Evaluating the Use of Role Playing Simulations in Teaching Negotation Skills to University Students

doi:10.4236/ce.2012.36104

Paper Menu >>

Journal Menu >>

Creative Education

2012. Vol.3, No.6, 696-707

Published Online October 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.36104

696

Evaluating the Use of Role Playing Simulations in Teaching

Negotation Skills to University Students

John Andrew, John Meligrana

School of Urban and Regional Pl a n n ing, Queen’ s University, Kingston, Canada

Email: john.meligrana@queensu.ca

Received June 2nd, 2012; revised July 5th, 2012; accepted July 18th, 2012

This paper critically evaluates the use of role-playing simulations in a negotiation course taught to gradu-

ate students. The course consisted primarily of a series of simulations involving the alternative dispute

resolution (ADR) processes of negotiation, facilitation and mediation. Data were obtained from two sets

of questionnaires completed by 41 students before and after the course. A review of previous research re-

veals that despite the widespread use of role-playing simulations in education, there has been very little

empirical evaluation of their effectiveness, especially in conflict resolution and planning. Comparison of

the data acquired from the two surveys generated findings regarding student understanding of ADR proc-

esses and key issues in conflict resolution; the educational value of simulations; the amenability of types

of planning and planning goals to ADR; appropriate learning objectives; the importance of negotiation

skills in planning; challenges in conducting effective simulations; the value of simulations in resolving

real conflicts; the utility of negotiation theory; and obstacles to applying ADR to planning disputes. More

generally, the paper concludes that role-playing simulations are very effective for teaching negotiation

skills to students, and preparing them to manage actual conflicts skillfully and to participate effectively in

real ADR processes. However, this technique is somewhat less valuable for teaching aspects of planning

other than conflict resolution. Surprisingly, prior experience with simulations had no significant influence

on the responses to the pre-course survey. Also surprising was the lack of a significant correlation be-

tween final exam scores and responses to relevant questions on the post-course survey.

Keywords: Role-Playing Simulations; Negotiation Skills; University Students

Introduction

The educational use of role-playing simulations has become

popular in many diverse fields. However, few, if any areas of

instruction have adopted this modality of teaching to the same

extent as conflict resolution. So ubiquitous has this technique

become in this field that a course on negotiation or mediation

that did not employ at least some component of simulation would

stand out to participants as unusual and would likely be perceived

as lacking credibility. Since the success of negotiation and me-

diation depends in large part on complex interpersonal dynam-

ics, simulations are extremely valuable to illustrate concepts fi rst

introduced at a theoretical level but only fully grasped through

“learning by doing” (Schön, 1983).

Despite the widespread use of role-playing simulations in edu-

cation, there has been very little empirical evaluation of the

effectiveness of this style of learning. While most educators

accept the unique contribution that simulations make to learn-

ing in a broad range of fields, published literature addressing its

merits has been predominantly descriptive and anecdotal.

The purpose of this paper is to critically and empirically eva lu -

ate the use of role-playing simulations, based on two question-

naires completed by 41 Master’s level students enrolled in a short

(four weeks) course on negotiation. The course co nsisted prim ar -

ily of a series of role playing simulations involving negotiation,

facilitation and mediation. One questionnaire was administered

just before the course began and the second at the end of the

final session. The survey results are used to examine the effec-

tiveness of the simulations from the perspective of the student,

in terms of benefits accruing from this teaching device, st re ngt hs

and weaknesses of various aspects of the simulations, and the

appropriateness of simulations to various components of plan-

ning education. Three types of statistical analysis are applied to

these data: comparing the pre- and post-simulations responses,

comparing the responses of students with and without prior

experience with role-playing simulations, and testing for corre-

lation between responses to selected questions and scores on the

final examination for the course.

Previous Research

Role playing has long been recognized as an effective means

of learning in various fields, especially those reliant on inter-

personal relations (Krause & Amaral, 1994). Innes and Booher

(1999; Meligrana & Andrew, 2003) also point out that simula-

tion is a legitimate tool of analysis. Yet, there has been very l i tt le

published research on the advantages of using simulations in an

educational setting, nor on evaluating their effectiveness (Kr aus e

& Amaral, 1994; Petranek et al., 1992). This section summar iz es

previous research regarding role-playing and simulation games.

It begins with a description of th e commonly held beliefs reg ar d-

ing the benefits of simulations and a review of the scant empir i-

cal research into these beliefs. The discussion then turns to how

simulation s ha ve re po rte dly been use d t o teac h pl anni ng a nd nego -

tiation.

Educational Value of Role-Playing Simulations

Contributions that simulations can make to teaching that are

J. ANDREW, J. MELIGRANA

frequently cited include easier learning of subject matter (espe-

cially complex concept s) ( Walford, 1981); better long-term recall

of material learned (Innes & Booher 1999; Petranek et al., 1992;

Randel et al., 1992, Walford, 1981); greater student interest,

motivation and enjoyment (Randel et al., 1992; Walford, 1981);

the fostering of a more appropriate teaching environment (Wal-

ford, 1981); and the improved development of problem-solving

skills (Walford, 1981 ). Nightinga le (198 1) believes that the va lue

of simulations and games as teaching tools lies in their empha-

sis on decision making processes and the myriad of human

factors that influence them. They also appropriately capture the

concept of the uncertainty of the outcomes of these processes.

However, the literature offers little empirical evidence to sup-

port these claims (Walford, 1981). Much of the published evalua-

tion of simulations and games is descriptive and anecdotal, with

a few notable exceptions (Randel et al., 1992). Early research

(e.g. Cherryholmes, 1966) found no evidence that simulations

are more effective than other forms of learning. A decade later,

Pierfy (1977) reviewed 22 evaluations of the effectiveness of

simulations and games and concluded that simulations are nei-

ther better nor worse than other methods of teaching. The ex-

ception was that simulations are better at changing attitudes and

stimulating participant interest. More recent research (e.g. Bre-

demeier & Greenblat, 1981; Fost er et al., 1980; Hankinson, 1987)

suggests that simulations may provide better behavioural, cog-

nitive and affective learning, and subjective understanding of

social issues. Randel et al. (1992) compared the effectiveness of

46 cases of simulations or games reported in the social sciences

(which would include planning) literature with traditional class-

room teaching. They found that in 33 (or 72 percent) of the ca s e s

there was no significant difference in the instructional effec-

tiveness of the two methods. In ten cases (22 percent), simula-

tions/games were more effective, while the re maining three cas e s

favoured conventional methods.

Debriefing Simulations

Most of the literature (e.g. Dolin & Susskind, 1992; Ryan

2000; Walford, 1981) maintains that a well-structured debrief-

ing session with the participants is an essential component of an

effective role-playing simulation. Debriefing refers to the dis-

cussions among the participants about what occurred during the

simulation, and what lessons may be gleaned from the experi-

ence. Such discussions are usually led by the instructor, using a

set of questions to stimulate and guide the dialogue. Krause and

Amaral (1994) observe that it is essential to evaluate the effec-

tiveness of any role-playing exercise by carrying out a post -sim-

ulations evaluation. This is often done in conjunction with a

post-game debriefing, in which most of the learning usually

occurs (Krause & Amaral, 1994). Although Krause and Amaral

(1994) carried out such a formal evaluation of a simulation

debriefing with students, Randel et al. (1992) observe that there

has been to date no systematic analysis of the education merits

of simulations with and without post-simulations debriefing.

Bredemeier and Greenblat (1981) and Szafran and Mandolini

(1980) provide empirical evidence to support their dissenting

opinion that debriefing does not enhance learning.

Use of Simulations in Teaching Planning

Innes and Booher (1999) argue that role-playing simulations

can be useful to train planners t o act in a more cooperative, c on-

sensus-based manner. It helps planners to think more creatively,

and to respond more flexibly to unforeseen and complex circu m-

stances. However, simulations are unlikely to be effective u nle ss

carefully integrated into a program of study which includes other,

more didactic modes of learning (Innes & Booher, 1999).

