View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Wargames as Pedagogical Tools: Using Wargames for Higher Education

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Wargames as Pedagogical Tools: Using Wargames for Higher Education
Language: English
Authors: Michael Fowler
Source: Journal of Political Science Education. 2025 21(1):163-182.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 20
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Descriptors: College Students, College Faculty, Educational Games, Computer Games, Computer Simulation, War, Active Learning, Learning Objectives, Computer Software Selection, Instructional Material Evaluation, Curriculum Development, Positive Reinforcement, Goal Orientation, Student Motivation
DOI: 10.1080/15512169.2024.2349549
ISSN: 1551-2169
1551-2177
Abstract: Wargames and crisis simulations can be useful pedagogical tools when deliberately used. This paper explores the spectrum of pedagogical objectives; what use are wargames for learning? What types of objectives can they explore? How do you align the learning objectives with the right type of game? The paper leverages Bloom's Taxonomy of learning as a method to guide game selection according to the desired classroom learning objective. For each type of game, the paper identifies lessons from higher education classroom use that others should consider before applying their own wargame.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1458815
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGC-evwiI3nZQBJlxsdu_c2AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDN2ekclJ1rYZtLlpdAIBEICBm-VcocJxlhkIe9wHkR8pdP8khcM8Y4KgMlsV8tjjWfiLjF9ak-V2f04MdP_0jySlcbhjBxCK-rFH-T6B7zZgnjoqRM8-T1xM9__2S7buyNiGI3ZfW1QOP25t9igBIKaW57ba1445q6flgU45W3rbMA1pbwY8A-C3RKMooWCfQXy_LE3RK4ImIA6F45dZfvgJ873prDxs9Q1dTq8E
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0182438165;[15ub]01jan.25;2025Jan29.00:32;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0182438165-1">Wargames as Pedagogical Tools: Using Wargames for Higher Education </title> <p>Wargames and crisis simulations can be useful pedagogical tools when deliberately used. This paper explores the spectrum of pedagogical objectives; what use are wargames for learning? What types of objectives can they explore? How do you align the learning objectives with the right type of game? The paper leverages Bloom's Taxonomy of learning as a method to guide game selection according to the desired classroom learning objective. For each type of game, the paper identifies lessons from higher education classroom use that others should consider before applying their own wargame.</p> <p>Keywords: Wargaming; educational games; assessment; learning theory; active learning; simulations</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In education, there are many poorly executed wargames and crisis simulations (Rubel [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref1">60</reflink>]).[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref2">1</reflink>] From pre-determined outcomes to unrealistic scenarios to over-reliance on computational models, wargaming experiences can be a cautionary tale of the challenge of avoiding negative learning about capabilities or events that are fictionalized, misrepresented, or dramatically over-simplified. Wargames can be great learning tools but many are poorly implemented. Games need to be directly tied to learning outcomes. Plus, faculty need to put in the time and effort to modify games to the need, the number of students, and the available time (Shaw and Switky [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref3">67</reflink>]). This article is designed to help faculty find the appropriate type of game based on their need and level of effort.</p> <p>This study leveraged ten years of department annual curriculum assessment reports and graded event rubrics across 14 courses. Considering that "different educational game designs excel at different tasks" (Bartels [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref4">11</reflink>]), this paper proposes Bloom's taxonomy as a guide to game selection and modification. From a pedagogical perspective, every wargame should be designed with two objectives (Keuhn [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref5">37</reflink>], 149; Sepinsky [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref6">65</reflink>]). The first is some element of victory. Players want to be able to win. This can motivate players to take the game seriously (Bartles, McCown, and Wilkie [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref7">12</reflink>], 40). Second is the learning objective or outcome. This is the purpose for the game's creation or use in class (Asal and Kratoville [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref8">6</reflink>]; Bain [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>]). Outcomes should convey knowledge, create knowledge, or both (Appleget, Burks, and Cameron [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>], 5). The victory conditions may be only tangentially related to the learning goals. Regardless of whether a player wins or loses, they should still be learning (Haff, 31; Sepinsky [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref11">65</reflink>]).