulations.

Acknowledgments

We thank Michael Bath for both advice in the formative stages of this project and commentson an early draft, and Marc Reiter for serving as floor debate speaker. All errors are our respon-sibility.

Notes

1. Sections were scattered throughout the week; there were at least two section choices oneach business day.

2. We told students that we would not honor requests for particular party affiliations.3. The number of witnesses is a point we will revisit in future simulations. Particularly in

larger sections, we believe it would be feasible to have two or more witnesses.4. We also considered having teaching assistants choose. We opted not to do this to avoid

publicly iden-tifying certain students as having written “good” amendments. We also feltthat giving control to the chair was more aligned with the spirit of the simulation.

Table 1. Survey results: importance of committee work and floor debate to lawmaking, before andafter simulation.

VariablePre-Sim

(Std. Error)Post-Sim(Std. Error)

Difference:pre-post

t-stat:pre-post

Committee work 82.4 86.0 3.6 3.46(0.88) (0.84)

Floor debates 65.3 56.6 �8.7 �5.42(1.74) (1.75)

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 9

5. Guided by our experience with the committee hearing, most teaching assistants alsoscheduled section time prior to the markup both to answer procedural questions fromstudents and to allow parties to discuss strategy.

6. These committees were: Agriculture, Appropriations, Armed Services, Budget, Education andthe Workforce, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security,Judiciary, Natu-ral Resources, Oversight and Government Reform, Science, Space, andTechnology, Small Business, Trans-portation and Infrastructure, Veterans’ Affairs, and Waysand Means. Total enrollment in discussion sec-tions generally ranged between seven andtwenty students.

7. We obtained these bills from the U.S. GovTrack website, which features a filter for billsby committee.

8. As the week went along, we developed signal methods by which teaching assistants alertedthe chairs that speakers had exceeded time and must be cut off. We also stepped in to helpchairs regain control of hearings. These adjustments helped markedly, and we came tobelieve that it was better for the teaching assistant to be minimally involved rather than notinvolved at all.

9. In the future, we will ensure that amendments are revealed earlier, to facilitate properresearch and planning for all students. That said, the method by which we assigned billsactually mirrored the actual dynamics of committee work, in which representativessometimes have little time to read bills.

10. Witness commitment proved to be an important element of the exercise. We stressed theimportance of this role when we assigned it, and so students in the witness chair weregenerally well-prepared and ready to answer questions.

11. In one markup, the proposer of a “poison pill” amendment did significant research into thenegative consequences of his tweak for opponents’ districts, which were not obvious giventhe simple text of the amendment. After the amendment passed, he sprang the details onhapless minority representatives.

12. We believe we can obviate the need for this in subsequent simulations by placing moreemphasis on discussing legislative strategy ahead of time. We will also create more detailedhandouts describing parlia-mentary procedure. We will also give more direct instructions toeach chair and do a “dry run” in sections leading up to the hearing.

13. Students could also fulfill the time-keeping function in a leadership position.14. This conference was loud and unruly because both party leaders were speaking to their

conferences simultaneously, though we could find no obvious way to overcome this problem.15. To clarify, the Republican leader controlled debate for 5min, then the Democratic leader

had 5min. This process repeated in the second debate round.16. See Appendix A.5 for full question wording. This project was exempt from review by the

Institutional Review Board at Barnard College because it “seeks a benchmark of the effect ofcurriculum,” per the chair-man of that board.

Notes on contributors

Charles Battaglini is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Political Science atColumbia University.

Jose Gomez is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University.

Ki Young Kim is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University.

James LaBelle is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University.

Casey Libonate is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University.

Oliver A. McClellan is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science atColumbia University.

10 C. BATTAGLINI ET AL.

Carly Roman is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Political Science at Columbia University.

Julia Maria Rubio is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Political Science atColumbia University.

Michael G. Miller is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Barnard College ofColumbia University.

References

Asal, Victor. 2005. “Playing Games with International Relations.” International StudiesPerspectives 6 (3):359–373. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00213.x.

Baranowski, Michael. 2006. “Single Session Simulations: The Effectiveness of Short Con-Gressional Simulations in Introductory American Government Classes.” Journal of PoliticalScience Education 2 (1):33–49. doi: 10.1080/15512160500484135.

Bengtson, Teri J., and Katrina L. Sifferd. 2010. “The Unique Challenges Posed by Mock Trial:Evaluation and Assessment of a Simulation Course.” Journal of Political Science Education 6(1):70–86. doi: 10.1080/15512160903467638.