The use of simulations has considerable potential to remedy

what Baum (1997) and others identify as a significant weakness

of most university planning programs that was identified by B a u m

(1997) and others (e.g. Friedmann & Kuester, 1994; Sawicki,

1988). This result in many graduates being inadequately pre-

pared to enter the profession, they argue. Furthermore, most

programs equate planning “methods” with the more academic

activities of analysis and research, rather than t he i mportant skills

of communicating and interacting effectively with others, and

using knowledge to influence others. Although Baum does not

call them such, the latter are essentially negotiation skills. Le ar n-

ing them requires hands-on training, which most programs lack,

but which the inclusion of simulations as a teaching tool could

provide. As Baum (1997: p. 182) writes: “It is impossible to

learn to practice planning without practicing: trying out ways of

acting, analyzing the results, designing new actions at least as

likely to produce desirable results, and so forth.” Shepherd and

Cosgriff (1998) agree with Baum that academic teaching of

planning poorly prepares students for careers as planners. What

students lack, they believe, are well-developed problem-solving

skills. They endorse “problem-based learning” (which in other

fields such as medicine often includes role-playing simulation)

to correct this deficiency.

Simulations could also help students learn about the “ethical,

intellectual, emotional, and practical predicaments” (Baum, 1997:

p. 185) that are fundamental to planning, and give them the

opportunity for the necessary post-experience reflection on

their actions and behaviours. Use of simulations (especially the

post-simulations briefing session) in teaching is consistent with

Schön’s (1983, 1987) seminal writings on the “reflective practi-

tioner”. Schön refers to knowledge gained through the process

of problem-solving as “procedural knowledge” or “knowing-

in-action”. More conventional methods of teaching emphasize

the less important “declarative knowledge”: knowing what we

know without knowing how to employ that information.

Dolin and Susskind (1992) discuss the use of simulations not

to teach planning, but to assist disputants in actual planning dis-

putes. Parties that are reluctant to come to the bargaining table

may be willing to participate in a simulation of the conflict in

which they are embroiled. There are examples of this applica-

tion of simulation, in which it was successful in convincing the

disputants that negotiation had the potential to resolve their dis-

pute by allowing the parties to each satisfy their principal inter-

ests. Dolin and Susskind (1992) examine one such case, in w h ich

simulation catalyzed disputants in a contentious national energy

policy issue to engage in a large-scale consensus-building exer-

cise, which ultimately resolved the conflict. Several of the more

popular commercially distributed simulations in the planning f ie ld

were originally created to educate parties in actual disputants.

One example is the “Harborco” game used in this course, which

was designed by the MIT-Harvard Public Disputes Program in

the early 1980s to assist disputants in a long-standing contro-

versy over the proposed construction of a deepwater port in the

Lower Delaware Bay.

The only example the authors found of the evaluation of the

use of role-playing simulations to teach planning was Kra use and

Amaral (1994). They ran and evaluated a harbor management

J. ANDREW, J. MELIGRANA

simulation to teach about public participation methods in plan-

ning. They also correlated student opinions of the simulation ( su ch

as their satisfaction and its effectiveness as a teaching tool) with

their exam scores (as did we). However, Krause and Amaral

(1994) only looked at student perceptions of the simulation

(measured by a few variables only), their level of participation

and their performance on the exam. They found that students

who actively participated in the simulations performed better on

the exam. The degree to which the students engage themselves

in the simulation is important because there is evidence that this

correlates well with the amount learned (Petranek et al., 1992).

Krause and Amaral also found that both the exam scores and a

brief post-simulations survey of student satisfaction indicated

that the simulation had been successful.

Use of Simulations in Teaching Negotiation

One application of role-playing simulations that has become

fairly common is in teaching negotiation. However, there has

been very little discussion in the literature about how to teach

negotiation effectively. Lewicki (1986 ) believes th at r ole -pla yin g

simulations are effective in teaching students how to be good

negotiators because developing these skills requires both aca-

demic training and the development of a set of behavioural skills.

Simulations provide the instructor with the opportunity to com-

bine teaching of theory with students actually practicing with

various behaviours (Lewicki, 1986). However, Schultz (1989)

is critical of most negotiation training programs for not basing

their instruction on the well-established body of theory on the

subject. Simulations allow participants to experiment with vari-

ous negotiation styles and techniques, and to receive feedback

from others in a low-risk environment where there is no actual

dispute or any relationships at stake (Lewicki, 1986). A search

of the literature for evaluations of negotiation role-playing si mu-

lations revealed a single example. Schultz (1989) studied four

negotiation training programs (throughout North America), and

found that none monitored the extent to which the graduates were

effective conflict re solvers. All measured the success of their p ro-

gram solely on the basis of que stionnaires comple ted by stude nt s

immediately on completion of the course, in which the success

of the simulation was measured only by the students’ satisfac-

tion with the course.

In summary, despite widespread acceptance of role-playing

simulations as a teaching tool in a broad spectrum of fields, th e r e

is a clear need for empirical evaluation of their strengths and

weaknesses. Th is is par t icul arl y tru e in th e fi elds of con fli c t resolu-

tion and planning, which the cou rse on which this study is bas ed

attempte d t o fuse .

Method

Five role-playing simulations were conducted in the course,

which consisted of seven sessions in four weeks and was taught

by the primary author. The simu lations were all purchased from

Harvard University’s Program on Negotiation Clearinghouse.

All were known by the instructor to be effective, frequently-run

simulations dealing with urban planning issues. Three of the s im u -

lations involved negotiation and one each dealt with the nego-

tiation-based processes of facilitation and mediation. These are

the three principal processes comprising Alternative Dispute

Resolution (ADR), a spectrum of voluntary, negotiation-based

processes in which representatives of the parties to a current or

potential dispute meet together for collaborative problem solv-

ing and consensus building, with the goal of achieving a mutu-

ally acceptable resolution. The processes are intended to be less

adversarial alternatives to traditional conflict resolution pathw ays.

Negotiation is simply face-to-face consensus building between

parties working co-operatively to achieve a mutually acceptable

resolution, without the services of a neutral party such as a

facilitator or mediator. Neither the facilitator nor the mediator

has the authority to impose a settlement on the disputants, but

they differ in their degree of involvement in the consensus bu il d-

ing process. The facilitator is a process manager whose man-

date is limited to procedural issues. Mediators likewise deal wi th

procedural matters; in addition, they shuttle ideas and offers ba ck

and forth between the parties, help each party to formulate pro-

posals that are more likely to be acceptable to the others, par-

ticipate in the generation of creative options, and assist in writ-

ing the final agreement. The mediator may provide each party

with a confidential and independent assessment of its position

early in the mediation process, as well as help it to see the true

interests underlying its positions.

The first simulation, called “Bradford Development,” was a

two-party negotiation about a single issue: a proposed “linkage”

payment that a municipal government would charge developers

to compensate for impacts of development on infrastructure and

housing. The conflict and settlement reached c oncerned the m a g-

nitude of the payment. Students negotiated in pairs (represent-

ing the city and the developer), four to a game, with ten differ-

ent games running simultaneously. The next simulation, “Ne-

gotiated Development at Redstone,” was also a two party nego-

tiation with four participants to a game. Representatives of a

developer and a neighbourhood group negotiated two variables

of a proposed condominium development. Each party was allo-

cated a performance score based on the values of the two vari-

ables in the agreement. “Harborco” was a five issue, scorable

negotiation over the proposed construction of a deepwater port.

Seven games ran simultaneously, with six parties in each. “A

Development Dispute at Menehune Bay” was a seven party

facilitation (including facilitator), with five different games. It

involved three issues associated with the proposed development

of a resort hotel. It was partially scorable, in that performance

was judged by ranked priorities rather than points that could be

summed. The final simulation was a three issue, scorable me-

diation over a proposed homeless shelter, called “Westville.” It

involved three parties (including mediator) playing thirteen sim-

ultaneous games.