</p> <p>Following Sabin, this article views wargames rather broadly as any attempt to immerse student players into an environment that attempts to replicate the problem being studied (Sabin [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref12">61</reflink>], 340). Despite the name, wargames need not involve combat at all but include "human players, immersed in scenarios, bounded by rules, and motivated by consequence-based outcomes" (Lin-Greenberg, Pauly, and Scheider [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref13">44</reflink>], 85; Wong et al. [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref14">73</reflink>], 5). Some faculty may prefer to use the term "crisis simulation" which can be particularly useful if force is not intended to be a primary component in the game. For brevity, this article will use wargame.</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-3">Wargames for enhancing classroom learning</hd> <p>Wargames expose students to a representation of a real-life crisis or operation (Appleget, Burks, and Cameron [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref15">2</reflink>], 3; Caffrey [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref16">14</reflink>]; Perla [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref17">55</reflink>], 100). This can be combat or a variety of activities including deterrence, strategic competition, influence, humanitarian aid, pandemic response, space operations, and security cooperation. Games are particularly useful for learning political science, history, and international relations (Asal, Sin, et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]; Glick and Charters [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]; Lin-Greenberg, Pauly, and Scheider [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref20">44</reflink>]; Levin-Banchik [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref21">43</reflink>]; Nygaard, Courtney, and Leigh [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref22">53</reflink>]; Shellman and Turan [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref23">69</reflink>]). Games facilitate higher levels of engagement and enthusiasm (Coffey, Miller, and Feuerstein [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref24">17</reflink>]; Ip and Linser [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref25">32</reflink>]; Sabin [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref26">61</reflink>], 334; Shellman and Turan [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref27">68</reflink>]). Students learn through actions, observations, and reactions that results in better long-term retention of the material (Crookall and Thorngate [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref28">18</reflink>], 16; Wunische [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref29">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>Wargaming is useful in contextualizing problems, understanding theories, testing hypotheses, and developing decision-making skills (Asal, Sin, et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref30">7</reflink>]; Bartels [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref31">11</reflink>]; Kanner [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref32">36</reflink>]; Milley [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref33">51</reflink>], 6; Shellman and Turan [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref34">69</reflink>]). Students make difficult decisions to achieve their strategy and project power by considering tradeoffs (Lacey [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref35">41</reflink>]; Sabin [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref36">61</reflink>]; Koster [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref37">40</reflink>], 65). The hands-on approach enables students to apply and explore complicated theoretical concepts, sometimes through trial and error (Archer and Miller [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref38">3</reflink>]; Asal et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]; Pettenger, West, and Young [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref40">58</reflink>]; Shaw [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref41">66</reflink>]; Knight and Wood [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref42">39</reflink>]). Wargames immerse students to enable identification of the key factors of a conflict or security problem (Caffrey [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref43">14</reflink>], 291–341; Dorn [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]; Heath [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref45">31</reflink>]; Lacey [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref46">41</reflink>]; Work and Selva [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref47">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>Wargames can be an alternative research method to test a hypothesis such as a strategic theory (Lin-Greenberg, Pauly, and Scheider [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref48">44</reflink>]; Mason [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>]; Work and Selva [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref50">75</reflink>]). While the assumptions in future games make the results less scientific, they "explore a range of possible warfighting futures, generate innovative ideas, and consider how to integrate new technologies into doctrine, operations, and force structure... generated requirements for new systems, suggested new operation concepts, and influenced force design" (Work and Selva [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref51">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>Wargaming allows students to learn through losing. It "allows participants to fail, fail again, experience the