Bernstein, Jeffrey L. 2008. “Cultivating Civic Competence: Simulations and Skill-Building in anIntroductory Government Class.” Journal of Political Science Education 4 (1):1–20. doi: 10.1080/15512160701815996.

Bridge, Dave, and Simon Radford. 2014. “Teaching Diplomacy by Other Means: Using an out-side-of-Class Simulation to Teach International Relations Theory.” International StudiesPerspectives 15 (4):423–437. doi: 10.1111/insp.12017.

Fliter, John. 2009. “Incorporating a Sophisticated Supreme Court Simulation into an Un-Dergraduate Constitutional Law Class.” Journal of Political Science Education 5 (1):12–26. doi:10.1080/15512160802611955.

Frederking, Brian. 2005. “Simulations and Student Learning.” Journal of Political ScienceEducation 1 (3):385–393. doi: 10.1080/15512160500261236.

Goon, Michael. 2011. “Peacekeeping the Game.” International Studies Perspectives 12 (3):250–272.doi: 10.1111/j.1528-3585.2011.00431.x.

Hatipoglu, Emre, Meltem M€uft€uler-Bac, and Teri Murphy. 2014. “Simulation Games inTeaching International Relations: Insights from a Multi-Day, Multi-Stage, Multi-IssueSimulation on Cyprus.” International Studies Perspectives 15 (4):394–406. doi: 10.1111/insp.12006.

Horn, Laura, Olivier Rubin, and Laust Schouenborg. 2016. “Undead Pedagogy: How a ZombieSimulation Can Contribute to Teaching International Relations.” International StudiesPerspectives 17(2):187–201. doi: 10.1111/insp.12103.

Mariani, Mack, and Brian J. Glenn. 2014. “Simulations Build Efficacy: Empirical Re-Sults from aFour-Week Congressional Simulation.” Journal of Political Science Education 10 (3):284–301.doi: 10.1080/15512169.2014.921623.

Pappas, Christine, and Charles Peaden. 2004. “Running for Your Grade: A Six-Week SenatorialCampaign Simulation.” PS: Political Science & Politics 37 (4):859–863.

Appendix A: assignment handouts

A.1. Committee simulation assignment

In this class, each section will assume the identity of a congressional committee, and each studentwill be assigned the role of an actual member of that committee. The “committee” will receive abill that has been introduced in a previous (real-world) Congress. Over the course of the semes-ter, you will assume your member’s role as the bill moves from a raw idea (the bill text your TAprovides you) to one that is debated, amended, and passed (or not) out of your committee.

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 11

Crucially, we expect you to conform to the partisan/political realities in which your memberworks. So, while you can get creative when it comes to things such as devising strategies for com-mittee hearings and offering amendments, we expect you to behave “correctly” (i.e., in a way thatis close to the member’s expected behavior).

The first part of the simulation is the committee hearing. In a committee hearing, Mem-bersof Congress often call witnesses to testify about bills before them. These witnesses might be aca-demic experts, government employees, lobbyists or other people affiliated with interest groups,leaders of industry, or any other person/group that the proposed law might affect. Membersuse their time to question the witnesses, or to inject their own thoughts about the law. Indeed,committee action is often the only meaningful chance that Members have to affect pendinglegislation. It is therefore important for them to come to the hearing with clear goals in mind.Do you intend to lay the groundwork for amendments you eventually hope to offer? Do youwant to foster doubt about the bill, potentially swaying a few members of the majority to blockit? Etc.

In the hearing simulation event, at least one person will play the role of the witness. This rolemight be played by the TA, but we would prefer at least one student to play the witness role dur-ing the hearing. Students doing this will temporarily abandon their roles as members for thisevent only, and will write a “witness memo” instead of a “member memo” (see below). The iden-tity of the witness will depend on the nature of the bill, and will be determined by the sectionTA. The Hearing component of the simulation has two scored components:

Hearing Memo (20 points). Students will submit a simulation memo worth 20 points prior tothe commencement of the hearing, of approximately four pages in length. In the memo, studentsshould introduce us to the Member of Congress whom they are playing in the simulation,describing relevant (brief) biographical details. Students should also provide a political analysis ofthe district. What does its partisan balance look like, i.e., how vulnerable is the Member tolosing a reelection campaign? What are the major employers, industries, and issues in the dis-trict? Finally, students should describe how the Member and district combine to inform astrategy for the bill in question. What is the Member’s position on this bill? Will he/she wantto pass it as-is, defeat it, or amend it in some way? Why does the Member have thisposition? And finally, how do you intend to move your Member closer to this goal during thehearing? You should describe questions you might ask, points you might make, or tactics youmight deploy.