In general, the simulations increased in complexity as the course

progressed (as suggested by Lewicki, 1986). The number of

parties (or roles) in each simulation ranged from two to seven.

Therefore the number of simulations being carried out simulta-

neously varies inversely with the number of roles in each, to

allow each student to participate in each simulation. Multiple

rooms were available to allow each simulation to be carried out

essentially in i so la ti on.

A set of readings compiled by the instructor was a mandatory

component of the course. There were approximately three short

readings selected for each session, intended to provide theoretic al

background on negotiation prior to seeing various principle s and

lessons applied in practice in the simulations. Therefore, stud en ts

were advised to have read them prior to each session. Prior to

the commencement of the course, student s were required to hav e

read Fisher, Ury and Patton’s (1991) popular book Getting to

Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving in.

698

J. ANDREW, J. MELIGRANA

Data for this study were obtained from two sets of question-

naires completed by all 41 students in the course: the first in the

few days prior to the course beginning, and the second at the

end of the final session. The questionnaires combined three t y pe s

of questions: ordinal, ranking, and open-ended. Ordinal ques-

tions asked the students to respond to the question by choosing

an item from a five point ordinal scale, ranging from excellent

to poor, or from strongly agree to strongly disagree, or ext r e me l y

important to unimportant.

Ranking questions asked respondents to rank-order the im-

portance of five items (e.g. learning objectives), from one for

the most important to five for the least important. For most of

the first two types of questions, the number of responses was

between 39 and 41. For a very few questions, there were 37 or

38 responses. Open-ended questions asked respondents to write

in answers (e.g. identify other learning objectives not in the list

of five in the ranking question). For all but one of the questions,

the number of responses ranged from 10 to 33, and averaging

20. The one exception was the final question on the pre-simula-

tions questionnaire, which invited comments on any aspects of

the simulations not already covered.

The only question that differed from these types was the first

question of the pre-simulations survey, which asked the stud ents

if they had participated in any type of role-playing simulation

of a conflict resolution process before. This question was asked

for two reasons. The first was to test whether experience with

simulations prior to this course influenced respondents’ an-

swers to questions on the pre-simulations survey, compared to

respondents lacking prior experience. The second was to de-

termine whether the simulations in the course were still of edu-

cational value to students with prior experience. Based on prior

experience and discussions with students, it was assumed (cor-

rectly) that a significant number of students would have prior

experience.

The pre-simulations questionnaire contained 26 questions;

the post-simulations 33. To permit the researchers to use be-

fore-after comparisons to evaluate the educational contributions

of the simulations, 25 of the questions were common to both

questionnaires, with slight wording changes to match the timing

of the questionnaire. One question was unique to the pre-simu-

lations questionnaire; and eight to the post-simulations.

After the questionnaires were completed by the students, the

responses to the ordinal and ranking questions were coded and

entered into a database. For the ordinal questions, the chosen

response was coded from one to five. A value of one was as-

signed to the first choice, which was also the most positive (e.g.

“excellent”, “strongly agree” or “extremely important”). A va lue

of five was assigned to the least positive choice. In other words,

a lower value was usually “better.” The open-ended responses

were transcribed and grouped by question. The Statistical Pack-

age for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was used to generate fre-

quency tables, means and standard deviations for the ordinal

and ranking data. Statistical analysis was applied to some of the

ordinal an d ranking data, whe re visual inspection of the freq ue nc y

tables and means suggested that there might be significant as-

sociations between relevant pairs of data. In these cases, statis-

tical tests were used to detect the followin g conditions:

Whether there was a significant difference between the “be-

fore” and “after” responses to the 25 questions common to both

surveys.

Whether there was a significant difference in the survey re-

sponses and scores on the exam taken at the end of the course

of students with prior experience with role-playing simulations

and those without.

Whether there was a correlation between exam scores and

responses to nine of the ordinal questions on the post-simulations

questionnaire.

The before/after comparisons (1 above) employed the Wil-

coxon test for the ordinal questions and the t test for the ranked

questions.

For the prior experience/no prior experience comparisons (2

above), the data were first sorted according to whether the re-

spondent had previously participated in a role-playing simula-

tion of a conflict resolution process (Question 1 on the pre-sim-

ulations survey). Frequency tables of the responses to each sub-

sequent ordinal and ranked question on the pre-simulations sur-

vey were produced for each of the two set of respondents, along

with means and standard deviations. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov

test was then applied to the data for each pre-simulations ques-

tion, to detect any significant differences between the answers

of each set of respondents.

Spearman correlation analysis was applied for comparing the

exam scores to the other relevant questions (3 above).

For all tests, the null hypothesis was that there is no signifi-

cant difference between the two sets of data. This was rejected

only if the p value was calculated to be less than a probability

level of .05. For the Wilcoxon test, this equated to rejection of

the null hypothesis when the z score is in the range of –1.96 to

+1.96. Rejection of the null hypothesis allowed us to reasona-

bly conclude that the two sets of data are statistically different.

Findings

This section summarize s the key findings generate d from a n al y-

sis of the responses to the pre- and post-simulations question-

naires. This analysis includes meaningful patterns observed in

the data; as well as statistical analysis comparing the responses

contained in the two sets of questionnaires, comparing the re-

sponses of students wit h prior experience with negotiation s imu-

lations to those without, and testing for significant associations

between course exam scores and relevant survey questions.

Understanding of ADR Processes

In both surveys, students were asked to assess their own level

of understanding of each of the three conflict resolution proc-

esses taught in the course: negotiation, facilitation and media-

tion. The frequencies of the responses for these three sets of

questions, with their means and standard deviations, are shown

in Table 1. Also shown are the results of the Wilcoxon test for

association between the pre- and post-simulations responses in

each pair of questions. The Wilcoxon test employs the raw data

on each respondent’s answer, rather than the grouped data in th e

frequency table. In other words, it compares each person’s pre-

and post-simulations respon ses. For all three pairs, the Wilc oxo n

test indicated a statistically significant difference between the

way in which the sa me set of respondents an swered each of t hese

three questions before and after their participation in the role-

playing simulations. Overall, respondents rated their underst and-

ing of each of these three conflict resolution processes signifi-

cantly higher at the end of the course than before. Both pre- and

post-simulations, negotiation was the best understood by the

students, and facilitation the least. While the means indicate th at

the change in level of student understanding was slightly gre ater

for negotiation, the Wilcoxon results suggest that facilitation

J. ANDREW, J. MELIGRANA

Table 1.

Students’ levels of understanding of ADR processes.

Responden ts’ Level o f Understa nd ing of …

Negotiations Facilitation Mediation

Survey R esponse

Before After Before After BeforeAfter

Excellent 0 7 0 4 0 4

Very Good 2 21 0 18 1 21

Good 16 11 14 16 17 12

Fair 18 0 24 1 18 2

Poor 4 0 3 0 5 0

Total 40 41 41 41 41 39

Mean 3.60 2.10 3.73 2.36 3.66 2.31

Std. Dev. .7442 .6804 .5926 .7066 .7283.7310

Diff. in Mean –1.50 –1.37 –1.38

t Test Z Sc ore –4.656 –4.676 –4.491

t Test p Value .000 .000 .000

enjoyed a slightly larger gain in student understanding. Both

methods indicate that mediation had the smallest gains in stu-

dent understanding. It was expected that the greatest improve-

ment would be in facilitation, since it is traditionally the least

familiar of the three processes to those with no conflict resolu-

tion experience. A fairly good prior understanding of negotia-

tion was anticipated, and in fact it was slightly better than for

facilitation and mediation. However, since three of the five simula-

tions involved negotiation, thi s is likely responsi ble for this AD R

method seeing the largest gains (as measured by means) in stu-

dent understanding.

Overall Educational Value of Simulations

The finding that respondent s believed that the simulation s sig -

nificantly improved their understanding of negotiation, facilita-

tion and mediation is consistent with their high appraisals of the

overall educational value of the simulations. Although this asse-

ssment improved slightly after the course (mean of 2.05; s li ght ly

less than “very good”), t he students also anticipated that the s i mu -

lations would be valuable for learning (mean of 2.10). It was

apparent that there was no significant difference between the

pre- and post-simulations responses. It is noteworthy that this is

in contrast to the relatively large changes in students’ levels of

understanding of all three conflict resolution processes.