loss, adapt, innovate, and then get it right" (Fielder [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref52">25</reflink>]; Juul [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref53">35</reflink>]; Work and Selva [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref54">75</reflink>]). Games enable learning though action with far less expense "in terms of error consequence" (Crookall and Thorngate [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref55">18</reflink>], 8). Wargaming teaches students that regardless of one side's advantages, failure is a possibility. Avoiding failure requires planning and consideration of alternatives (Sasley [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref56">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Despite these arguments, Yuna Wong argues that there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate a linkage between wargaming and learning miliary strategy or problem-solving skills (Sabin [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref57">61</reflink>]; Wong and Heath [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref58">74</reflink>]). There are two parts to this problem. First, most wargames conduct shoddy or superficial assessments. To correct this, the final section of this paper will discuss methods to improve the quality of game assessments. Second, the learning objectives, level of learning, type of wargame, and assessment need to be synchronized as part of the game design. Ambiguous learning objectives are a common challenge. Rarely is a game designed to meet a specific classroom objective which can make the game more of a distraction (Wedig [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref59">72</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-4">Matching wargames to learning objectives</hd> <p>There is a wide variety of wargames. Some are more appropriate for the classroom than others. The scenario can focus on a specific geographic region, space, the cyber realm, the entire globe, or a combination of those. It can be set in the past, present, or future. They can be tabletop, computerized, or involve physical activity. They can be quick and cheap or last an entire semester and cost thousands for facilities and technology support. Some games can be single player while others can incorporate even the largest class into a single game.</p> <p>Identifying an appropriate wargame for learning depends on many factors: the desired theme or topic, the time available to play the game, the number of players, and the resources available. Yet one aspect that is frequently overlooked is the level of the learning objective on Bloom's Taxonomy shown in Figure 1 (Anderson, Krathwohl, and Bloom [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>]). Note that a prerequisite to using Bloom's to identity the optimum wargame requires Bloom's-based learning objectives.</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Figure 1. Learning objectives and Bloom's taxonomy.</p> <p>Bloom's identifies six levels of cognitive skills. These can be considered levels of mastery on a subject. When used to create graded events or course assessments, these can also be viewed as a level of difficulty. It is important to keep in mind that the levels build on each other. Mastery at one level (or at least a passing grade) is necessary to perform at the next level. If the student fails to remember the concepts, it is unlikely they will be able to understand them, much less apply them.</p> <p>Upper division undergraduate and graduate political science or social science courses will typically culminate at the analysis level. While this is a broad category, examples include case studies, comparative studies, differentiating between policy options, process tracing, and discriminating the factors of causality. Analysis typically focuses on what happened and potential explanations. Analysis is often paired with the next level, synthesis. In political science classrooms, synthesis requires students to propose a solution. Synthesis requires analysis of a complex topic and culminates in something like a policy recommendation or strategic plan while accounting for a variety of costs, benefits, and risks.</p> <p>At the top of Bloom's is creation which requires the student to make something that is new. In most political science programs, this is constrained to a few course options: capstones, thesis writing, or dissertations. As these are culminating courses, it implies that the student went through a substantial amount of analysis and synthesis to get to this level. While the student is seeking to create something new and original, most advisors will steer their student to build up or branch out from the analysis and synthesis from the earlier stages of the program.</p> <p>While many faculty aspire to get their students to the top level in the course topic, they need to be realistic. Faculty need to consider the purpose of the course, the course level, course prerequisites, and where the course fits into the broader program. Most courses begin at the remember and understand the level to give students the foundations before attempting the more complex cognitive skills. Remember focuses on memorization of facts and concepts. At understand, students are expected to be able to describe processes or under what conditions or assumptions theories are based. To do this well, the student still needs to remember the facts and concepts from the previous level. In some programs, the remember and understand levels might be covered in a prerequisite course enabling the course to jump right into the application phase in which students apply the concepts or processes from the understand level.