Witnesses will write a slightly different memo. Witnesses are not objective. Like Mem-bers,they will have goals with respect to the proposed legislation. In the witness memo, students willtherefore describe the organization they represent, what it hopes to achieve, and the strategicthinking that shapes preparation for testimony. What is the witness’s position on the bill, andwhy? Who will the friendly committee Members be? Who is likely to be hostile? How does thewitness intend to advance his or her strategic goals during the testimony?

As you prepare these documents, remember the word “memo” is important. These arenot essays; they should be blunt, analytical, and parsimonious. Avoid fillers like fluffy introduc-tions, unnecessary facts, and conclusions, and tell us only what we need to know. To labor thepoint: Longer memos are not automatically better. You will be evaluated based on your ability toclearly and efficiently communicate, the extent to which you developed a correct andsensible strategy–conditional on the Member and District (or in the case of witnesses, theorganization).

Simulation Performance (20 points). After submitting the memo, students will activelyplay the role of their member in the section event. Students will be evaluated based on howwell they execute their pre-planned strategy. For example, if they are “supposed” (based onwhat they planned in the memo) to speak forcefully against a bill or secure an amendmentthat helps their district, did students succeed? If not, did they try? Did students offer organized,well-stated remarks? Etc. Each teaching assistant will offer more detail on evaluation inthese areas.

12 C. BATTAGLINI ET AL.

A.2. Committee hearing procedures

Please bring the name of your Representative and their party written down in a paper that youcan fold and put on the desk so the Chair can identify you. The section will go as follows:

PART ONE (5min): Statements and Witness Introduction.

1. The Committee Chair will make a 2min statement on the topic.2. The Ranking Member will make a 2min statement on the topic.3. The witness will introduce him/herself (1min).

PART TWO: (10min) Committee Members’ Statements:

1. The chair will open the floor for those who want to make an initial statement of upto 1.5min.

2. The chair will choose among those raising their hands, alternating between Republi-cansand Democrats.

3. Those who raise their hands to make statement will have less probability of having time forformulating a question to the witness in the next part.

PART THREE (20min): Witness Hearing.

1. The chair will open the floor for questions to the witness.2. The chair will choose among those raising their hands, alternating between Repub-licans and

Democrats. Priority will be given to those who havena�A�Zt been selected to partici-pate before.

3. Question should be formulated in less than 1.5min.4. The witness has up to 1.5min to answer each question.

PART FOUR (10min): Closing statement

1. The chair will open the floor for those who want to make a closing statement of upto 1.5min.

2. The chair will choose among those raising their hands, alternating between Republi-cansand Democrats.

3. Priority will be given to those who havena�A�Zt been selected to participate before.

PART FIVE (4min): Final Statements.

1. The Committee Chair will make a 2min closing statement on the topic.2. The Ranking Member will make a 2min closing statement on the topic.

A.3. Markup assignment

In this class, each section will assume the identity of a congressional committee, and each studentwill be assigned the role of an actual member of that committee. The “committee” will receive abill that has been introduced in a previous (real-world) Congress. Over the course of the semes-ter, you will assume your member’s role as the bill moves from a raw idea (the bill text your TAprovides you) to one that is debated, amended, and passed (or not) out of your committee.Crucially, we expect you to conform to the partisan/political realities in which your memberworks. So, while you can get creative when it comes to things such as devising strategies for com-mittee hearings and offering amendments, we expect you to behave “correctly” (i.e., in a way thatis close to the member’s expected behavior).

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 13

The second part of the simulation is the committee markup. In markup, Members of Congresswrite the text of the bill, or rather, amend what has been written already. Now is the time to getwhat you want into law! For instance, you might decide that the bill you’re debating is good, butcould be made even better. If that is the case, you can write an amendment to improve it.Alternatively, especially if you are in the minority, you could try to amend the bill in such a waythat its deleterious effects will be weakened or redirected. Or, you could go the other way, offer-ing a “poison pill amendment” that makes the bill so strong that even many of its opponents willhave trouble voting for it (and you therefore end up with the status quo). The Markup compo-nent of the simulation has two scored components:

Markup Memo (20 points). Students will submit a simulation memo worth 20 points prior tothe commencement of the markup, of approximately three pages in length. Stu-dents shouldbegin by briefly re-iterating their political goals. Have they changed since the hearing? Why orwhy not? As a reminder, goals include questions such as: What is the Member’s position on thisbill? Will he/she want to pass it as-is, defeat it, or amend it in some way? Why does the Memberhave this position? And finally, how do you intend to move your Member closer to this goal dur-ing the hearing?