Respondents were asked (on the post- simulations survey o nly )

to rank the five role-playing simulations used in the course

according to their educational value (1 for the most valuable to

5 for the least). These results are shown in Table 2. The highest

and lowest ranked simulations were both negotiations. Although

the clearest trend appears to be that students felt that simula-

tions with a greater number of roles or parties were the best,

this is likely confounded by the Harborco and Menehune Bay

simulations (with six and seven parties, respectively) also being

the best designed of the five, which meant they ran more smoothly.

Students seemed quite sensitive to how well each simulation

functioned, and this was reflected in their level of satisfaction.

The three negotiation simulations had an overall mean of

3.05, compared to the facilitation mean of 2.38 and the media-

tion mean of 3.38. Therefore, this ranking of facilitation as hav-

ing the greatest educational value and mediation the least was

completely consistent with the Wilcoxon test results for the

respondents’ level of understanding of the three conflict resolu-

tion processes. However, these findings are quite uncertain, given

that there was only one simulation for each of facilitation and

mediation.

Table 2.

Perceived educational val ue of the five simulations.

Simulation Type MeanRank

Bradford de v elopment Negotiatio n 4.08 5

Development at redsto n Negotiation 3.11 3

Harborco Negotiation 1.97 1

Development dispute menuhune bay Facilita ti on 2.38 2

Westville Mediation 3.38 4

Following up on the preceding question, students were asked

(in an open-ended question on the post-simulations survey only)

to indicate what was particularly valuable about the simulation

to which they had assigned the top rank. Comments about the

overall highest-ranked “Harborco” simulation included its di-

verse interests, its emphasis on searching for common interests,

its high level of realism, its large number of interests (six par-

ties) and issues, and its provision of opportunities to form coa-

litions of parties. As one student wrote: “There were multiple

interests and it was more realistic/complicated than the others,

[which] were too constrained by the roles to be fully useful.”

Students who picked “Menehune Bay” as the most valuable

commented on its multiple parties (seven), the fact that it was

the most complex of the simulations, the involvement of a fa-

cilitator (the previous three simulations had been negotiations),

and its flexibility to invent options in order to meet as many of

the parties’ interests as possible. The latter is one of the “Get-

ting to Yes” principles. This was the first simulation in which

they were not limited to fixed options when assembling pack-

ages of agreements, which made it more realistic. According to

one student: “It was not based upon points therefore it enabled

us to expand the pie and have real reason to explore underlying

interests.”

Value of Simulations in Teaching Planning Concepts

Within the same theme of the educational value of the simu-

lations, six other questions were asked on the pre- and post-

simulations surveys. Of these, two were open-ended and one

was a ranking question. Asking the students about the useful-

ness of the simulations for learning about planning yielded a

pre-simulations mean of 2.68 and a post-simulations mean of

2.85 (shown in Table 3). Both were slightly better than the

“good” response. Surprisingly, the post-simulations question-

naires were slightly less enthusiastic. Slightly more positive but

experiencing a very small change was the question whether the

simulations would help the students create better environments

as planners. As Table 4 illustrates, this question had pre- and

post-simulations means of 2.20 and 2.18, respectively; both

slightly less than “somewhat agree.” A slightly greater positive

change was observed for the question of whether the simula-

tions would/did help the students to better understand different

perspectives on urban development (present and future) held by

various stakeholders (also shown in Table 4).

This mean changed from 2.10 to 1.87, yet still remained within

the “somewhat agree” range. The slight before-after changes of

these three questions, although varying in direction, are similar

in magnitude to the very slight change already seen in the over-

all educational value question (whose mean changed from 2.10

to 2.05). The responses regarding the merits of simulations in

learning negotiation skills and substantive knowledge in plan-

ning were remarkably consistent.

700

J. ANDREW, J. MELIGRANA

Table 3.

Usefulness of the simulations for learning about pl anning.

Pre-Simulations Post Simulations

Excellent 3 3

Very Good 14 15

Good 17 10

Fair 7 7

Poor 0 4

Total 41 39

Mean 2.68 2.85

Std. Dev. .8497 1.1364

Diff. Mean .17

Table 4.

Other merits of role-playing simulations in learning planning.

Simulations will assist in

creating better

environments

Simulations will assist in

understanding different

perspectives on urba n d evelopment

Pre-

Simulations Post-

Simulations Pre-

Simulations Post-

Simulations

Strongly

Agree 6 8 7 10

Somewhat

Agree 21 20 24 25

Neither Agree

nor disagree 14 9 9 3

Somewhat

disagree 0 0 1 1

Strongly

disagree 0 2 0 0

Total 41 39 41 39

Mean 2.20 2.18 2.10 1.87

Std. Dev. .6790 .9423 .7002 .6561

Diff. of Mean –.02 –.23

Amenability of Types of Planning and Planning Goals

to ADR

Comparing the pre- and post-simulations surveys, there were

few differences in how respondents ranked five planning goals

according to the extent to which they could be achieved using

ADR. Although the only statistically significant change (as de-

tected by the t test) in mean ranking was observed for the goal

of “promoting and supporting planning as a profession,” its re-

duced achievability had no effect as it was already ranked fifth

on the pre-simulations survey. The only ranking change was a

switch between first and second places, with “making policies

and plans more equitable” moving to the top rank and “improv-

ing the communication of complex planning concepts” dropp ing

to the second rank. The third and fourth most achievable plan-

ning goals were “making policies and plans more efficient” and

“improving planning education”, respectively. Overall, the ex-

perience with the simulations did little to change the students’

minds about the achievability of planning goals using ADR.

The post-simulations survey asked participants to rank five

types of planning according to their amenability to the use of

negotiation-based conflict resolution processes. The results may

not be very useful as they appear to reflect the types of planning

involved in the five simulations themselves. In other words, stu -

dents ranked land use, environmental and community as the top-

three most appropriate types of planning (in decreasing order of

amenability), since these were the three types most featured in

the simulations, in roughly the same order of emphasis. The m ea n

rankings for these three items were very close together, ranging

from 2.42 to 2.61. Social and heritage planning ranked fourth

and fifth, with respective means of 3.37 and 4.13. The only

anomaly is the low ranking of social planning, since the “West-

ville” mediation dealt with the opening of a homeless shelter.

Heritage planning had a much lower mean than the other types

of planning, reflecting its very minor role in the simulations.

Learning Objectives

The students were asked, both before and after the course, to

rank five learning objectives for the simulations, according to

their importance (before) and the extent to which they were

achieved by the simulations (after). Rank one was assigned to

the most important/achieved objective and five for the least).

Table 5 shows the pre- and post-simulations means and overall

rankings of each objective. There was a considerable r e- ord eri ng

of the objectives as a result of experience with the simulations.

“Learning how to choose the most effective conflict resolution

approach to a dispute, and “learning how to determine one’s

own interests and needs in a dispute” switched places between

the second and fifth ranks. These were the only two objectives

for which the change in mean was determined to be statistically

significant by the t test. “Learning how to identify common

interests and trade-offs” and “learning how to effectively com-

municate one’s own interests and needs to other parties” experi -

enced a less dramatic place-swapping of the first and third ra nk s.

“Learning how to better understand the interests and need of

other parties” remained at the fourth rank. Clearly, the simula-

tion taught the students the importance of “interests” in nego-

tiation, with identifying common interests being of prime i mpor-

tance. Identifying and communicating one’s own interests, and

understanding the interests of other parties were of lesser im-

portance. After the course, the selection of the optimal conflict

resolution process was seen as much less important tha n be fore.

Table 5.

Ranking of importance/achievement of learning objectives by simula-

tions.