</p> <p>After course learning objectives are well-defined, the instructor can explore options to find the optimum type of wargame to address those learning objectives. While there is no "right answer," the key is to select that is at the appropriate level for the students based on their progress in the program and the course. While I may want all of my students to synthesize policy recommendations for a complex problem, I first have to ensure that they have the prerequisite cognitive skills to have a chance at succeeding.</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-5">Knowledge-based objectives in wargames</hd> <p>Knowledge-based wargames focus on the lower portion of Bloom's Taxonomy such as recalling facts and understanding concepts, describing the situation, context, problem, capabilities, processes, and decision options. These can be short, simple games to teach a concept or set of related concepts. For example, games exist to help students understand international relations concepts such as realism and liberalism (Fielder [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref61">24</reflink>]). From these games, students recall both the definitions of the terms and can describe how the concept is used.</p> <p>Historical case-study wargames are popular as they convey the context of a battle or campaign, the options to achieve objectives, the impact of the terrain or political borders, and the relative success of the battle (Gorton and Havercroft [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref62">29</reflink>]). In many cases, it can help students explain why a commander made a decision that had poor results.</p> <p>Contemporary cases can be used to help students understand the current state of international relations. For example, a China-Russia-US-Japan game used at the US Air Force Academy introduces students to a variety of IR concepts. Students deal with China's maritime claims and the international convention on the law of the sea. They see the disputed islands in the Senkakus and the Kuriles. The background scenario covers the long history of relationships between the four countries which shape their current security objectives.</p> <p>These games can be used to learn about processes or missions. For example, games can introduce the process and methods ranging from resolving humanitarian crisis (e.g., PAXSims' Aftershock) to backroom political maneuver to elect a prime minister (e.g., Secret Hitler). Using combat-oriented games such as GMT's Next War series, students can learn military capabilities such as relative strengths and weaknesses between China and Japan.</p> <p>Finally, knowledge-based games can introduce security concepts and theories like coercion and deterrence. Compass Game's South China Sea and Clash of Arms' Persian Incursion include combat as well as an independent pre-game that focuses on diplomacy, coercion, and cooperation. Many wargames have some aspects of strategic tradeoffs, opportunity costs, and fog & friction (Asal, Griffith, and Schulzke [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref63">5</reflink>]). In a specific use of a game to teach strategic concepts, the game Diplomacy can teach the concepts of anarchy, balance of power, realism, liberal-institutionalism, and alliance theory (Asal [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref64">4</reflink>]; Mattlin [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref65">45</reflink>]). The November 2023 Academy Assembly included a workshop that played an educational wargame about Taiwan created by two PhD students at MIT, Suzanne B. Freeman and Benjamin Norwood Harris. The discussion-based game had 40 players divided into four teams: US, China, Taiwan, and Japan. While the scenario was a humanitarian crisis, the four teams' competing objectives required students to implement core IR concepts including theories on deterrence, compellence, alliances (cooperation and defection) and escalation. Plus, as designed, the students learned the unique international situation of Taiwan.</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-6">Lessons from using knowledge-based wargames</hd> <p>Computer games are one option for knowledge-based wargames that create an immersion that replicates the problem(s) (Sabin [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref66">61</reflink>], 340). Commercial games typically have simple user interfaces and tutorials that facilitate easy adoption and rapid gameplay even among non-gamers. Aspects such as fog, fatigue, partial damage, and impacts of supply lines can be easily automated, greatly simplifying and speeding up game play. An alternative to the commercial game is the choose-your-own-adventure style games that leverage hyperlinks (Meibauer and Nohr [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref67">50</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are several downsides to computer games. First, the adjudication for cause-effect results, while potentially complex and precise, is largely opaque. It is difficult for novice players to get a sense of the assumptions about relative capabilities and the impacts of the environment such as terrain and weather. Second, advanced players may be able to "game the game." These players can ignore the classroom learning and leverage their gaming skill based on their knowledge of game structures (Frank [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref68">26</reflink>]; Keuhn [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref69">37</reflink>]). Plus, older players and instructors may see a computer game as "too gamey" and not take it seriously. On the other hand, younger players will complain about the graphics, the battle outcomes, and the user interface as it will inevitably pale in comparison to their favorite commercial computer game.