This final point will be addressed in an amendment that the Member offers. The memo shouldcontain the text of that amendment, i.e., what new language it adds to the bill and/or words thatit strikes, plus a clear text of how the bill will read if the amendment is adopted. After describingthe amendment, the memo should close with a critical assess-ment of it. Is the amendment likelyto pass? Why or why not? Who will support/resist it, and why? And, why did you choose to offerthis particular amendment?

The amendment must also be sent to the committee chair in advance of markup. To be consideredfor the simulation, the text of the amendment must be submitted to the committee chair 72 h beforethe commencement of section. To do this, simply copy the section of the memo containing theamendment text/how the bill reads post-passage. Do not send anything else to the committee chairbeyond the amendment text.

As you prepare these documents, remember the word “memo” is important. These are notessays; they should be blunt, analytical, and parsimonious. Avoid fillers like fluffy introductions,unnecessary facts, and conclusions, and tell us only what we need to know. To labor the point:Longer memos are not automatically better. You will be evaluated based on your ability to clearlyand efficiently communicate, the extent to which you developed a correct and sensible strategy–-conditional on the Member and District (or in the case of witnesses, the organization).

Simulation Performance (20 points). After submitting the memo, students will actively playthe role of their member in the section event. Students will be evaluated based on how wellthey execute their pre-planned strategy. For example, if they are “supposed” (based on whatthey planned in the memo) to speak forcefully against a bill or secure an amendment thathelps their district, did students succeed? If not, did they try? Did students offer organized,well-stated remarks? Etc. Each teaching assistant will offer more detail on evaluation inthese areas.

A.4. Markup procedure

Here is a loose plan for how the markup will unfold. Each TA might alter it somewhat, and willcommunicate those changes to you if so. Please, bring the name of your member and his/herparty written down on a paper that you can fold and put on the desk so the chair can identifyyou. Of the amendments they receive, committee chairs will choose two for consideration in thishearing, given time constraints. The chair will have total discretion over which amendments arechosen. The chair must send the chosen bills to the ranking member at least 24 h in advance ofsection. The markup will proceed approximately as follows, for each bill:

PART ONE (3min): T.A. Information

14 C. BATTAGLINI ET AL.

The T.A. will spend 3min introducing the amendment to be debated, and answering factualquestions about it from students.

PART TWO (2min): Leader StatementsThe simulation commences.

1. The Committee Chair will make a 1min statement on the amendment.2. The Ranking Member will make a 1min statement on the amendment.

PART THREE: (12min) Committee Members’ Statements:

1. Each party will receive 6min of debate time, allocated in two rounds of 3min. The chairwill control the Republicans’ time, and the ranking member will control the Democrats’time. Since we don’t have a clerk, and since the T.A.s are making notes during debate, the“out of round” leader will keep time during the debate. So while Republicans are speaking,the ranking member will keep track of the time, cutting speakers off when they reach theirallotted time. While Democrats are speaking, the chair will keep time.

2. The process will begin with the chair yielding a block of time to a Republican, who willspeak and yield back to the chair. The chair will then recognize another Republican. Oncethe cumulative amount of elapsed time reaches 3min, the Republicans’ time expires, and theranking member will repeat the process for Democrats.

3. After Democrats’ first round of 3min expires, the process will repeat, with Republicans gain-ing 3 more min, followed by the Democrats.

PART FOUR (2min): Closing statement

1. The chair will either make a 1-min closing statement or yield 1min to another member todo so.

2. The ranking member will then do the same.

PART FIVE (3min): Vote. The chair will call a roll-call vote. For expediency, the rankingmember will record the vote.

A.5. Question wording

Committee Question: Position the slider to indicate your response to the following: How import-ant are committees in the lawmaking process? 0 means “not at all important” and 100 means“nothing can be done without committees.”

Floor Debate Question: Position the slider to indicate your response to the following: Howimportant are floor debates (i.e., speeches given by members on the legislative floor) in the law-making process? 0 means “not at all important” and 100 means “extremely important.”

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE EDUCATION 15