Pre-

Simulations Post-

Simulations T Test

Mean Rank Mean Rankt p

To learn how to choose the most

effective conflict resolution

approach to a dispute 2.68 2 4.15 5 –4.76.00

To learn how to identify

common interests and those that

may be “traded off” 2.70 3 2.23 1 1.43.16

To learn how to determine your

own interests and needs in a

dispute 3.80 5 2.72 2 3.90.00

To learn how to effectively

communicate your own interests

and needs to other parties 2.47 1 2.79 3 –1.37.18

To learn how to better

understand the interests and

needs of other parties 3.35 4 3.03 4 1.14.26

Note: N.B. Rank of 1 re pr esents t he most important; 5 is the l east important.

J. ANDREW, J. MELIGRANA

In both the pre- and post-simulations surveys, an open-ended

question asked respondents to identify any learning objectives

not among the five listed in the previous question. Prior to the

simulations, the answers tended to be more general, such as

learning how to negotiate to achieve one’s own objectives, dev-

eloping confidence in negotiating with others, learning to work

more productively in groups, developing greater patience, learn-

ing how to put the theory contained in the readings into practice.

Learning to concentrate on the issues in dispute rather than the

personalities involved, and how to speak more effectively and

diplomatically when negotiating were mentioned on both sur-

veys. Respondents on the post-simulations survey focused on

more specific skills developed in the simulations, such as how

to understand and utilize one’s own BATNA (Best Alternative

To a Negotiated Agreement), how to build effective coalitions

with other parties, how to effectively communicate ideas and

interests between parties, how to build consensus by generating

creative options that meet various interests, and how to develop

trust and strong relationships between parties.

Students were asked to identify the single most important thing

they expected to learn, and did learn, from the simulations (in

the pre- and post-simulations questionnaires, respectively). As

with the previous question (and some overlap with it was in-

evitable), the initial set of answers tended to be very general.

Many emulated the language of “Getting to Yes”. Typical com-

ments included: negotiation and communication skills, how to

meet one’s own needs as well as other’s needs, applying nego-

tiation theory to real life conflict situations, how to work with

difficult people to solve problems, how to persuade people, how

to listen to understand other partie s’ viewpoints, and how to ne g-

otiate without getting emotional. One comment astutely s umme d

up many students’ expectations of what they would learn from

the simulations, as “how to conduct negotiations in a manner

that produces an agreement that is mutually beneficial to all

parties.”

Assessing What Was Learned

On completion of the course, students tended to identify mo re

specific skills or concepts that they had learned, compare to th eir

responses to the preceding question. Commonly mentioned ex-

amples included: the importance of discovering parties’ inter-

ests behind their stated positions, how to identify and capitalize

on common interests, how to trade-off interests for mutual ga in s,

how to determine one’s BATNA, how to effectively communi-

cate one’s interests to other parties, how to deal with emotional

situations, how to creatively invent options without committing

to them initially. One student made the interesting observation

that “honesty is the most important part of reaching a mutu-

ally-beneficial agreement.” Several others identified maturity

and listening skills as critically important features.

The post-simulations questionnaire also asked students to iden-

tify the one most important thing they learned about planning

from participating in the simulations. Many of the responses

were quite interesting. A commonly mentioned theme was that

planning disputes are more comp lex and difficult to resolve tha n

they had realized, as they often involve many stakeholders with

many seemingly-irreconcilable interests. Many involve conflicts

over values, several people noted. Several others commented on

the importance of understanding other parties’ viewpoints. An-

other frequently mentioned lesson learned was the need to gen-

erate creative options that allow trade-offs of interests to be made.

According to one respondent: “Planning is about collaboration

amongst all stakeholders”. Although the importance of foster-

ing and maintaining good relationships between parties was a

recurring theme, one person noted that: “People’s egos and pr ej u-

dices can ruin a negotiation.” One student observed that plan-

ners can seldom function as truly neutral mediators, picking up

on one of the themes of the “Westville” mediation simulation.

Finally, one student complained that s/he had not learned any-

thing about planning because the simulations were “too ficti-

tious” and they lacked sufficient background information and

the flexibility to allow players to “adapt outcomes”.

The post-simulations survey also wanted to know if the sim u-

lations helped to dispel any misconceptions previously held by

the participants. One corrected misperception that several stu-

dents mentioned was that most agreements satisfy all of the m a in

interests of the parties, i.e. they’re “win-win” (to quote an over-

used cliché). Another was that achieving a consensus agreement

is easy if you follow the “principled negotiation” process out-

lined in books such as “Getting to Yes”. Several students men-

tioned that they had underestimated the great differences between

negotiation, facilitation and mediation. One was disappointed to

discover that facilitators and mediators are not always entirely

neutral, unbiased and impartial; nor do they always enjoy the

respect of the disputants. The simulations dispelled the belief of

at least a few students that it would be relatively easy to get

everyone to engage in principled negotiation and not act in an

adversarial manner. Another had previously believed that nego-

tiation-based processes could easily control emotions, even in

volatile disputes. Finally, several students had underestimated

the importance of the BATNA concept after having read “Get-

ting to Yes”.

Importance of Negotiation Skills in Planning

Both the pre- and post-simulations results were very positive

in response to a question asking how important it is for planners

to develop effective negotiation skills. In fact, students felt that

these skills were even more important after they had completed

the course. The mean response changes slightly from 1.61 to

1.51. Although both were in the “very important” range, the

post-simulations mean was almost closer to the “extremely im-

portant” response. In fact, 23 of the 39 respondents (59 percent)

felt that negotiation skills were “extremely important” after they

had participated in the five simulations.

Logistics of Conducting Simulations

The post-simulations survey (only) asked respondents to e val u-

ate the quantity provided of three aspects of the simulations: the

preparatory information provided prior to each simulation, the

time allocated to the simulations, and the time allocated to de-

briefing the simulations. The two questions related to time were

rated on a five-point scale from far too much to far too little.

They had mean scores of 2.92 (slightly to the “too much” side

of the “just right” response), and 3.00 (exactly equal to “just

right”), respectively. The scale for the question about informa-

tion ranged from very sufficient to very insufficient. Its mean of

2.00 represented the “somewhat sufficient” response. Students

were less satisfied with the information they were given in ad-

vance the simulations than they were about the timing of the

games. Since pre-packaged simulations were used, the instruc-

tor had no control over the information provided. Although the

702

J. ANDREW, J. MELIGRANA

instructor did have some control over the timing, he generally

adhered to the timing suggested by the game designers (com-

ment about student frustration over info.).

Value of Simulations in Resolving Real Conflicts

The next set of questions common to both surveys asked re-

spondents the extent to which they agreed with four statements:

that the simulations would help them to participate effectively

in ADR processes in the future, to achieve better outcomes u si ng

these processes, to give them confidence using these processes,

and to effectively manage conflicts. The first three of these qu es -

tions (shown in Tables 6 and 7), which are all process-centred,

had similar means which experienced very slight changes (no

more than .03) between the two surveys. All of these means

ranged from 1.66 to 1.80, closer to “somewhat agree” than to

“strongly agree”. These results indicate that participation in the

simulations did very little to change students’ perceptions of h o w

this experience would help them in using ADR. The fourth q ue s-

tion (also shown in Table 8) was not focussed on ADR proc-

esses, per se. Although it too remained within the “somewhat

agree” range, its larger shift in its mean response to ward st ronger

agreement (from 2.02 before to 1.77 after) was statistically

significant, with the Wilcoxon test indicating a z score of

–2.138 and a p value of .033. Prior to the course, students be-

lieved that the simulations would be less helpful in teaching

them to effectively manage future conflicts than they would be

for learning how to use ADR processes. However, their par-

ticipation in the simulations improved their collective opinion

about conflict management to the point that it was on par with

that regarding ADR.

Table 6.

Merits of role-playing simulations in teaching effective use of ADR processes.