</p> <p>Compared to computer games, manual wargames, crisis simulations, or tabletop exercises are more flexible and easier to mod to fit the learning objectives. The background, rules, or adjudication are easily updated. One option is to take an extremely complex game but simplify the rules such that it can be played within the class period. In one example, students condensed a four-hour Vietnam air campaign game to a 40-minute module.</p> <p>Tabletop game mods can help constrain the scope of the game: geography, domain, time period, game length, forces available. Mods may be necessary to adjust the level of difficulty or to guide the players toward the learning objective (Christopher [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref70">15</reflink>]). For example, a World War II Pacific wargame gives Japan the option to not attack Pearl Harbor. This enables the player team to keep the US neutral for an extended period while expanding their gains in Southeast Asia. Players might miss learning objectives related to the battle of Pearl Harbor. Plus, knowing the probable impact of attacking the US, players can ignore those factors that convinced the Japanese that attacking Pearl Harbor was a good idea.</p> <p>For knowledge-based games, it is important to differentiate between fact and fiction, what actually occurred and how the game might deviate. Games should minimize the use of fiction as it facilitates negative learning. Games may intentionally deviate from facts to improve game play, excitement level, or balance between teams. For example, a North Korea-Japan scenario might provide North Korea with J-20 stealth fighters to balance the game against Japan's F-35s. Intentionally fictionalized elements should be clearly delineated in the game guide. I recommend deliberately separating the game background from the scenario. In this context, the background includes historically factual data. The hypothetical aspects, futuristic technology, and the catalyst that initiates the conflict should be in the scenario section.</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-7">Application objectives and experiential wargames</hd> <p>Experiential wargames inevitably lead to some element of application of concepts. Ideally, this application improves retention of previously introduced concepts. For example, these games can introduce understanding the impact of the environment on an activity or applying learning to a new situation. The term experiential can be a little misleading as every classroom environment provides its own unique experience. Experiential wargames include some type of sensory input, hands-on, or first-person perspective beyond the traditional teacher-student interaction (Sabin [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref71">61</reflink>], 340). The student-player must perform some physical task. For example, Asal, Griffith, and Schulzke ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref72">5</reflink>]) used an experiential game to teach the concepts of fog and friction. Using a turn-based version of capture-the-flag, each player had a combat value that was hidden from the opposing team. This forced leaders to make difficult decisions about where to attack, defend, or how to allocate their combat points to players. The application helped the students move beyond simple definitions of the concepts.</p> <p>Experiential wargames are optimal for something that cannot be fully appreciated from reading a book or watching a video—balancing to ride a bike; the kick-back of firing a weapon and its impact on rate-of-firing and firing accuracy; transporting heavy equipment across difficult terrain. Plus, it can help students understand the complexity of stressors and obstacles in cognition, decision-making, and conducting otherwise simple activities or decisions (Caffrey [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref73">14</reflink>], 285–286; Juul [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref74">35</reflink>]). For example, during a lesson on power projection and overseas basing, one instructor had students transport buckets of water over heavily cracked asphalt on wheeled-chairs to appreciate the value of hub-and-spoke distribution systems.</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-8">Lessons from experiential wargames in the classroom</hd> <p>While experiential wargames are impactful, they have diminishing returns over time particularly with games that are predictable. In fact, repetition of experiential games to create muscle memory is often pejoratively labeled as "training" indicating that it lacks educational value. The education versus training debate is frequently a false dichotomy. An experiential event could be either one depending upon the previous knowledge and skill of the player(s).</p> <p>Experiential games require prior knowledge to achieve their full effect. Players that arrive unprepared have difficulty achieving the desired level of learning. For example, a Spring 2023 wargame at the Air Force Academy exploring a live-action dispersed logistics distribution scenario involved dozens of players that had only a buzzword level knowledge of the learning objective. The game design presumed that they would learn something by experiencing it. But each player only observed their small part in a large operation. Their ability to see the big picture and understand how all the pieces fit together is unrealistic without having prior knowledge of how it is supposed to work.