Simulations w i l l h elp in effe ctive partic ipation in

ADR processes in the future Simulations will assist i n achieving better ou t comes

when using ADR in the future

Pre-Simulations Post-Simulations Pre-Simulations Post-Simulations

Strongly agree 17 13 13 12

Somewhat agree 21 25 25 25

Neither agree nor disa gree 3 1 3 2

Somewhat disagree 0 0 0 0

Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0

Total 41 39 41 39

Mean 1.66 1.69 1.76 1.74

Std. Dev. .6168 .5208 .5823 .5486

Diff. of Mean .03 –.02

Table 7.

Merits of simulations in teaching effective ADR use and conflict management.

Simulations will provide confidence in using ADR

processes in the future Simulati ons will assis t in effectively managing

conflicts in the future

Pre-Simulations Post-Simulations Pre-Simulations Post-Simulations

Strongly agree 13 11 8 11

Somewhat agree 23 27 24 26

Neither ag ree nor disa gr ee 5 0 9 2

Somewhat disagree 0 1 0 0

Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0

Total 41 39 41 39

Mean 1.80 1.77 2.02 1.77

Std. Dev. .6411 .5832 .6515 .5361

Diff. of Mean –.03 –.25

Table 8.

Ranking the importance of aspects of ADR su c c e s s .

Pre-

Simulations Post-

Simulations t Test

MeanRankMeanRank t p

Reducing the time requ ir ed for a sub sequent legal proces s to resolve th e disput e3.35 4 3.23 3 .32 .750

Improving the relationship between the dispu ting parties 2.40 2 2.18 2 .72 .476

Resolving some of the issues 2.33 1 2.08 1 1.38 .176

Reaching a f inal agre ement 2.65 3 3.28 4 –2.77 .009

Saving money for the disp u ting partie s 4.27 5 4.23 5 .72 .473

Note: N.B. Rank of 1 re pr esents t he most important; 5 is the l east important.

J. ANDREW, J. MELIGRANA

The next question asked respondents (both pre- and post-

simulations) the extent to which they believed that the simula-

tions would be/were realistic. This was related to the preceding

set of four questions, and the earlier question about the ade-

quacy of the preparatory information provided. The overall pre-

simulations mean for this question was 2.15, which was slightly

on the neutral side of “somewhat agree”. This indicates that re-

spondents were less confident about the realism of the simula-

tions than there were about any of the other merits of the simu-

lations probed in these related questions (which all had lower

means). However, the mean for this question dropped to 2.51

on the afte r-simulation que stionnaire, in contrast to the very s l ig ht

changes in the preceding four questions. In other words, after

having participated in the si mulations respondents felt they were

less realistic than they had anticipated them to be prior to the

course. The Wilcoxon test indicated that this change was not

quite statistically significant (z = –.1826, p = .068).

Value of Negotiation Theory

In both sets of surveys, students were asked about the use-

fulness of the theory presented in the set of required course

readings to their participation in the simulations, and their use-

fulness in real negotiation situatio ns they will encounter as pl an-

ners. Both questions showed a small improvement in their pre-

and post-simulations means, from 2.56 to 2.49 and from 2.68 to

2.36, respectively. Although small, each change was sufficient

to switch the closest response from “good” to “very good”.

After completion of the course, students felt that the theory

contained in the readings was more useful to both the simula-

tions and to application of ADR to real conflicts than they had

before the first simulation. This fits with the fact that several

students expressed concern about the large volume of reading

prior to the course, but when asked about this following the

course reported that they had not found the reading load to be

onerous and that it had been useful and interesting.

Understanding of Substantive Issues in Conflict

Resolution

Four ranking questions probed students’ understanding and

opinions about several key substantive issues in conflict resolu-

tion, both before and following the course. The first of these

asked students to rank the importance of five aspects of “suc-

cess” in an ADR process (with one being the most important).

As shown in Table 9, the only change in rankings pre- a nd po st -

simulations was a switch in the third and fourth ranks, between

“reducing the time required for a subsequent legal process to

resolve the dispute” (third rank after) and “reaching a final ag ree -

ment” (fourth rank after). This switch was largely the result of a

statistically significant decline (as indicated by the t test) in the

perceived importance of reaching agreement. This was not sur-

prising, since as people learn more about ADR, they typically

place less emphasis on the traditional measure of success of reach-

ing an agreement and recognize that there are other important

benefits that may accrue from ADR even if no final settlement

is produced, such as resolving some of the issues in dispute, i m-

proving inter-party relationships, and reducing the time required

to resolve the conflict through a subsequent process.

The second question in this set asked respondents to rank the

importance of five desirable characteristics of a facilitator or

mediator. No item changed more than one place i n rank betwe en

the pre-simulations and post-simulations surveys (see Table 9).

Table 9.

Ranking the Importance of Characte ristics of a Facilitator/Mediator.

Pre-Simulations Post-Simulations t Test

Characteristics of

facilitator/mediator MeanRank Mean Rank t p

Impartialit y and

neutrality 2.372 1.82 1 3.21.00

Substantive knowledge

in area of the dispute3.514 4.18 5 –3.09.00

Experience as a

facilitator/mediator 3.243 3.18 3 .53.59

Acceptability to each of

the parties 3.545 3.21 4 1.45.15

Listening and

communication skills2.341 2.62 2 –1.45.15

Note: N.B. Rank of 1 re pr esents t he most important; 5 is the l east important.

Three items experienced small changes to their mean responses.

Larger changes were seen in “impartiality and neutrality”, w hich

improved its ranking from second to first (changing places with

“listening and communication skills”); and in “substantive knowl-

edge in the area of the dispute”, which dropped from the fourth

rank to the fifth (switching with “acceptability to each of the

disputing parties”). These changes were confirmed by the t test

to be statistically significant. Impartiality/neutrality and substan-

tive knowledge were both themes addressed in the simulations.

Apparently, students learned the critical importance of the for-

mer, and came to understand that facilitators and mediators can

be effective without previously being experts in the specific s ub-

ject area of the dispute.

The third question involved ranking five characteristics of a

dispute that make it amenable to resolution using ADR. The hi g h-

est ranking two characteristics experienced very small changes

between the two surveys, and did not change positions (see

Table 10). They were “a good working relationship between

the disputing parties, or the need to develop one” (ranked first);

and “multiple issues that the parties value differently, allowing

them to make trade-offs” (ranked second). The remaining three

items all experienced statistically significant changes within the

lowest three rankings. “An impasse having been reached in a

previous attempt at conflict resolution” moved from fourth to

third, “the impending start of a less desirable conflict resolution

process (e.g. a trial date)” ascended from fifth to fourth, and “a

relatively small number of di sputing parties” dropped from t hird

to fifth place . It is int erestin g th at a lthough the simul ations changed

respondents’ opinions about the dispute characteristics they felt

were less important, they had little effect on interparty relation-

ships and issues valued differently, which were seen as most

important. For the latter two, either students possessed prior

knowledge about the amenability of disputes to ADR (which is

unlikely), or the simulations did not contribute much to their

knowledge in this area.

The fourth and final question in this set asked students to ran k

the relative importance of five principles of negotiation pur-

ported in “Getting to Yes”. This question experienced the op-

posite set of changes to the preceding question. The only statis-

tically significant changes (confirmed by the t test and shown in

Table 11) were in the first and second ranked principles, which

switched positions. “Focus on interests, not positions” moved

up to first place (with its mean ranking changing from 2.22 to

1.56), while “separate the people form the problem” dropped to

704

J. ANDREW, J. MELIGRANA

Table 10.

Ranking imp ortance of dispute characteristics for amenability to ADR.

Pre-

Simulations Post-

Simulations t Test

Characteristics of Dispute MeanRank Mean Rank t p

An im

asse having been reached

in a previous attempt

at conflict resolution 3.514 2.97 3 1.98.00

The impendin g start of a less

desirable conflict resolution

process (e.g. a trial date ) 3.695 3.13 4 2.04.05

A good work ing rela tio nship

between the di sputing parties, or

the need to de velop one 2.081 2.44 1 –1.63.11

A relatively small numbe r o f

disputing parties 3.003 3.87 5 –3.12.00

Multiple issues that the p arties

value differently, allowing them

to make trade-offs 2.692 2.64 2 .001.00

Note: N.B. Rank of 1 re pr esents t he most important; 5 is the l east important.

Table 11.

Ranking the importance of principles of negotiation in “Getting to Yes”.

Pre-

Simulations Post-

Simulations t Test

Principles of Negoti ation

(Fisher, Ury, & Patton, 1991) MeanRank Mean Rank t p

Don’t bargain ove r pos iti on s 3.514 3. 59 4 –.33.73

Separate th e people from the

problem 2.141 2.64 2 –2.11.04

Focus on interests, not

positions 2.222 1.56 1 3.17.00

Invent options for mutual gain 3.143 3. 00 3 1.05.29

Insist on using objective

criteria 3.955 4.13 5 –.96.34

Note: N.B. Rank of 1 re pr esents t he most important; 5 is the l east important.

second (due to its mean changing from 2.14 to 2.64). In dec re as-

ing order of importance, the remaining three principles were:

“invent options for mutual gain”, “don’t bargain over positions”,

and “insist on using objective criteria”. Since the simulations

and debriefings placed fairly heavy emphasis on identifying par-

ties’ interests and attempting to capitalize on differing but com-

patible interests, it is not surprising that thi s principle wa s r a n ke d

most important in the post-simulations survey. That the least

important three principles did not change their rankings is sur-

prising, considering that all five principles were repeatedly dis-

cussed in introducing and debriefing the simulations, which m ig ht

be expected to alter the students’ perceptions about their rela-

tive importance.

Concerns and Problems Encountered with the

Simulations

The pre-simulations survey asked respondents (in an open-

ended format) if they had any concerns about the upcoming

simulations. Commonly expressed concerns included that the

simulations would not be very realistic, participants would have

difficulty acting their roles or would not take the simulations

seriously, the determination of course grades would not be fair,

the workload would be too onerous, and they themselves would

not perform well in the simulations. A few students worried t hat

the simulations would not focus on planning issues, and that the

large class size and brevity of the course would not allow suffi-

cient time or instructor attention to make the simulations worth-

while.

The corresponding question on the post-simulations survey

asked about any problems encountered in the simulations. Fre-

quently mentioned ones included some of the simulations lack-

ing sufficient background information (including independent

standards that negotiators could turn to), and some people not

adhering to the “rules of the game”. Concerns mentioned prior

to the first simulation that came to fruition as problems reported

by some included respondents feeling that they had not perfo rm ed

well in the simulations, the simulations not being realistic (due

mainly to the artificial constraint of scorable points systems in

some of the simulations), and participants ha ving difficulty “ge t-

ting into their roles”. One student expressed that “participants

had difficulty playing their assigned role without allowing any

personal biases to enter”.

Several of the “problems” that were identified on the post-

simulations survey are considered by the authors to be commonly

encountered in real negotiations, and speak to the realistic na-

ture of the simulations. These include variability in the person-

alities of the participants (especially in key areas such as asser-

tiveness, charisma and persuasiveness); and behaviours such as

stubbornness, inflexibility and even dishonesty by some nego-

tiators. These findings are consistent with the problems encoun-

tered by Lewicki (1986) in using simulations to teach negotia-

tion, although we did not observe as great a display of emotion

in our simulations as he reported. One respondent wrote: “Peo-

ple would not really listen to each other. [They were] too en-

trenched in the positions or they would even lie about their

bottom line.” One reported difficulties brainstorming to “invent

options” without criticizing. Another found it challenging com-

municating with a negotiating partner and acting as a cohesive

team. S/he wrote: “I found it difficult having a partner in my

party, because it made me reluctant to take the initiative in mak -

ing offers. When negotiating o n my own, I was much more con -

fident in taking initiatives”.

Additional Comments about the Simulations

The final question on each survey invited respondents to add

any comments a bout issue s not c overed in the questionnaire. T h e

single response on the pre-simulations questionnaire was that a

full-length (rather than a four-week module) negotiation course

should be a mandatory component of the Master’s in planning

curriculum. Several students expressed the same sentiment at

the end of the course. Nearly all of the responses were positive

comments about the course, especially regarding its usefulness

in training future planning and their high level of enjoyment. A

few students confidently looked forward to their first opportu-

nity to engage in a “real life” planning negotiation and apply

what they had learned. Others were eager to learn more about

specific areas of negotiation, such as preparing for a negotiation

and drafting a final agreement. These responses were consistent

with the feedback recei ved through t he confidential c ourse eva l ua-

tion forms. Many echoed the sentiment that the course should

be full-length, although for some their rationale was that the wor k -

load and time commitment was too heavy for a four-week mod-

ule worth one-third of a course credit. One student wrote that:

J. ANDREW, J. MELIGRANA

“Covering negotiation/mediation skills is very important to pl an -

ning. The module was helpful in developing these skills.” An-

other commented that “[the] simulations were excellent learning

tools.”

Influence of Prior Experience with Simulations on

Student Responses

The pre-course questionnaire asked students wheth er they had

ever participated in any type of role-playing simulation of a

conflict resolution process to test whether prior experience had

any effect on the responses. Nineteen respondents indicated that

they had prior experience, and 22 indicated that they did not.

We hypothesized that for at least some of the pre-simulations

questions, there would be a difference between the responses of

those with prior experience and those without. However, prior

experience would be irrelevant to the responses on the post-

simulations survey, since by then everyone would have partici-

pated in five simulations. Visual examination of the frequency

tables and means of the pre-simulations responses suggested a

few possible differences. Differences in the mean response be-

tween the prior experience and no prior experience respondents

for each question ranged for .02 to 1.01. However, the Kolmo-

gorov-Smirnov test was run on the data for each question, and

none of the differences were revealed to be statistically signifi-

cant. This clea rly indicates that prior experience with ro le -p la y in g

simulations in conflict resolution did not influence respondents’

opinions and knowledge regarding the issues asked about in the

pre-simulations survey. This is a surprising finding. However, it

is particularly interesting when combined with the findings of

significant differences between the pre- and post-simulations sur-

veys discussed earlier. When combined, these findings suggest

that the five simulations in this course significantly changed the

knowledge, perceptions and opinions of respondents with re-

spect to some areas of inquiry, even though prior experience

with simulations had failed to do so. Of course, another factor

that may be at play is the fact that some of the respondents’

prior experience may have been very limited or some time ago,

and therefore presented the respondents with little opportunity

to learn.

Testing for Association between Responses and Exam

Scores

The final statistical analysis involved testing for an associa-

tion between each student’s score on the course exam and each

of nine questions on the post-simulations survey that were rele-

vant to evaluating knowledge acquired in the course. The exam

was a take-home exam distributed at the end of the final session,

and due 28 hours later. It accounted for 40% of the course g ra d e.

The selected questions were those asking respondents their opi n-

ions about the level of their understanding of each of the three

ADR processes (Questions 1-3 in Table 12); the overall educa-

tional value of the simulations (Question 10); the usefulness of

the simulations for teaching participants to participate effec-

tively, achieve better outcomes, have more confidence when

engaged in real ADR processes (Questions 11-13); to help par-

ticipants to manage actual conflicts more effectively (Question

13); and the importance of planners developing effective nego-

tiation skills (Question 27). The exam scores were paired with

the response data for each of the above questions in turn. A

Spearman correlation coefficient was then calculated for each

pair, to test for associations between their data. The results are

Table 12.

Testing for correlation between exam scores and 9 post-simulation

questions.

Question No. Spearman Correlation Coefficient p value

Post 1 –.055 .747

Post 2 –.066 .696

Post 3 .091 .592

Post 4 –.025 .882

Post 10 –.084 .622

Post 11 –.059 .728

Post 12 –.101 .552

Post 13 –.120 .478

Post 27 –.029 .866

shown in Table 12. Surprisingly, none of these pairings pro-

duced a statistically significant association. However, this may

be due in large part to the unusually small standard deviation of

exam scores.