</p> <p>A massive experiential wargame for a lecture hall-sized class would likely require easy access to a gym or field with a nearby supply of water, bathrooms, and a basic medical kit. Even in the safest live experiential wargame, equipment will be damaged, and personnel will get injured. To minimize this risk, the alternative is a large investment in virtual games which requires a dedication of space and equipment. Virtual games can achieve similar experiential learning objectives. This simplifies the logistics and administrative burdens while reducing the risk of player injury. The impact on the five senses will likely be subdued with some eliminated entirely to reduce costs. Whether virtual or live, experiential wargames are more difficult to scale up than tabletop games (Lean et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref75">42</reflink>]; Moizer et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref76">52</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-9">Analytic objectives in wargames</hd> <p>Analytic wargames are those used to test a hypothesis (Lin-Greenberg, Pauly, and Scheider [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref77">44</reflink>]). These focus on the upper tier of Bloom's including analyze, critique, forecast, create, design, & justify. This typically explores issues of causality and the potential effects of different policy options. They can critique a past decision, forecast potential solutions to a problem, conduct cause-effect analysis, test process changes, or analyze the impact of emerging technologies (Haffa, 29; Gorton and Havercroft [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref78">29</reflink>]). Regardless of the scenario, most analytic games should include significant stakes with consequence-based outcomes that require students to make complex decisions about tradeoffs and opportunity costs. Yet they should not be punished for losing. Instead, the game rules should encourage them to take risks and test new ideas.</p> <p>Analytic games can be particularly effective in helping students explore decision-making processes or process tracing. Asal ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref79">4</reflink>]) used the board game Diplomacy to have students analyze the decision-making processes behind alliance theory and balance of power, exploring the research question of under what conditions would a decision-maker was drawn toward a country or felt pushed into balancing against them. Similarly, a comparative politics classroom could use a build-centric game like Civilization to explore economic development and democratization theories.</p> <p>Game immersion helps players to see the interaction of these factors and enables them to explore the potential impact of each factor on causation or decision-making (Lin-Greenberg, Pauly, and Scheider [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref80">44</reflink>], 87; Goldblum, Reddie, and Reinhardt [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref81">28</reflink>]; Reddie et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref82">59</reflink>]; Schechter, Schneider, and Shaffer [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref83">63</reflink>]). For example, they can explore "how characteristics such as gender, identity, hierarchy, and experience influence interactions within and across teams" (Lin-Greenberg, Pauly, and Scheider [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref84">44</reflink>], 101). This would be particularly important for analyzing organizational behavior, bureaucratic politics, and command & control across joint, coalition, & private sector entities (Schneider [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref85">64</reflink>]). Plus, analysts can model the decision-making process and identify opportunities for improvement.</p> <p>Students can use games hypothesis-test their real-world policy recommendations which magnifies the stress and increases learning about the material and their own perceptions (Caffrey [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref86">14</reflink>]; Juul [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref87">35</reflink>]; McGrady [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref88">47</reflink>]). A popular method of hypothesis testing in wargames is to explore "what if" scenarios to test past or future policies, strategies, or plans (Jensen [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref89">33</reflink>]; Scott and Orr [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref90">54</reflink>]). These can be used to create a narrative about "what is possible, what is unexpected, what worked and led to victory, or what failed and led to defeat...[to] create new ideas and understandings" that can be further tested and identify "weaknesses that you don't realize you have; in people and processes, as well as concepts and ideas" (McGrady [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref91">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>During a 1992 military history class, students paired up to play a Korean War board game with the goal of understanding the 1950s conflict but with the victory condition of out-performing history. As the UN player facing the early Chinese intervention, my goal was to avoid retreating all the way to Seoul. I chose to make my stand along a major river near Pyongyang to take advantage of its defensive advantages. The front was too wide, the defenses too dispersed, the China player was aggressive with no concern for casualties, and it was a major defeat for the UN forces.</p> <p>In a more contemporary example, one group used an analytical wargame to explore potential options for China to expand its economic presence through the Belt and Road Initiative (Medeiros and Campani [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref92">49</reflink>]).</p> <p>An experiment can be conducted to test the efficacy of a process change or new technology (McLeary [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref93">48</reflink>]; Jensen [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref94">33</reflink>]). These games use a type of condition analysis using futuristic capabilities, quantities, and quality. Ideally, these games are conducted in a transparent manner to provide evidence to support recommendations. These futuristic games should be attempting to anticipate the changing character of war (Bryant and Nagle [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref95">13</reflink>]; Haffa and Patton [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref96">30</reflink>], 29; Scott and Orr [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref97">54</reflink>]) to create "new theories of victory...[and] develop new approaches to warfare" (Jensen [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref98">33</reflink>]).</p> <p>For example, a recent game tested a hypothesis about the efficacy of a futuristic decision-making process. It tested the concept of multi-domain command and control (MDC2). Forcing the player teams to coordinate through central decision-maker, the teams' attempts to synchronize cyber, space, and electronic warfare with conventional strikes went poorly suggesting that a less hierarchical structure might work better (Clark [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref99">16</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-10">Lessons using analytical wargames in the classroom</hd> <p>Faculty should take care to avoid skipping Bloom's levels. The aspirational instructor wants every student to achieve the maximum level of learning. But this is not realistic for most students. They need the baseline first to comprehend the next level. For example, in a class on a joint strategy, the students went through a culminating wargame planning experience. The course taught the basics of strategy and placed emphasis on learning the nuances of service culture and new organizational structures such as the impact of the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the US Army's transition to the brigade combat team. In the culminating exercise, the students were asked to build courses of actions, lines of effort, and to build a plan for how to use infantry as part of a joint operations in an Iran scenario. But the students had never been taught how to plan or how to align capabilities with tasks. Instructors wanted students to jump to the top of Bloom's without ensuring that they had the prerequisite knowledge base. While the top students were able to intuitively figure it out, most students struggled through the wargame.</p> <p>To properly test a hypothesis, wargames require multiple play-throughs so that learning is not from a potential "one-off" game based on statistically unusual adjudication or a random event card with a disproportionate impact on the game (Lin-Greenberg, Pauly, and Scheider [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref100">44</reflink>]). Reliance on a single game risks negative learning (Bartels [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref101">11</reflink>]; Wong and Heath [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref102">74</reflink>]). There are two common classroom methods to overcome this shortfall. The first option is to have multiple small games. In this case, the more simultaneous games that can be run, the better. In the Korean War game above, students played in pairs so that a class size of 20 resulted in a <emph>n</emph> of 10 which could be shared across the teams during the debrief. While perhaps not statistically significant, it was sufficient to show a trend of average results while highlighting outliers. The second option is a virtual game which is more efficient for multiple game run-throughs. For example, the Council on Foreign Relations offers a game called "On the Nuclear Brink" that can be played multiple times within an hour. In rare cases, multiple iterations of a game may even highlight potential Black Swan surprise attacks (Perla [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref103">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>A variation of the virtual game is to use a fully automated, econometric wargame which can play both or multiple players to maximize the efficiency of multiple play-throughs. From the output of this game series, students can make conclusions about their hypothesis. But the challenge is that the future capabilities or decisions are only as good as the assumptions input to the software which may not be transparent to the player or faculty. Considering that a fully automated wargame has no players, most of the learning is constrained to the wargame designer.