Conclusion

These findings indicate that role-playing simulations are very

effective for teaching negotiation skills (and negotiation-based

ADR processes such as facilitation and mediation) to planning

students. Participants reported high levels of satisfaction with

the simulations, both in terms of their educational value and the

students’ enjoyment of the experience. The ability of the simu-

lation to change students’ knowledge, perceptions and opinions

is indicated by the differences in responses betwe en the pre- an d

post-simulations questionnaires for many of the areas of inquiry.

This finding regarding the effectiveness of role-playing simula-

tions in teaching negotiation is consistent with the non-empirical

conclusions of Lewicki (1986). However, no previous research

was found which specifically addressed the merits of using simula-

tions to teach negotiation skills to planning students, providing

no basis of comparison for our findings. Furthermore, none of

the evaluation criteria employed in this article were also used in

any previous studies on the effectiveness of role-playing simu-

lations in other educational settings. Thi s further precluded pla c-

ing our findings in the context of previous research.

The simulations taught students the importance of interests in

conflict resolution, especially identifying common interests, and

identifying and communicating one’s own interests. Issues that

are valued differently by different parties, and which can there-

fore be traded off, are helpful. Simulations are quite valuable in

preparing students to participate effectively in real ADR proc-

esses, both in giving them confide nce and in bringi ng about good

outcomes. More generally, they help future planners to manage

actual conflicts more skillfully. Participants found the theory

contained in the course readings to be useful and relevant in the

simulations. Two of the five principles of negotiation presented

in “Getting to Yes” were especially appropriate to these simula-

tions: “Focus on interests not positions” and “Separate the peo-

ple from the problem”.

The simulations were able to dispel the misconception that

“success” using an ADR process consists only of the achieve-

ment of a final settlement. Rather, the students learned that ot her

benefits may accrue even if agreement is not reached, such as

resolving some of the issues in dispute, lessening the duration

of time required to ultimately settle the dispute, and improving

706

J. ANDREW, J. MELIGRANA

relationships between the parties. The importance of good rela-

tionships, or a mutual desire to develop them; and the complete

impartiality and neutrality of facilitators and mediators were

revealed. Simulations involving a greater number of parties (e.g.

six or seven) and a facilitator appear to be particularly benefi-

cial as educational tools.

Simulations were found to be slightly less valuable for teach-

ing aspects of planning other than conflict resolution. In part,

this contradicted the findings of Baum (1997), Innes and Boo-

her (1999) and Krause and Amaral (1994). However, we found

ADR to be particularly useful for generating more equitable

policies and plans, improving communication of complex plan-

ning conc epts, and understanding the diverse vie wpoints of s ta ke -

holders. These negotiation-based processes seem most appro-

priate for land use, environmental and community planning. Par -

ticipants in the simulations learned that planning disputes are

often complex and difficult to resolve, especially if they involve

multiple parties and many competing interests. They also dis-

covered that disputants are not always willing or able to engage

in productive and principled negotiation.

Some potential weaknesses of using simulations in this set-

ting that were detected include the provision of in adequate ba ck-

ground information, lack of realism, difficulty of some partici-

pants to portray their roles convincingly, counterproductive (but

often realistic) behaviours (e.g. stubbornness, inflexibility and

dishonesty) by some participants, and communication problems

between members of negotiating teams.

A surprising finding was that prior experience with role-play-

ing simulations of conflict resolution processes did not influ-

ence students’ opinions and knowledge of ADR processes prior

to the course beginning. This makes the ability of the simula-

tions in this course to change students’ knowledge levels and

opinions about conflict resolution in planning more impressive,

since prior experience with simulations had failed to do so.

Finally, it was also surprising that there was no significant as-

sociation between final exam scores and any of the nine post-

simulations questions tested, which were relevant to evaluating

knowledge acquired in the course. On one hand, the students

clearly learned a great deal from the simulations; yet how they

answered selected questions at the end of the course did not

have any bearing on how they performed on the exam.

REFERENCES

Baum, H. (1997). Social science, social work, and surgery: Teaching

what students need to practice planning. Journal of the American

Planning Association, 63, 179-188.

doi:10.1080/01944369708975913

Bredemeier, M., & Greenblat, C. (1981). The education effect iv en ess o f

simulation games. Simulation and Games, 12, 307-331.

doi:10.1177/104687818101200304

Cherryholmes, C. (1966). Some current research on effectiveness of

educational simulations: Implications for alternative strategies. Ame-

rican Behavioral Scientist, 10, 4-7.

doi:10.1177/000276426601000202

Dolin, E. J., & Susskind, L. E. (1992). A role for simulations in public

policy disputes: The case for National Energy Policy. Simulation and

Gaming, 23, 20-44. doi:10.1177/1046878192231003

Fisher, R., Ury, W., Patton, B. (1991). Getting to yes: Negotiating

agreement without giving in (2nd ed.) . New York, NY: Penguin.

Foster, J. L., Lachman, A. C., Mason, R. M. (1980). Verstehen, cogni-

tion, and the impact of political simulations. Simulation and Games,

11, 223-241. doi:10.1177/0037550080112007

Friedmann, J., & Kuester, C. (1994). Planning education for the late

20th century: An initial inquiry comment. Journal of Planning Edu-

cation and Research, 14, 55-64. doi:10.1177/0739456X9401400106

Hankinson, H. (1987). The cognitive and affective learning effects of

debriefing after a simulation game. Doctoral Dissertation, Bloom-

ington: Indiana University.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building as role play-

ing and bricolage. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65,

9-26. doi:10.1080/01944369908976031

Krause, G. H., & Amaral, M. (1994). Simulating harbor management:

A tool for public participation. Journal of Planning Education and

Research, 14, 43-54. doi:10.1177/0739456X9401400105

Lewicki, R. J. (1986). Challenges of teaching negotiation. Negotiation

Journal, 23, 15-27. doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.1986.tb00335.x

Meligrana, J., & John, A. (2003). A critical assessment of learning

expectations and outcomes of role-playing simulations in planning

education. Journal of Planning Practice and Research, 18, 95-108.

doi:10.1080/0269745032000132673

Nightingale, C. S. (1981). Games and simulations: A teaching tech-

nique. South African Geographer, 9, 59-65.

Petranek, C. F., Corey, S., & Black, R. (1992). Three levels of learning

in simulations: Participating, debriefing, and journal writing. Simula-

tion and Gaming, 23, 174-185. doi:10.1177/1046878192232005

Pierfy, D. (1977). Comparative simulation game research: Stumbling

blocks and stepping s t o n e s . Simulation and G a mes, 8, 255-268.

doi:10.1177/003755007782006

Randel, J. M., Morris, B. A., Wetzel, C. D., & Whitehill, B. V. (1992).

The effectiveness of games for educational purposes: A review of

recent research. Simulation and Gaming, 22, 261-276.

doi:10.1177/1046878192233001

Ryan, T. (2000). The role of simulation gaming in policy-making.

Systems Research and Behavi o r al Science, 17, 359-364.

doi:10.1002/1099-1743(200007/08)17:4<359::AID-SRES306>3.0.C

O;2-S

Sawicki, D. S. (1988). Planning education and practice: Can we plan

for the next decade? Journal of Planning Education and Research, 7,

115-120. doi:10.1177/0739456X8800700216

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals

think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Fran-

cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schultz, B. (1989). Conflict resolution training programs: Implications

for theory and research. Negotiation Journal, 5, 301-311.

doi:10.1111/j.1571-9979.1989.tb00525.x

Shepherd, A., & Cosgriff, B. (1998). Problem-based learning: A bridge

between planning education and planning practice. Journal of Plan-

ning Education and Research, 17, 348-357.

doi:10.1177/0739456X9801700409

Szafran, R. F., &Mandolini, A. F. (1980). Test performance and con-

cept recognition: The effect of a simulation game on two types of

cognitive knowledge. Simulation and Game s , 11, 326-335.

doi:10.1177/104687818001100305

Walford, R. (1981). Geography games and simulations: Learning

through experience. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 5,

113-119. doi:10.1080/03098268108708808