</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-11">Learning through wargame design</hd> <p>Through wargame design, students and faculty have the potential to get to the top of Bloom's taxonomy. At this level the students create something new and justify their design decisions. This level still requires pre-requisite learning of the lower levels to create the facts, concepts, context, and decisions for the players. In this context, students create the elements of a wargame including the background, rules, user interface (e.g., map), pieces, and order of battle. It requires an extensive amount of research particularly if they are new to the subject. Students need to understand how the various parts interact and synchronize.</p> <p>To some extent, creating a wargame is like developing a course syllabus. The scope of the game can be as broad or as narrow as the learning objective. It could be a game on deterrence or bureaucratic politics or resilience to misinformation. Depending upon the level of complexity, the level of research necessary to create a game is like that of a journal article or thesis. Like those activities, creating a game requires mastery of a narrow slice of knowledge. Creating a game does not make a student an expert in the topic. Quite the contrary. The student needs some level of expertise in the topic before attempting to create the game. The process of game creation will make them a better expert on the topic as it will often highlight issues that the student had not previously researched in depth.</p> <p>As an anecdotal example, the US Air Force Academy has taught an undergraduate wargame design class since 2015. In December of 2023, in an end-of-course survey, 100% (40 of 40) stated that they learned more through the process of game design compared to writing a traditional research paper. The below quotes capture the essence of the feedback:</p> <p>"A traditional research paper would've provided me with a surface-level understanding of concepts such as propaganda, financial aid, cyber, and intelligence. Having to implement them into a game where these concepts/actions result in an advantage/consequence for a party deepened my understanding." Cadet Kate Helbush</p> <p>"In theory, the application of cyber tactics, though impressive, sounds simple when you read about them on paper. However, when you try and emulate them on the game board you get better insight into how many moving parts goes into an operation or attack to produce such effects." Cadet Daniel Lett</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-12">Lessons on learning via design</hd> <p>Perhaps the biggest challenge in learning via game design is getting to that instructor-student Venn diagram overlap. The game that the student envisions building needs to overlap with the learning objective that the instructor is seeking to develop. Having taught a wargame design course for three years, I have frequently seen designers become lost in the details of the game and temporarily ignore the purpose or learning objective in their game. While the designer is certain to learn something, it is unlikely to fulfill the instructor's intended learning objectives.</p> <p>Another common challenge for student designers is selecting a topic that is interesting but for which they lack the academic background. Creation is a capstone-level event. The student needs to have the underlying skills in analysis and synthesis. Even with that expertise, the process of game creation forces the designer to learn more about the topic, particularly in potential cause-effect relationships of the various parts and pieces of the game.</p> <p>If the student-designer wants to branch out into a new area that is only tangentially related to their previous work, the game-building project turns into a dual task as the student must regress perhaps all the way back to the remember and understand level. Creation requires the student to have a grasp on the concepts, issues, tradeoffs, challenges, niche topics, theories, and cause-effect relationships for the chosen topic. While I regularly warn my student-designers to focus on topics that they already have knowledge on, every semester there is one student that makes the attempt to tackle an unknown-to-them field. While it is certainly feasible, every attempt has ended in a shambles, requiring a mid-semester concept redesign.</p> <p>Faculty should encourage their students to keep their game design simple. Advanced gamers might overestimate the feasibility of creating their dream game within a semester. For example, unless they have advanced coding skills, a computerized game beyond a choose-your-own-adventure is not realistic.</p> <p>In overly complex games, players can get bogged down in the rules and try to find loopholes to surprise their opponent (Bartels [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref104">10</reflink>], 13–15). Designers need to keep in mind that the designer is operating at a higher level of Bloom's than the players. The designer is required to conduct a deeper level of research than the players. The designer should refrain from attempting to impose all their new-found knowledge upon the players. However, if the game is over-simplified, little learning is likely to occur (Bartels [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref105">10</reflink>], 13–15). The game should not attempt to make the students experts. Instead, the design must focus on the original learning objectives at the appropriate level of detail.</p> <p>Designers should avoid the allure of designing games with pre-determined outcomes, too many objectives or attempts to create "unfalsifiable anecdotes" (Jensen and Strohmeyer [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref106">34</reflink>]). In these cases, the game is a fancy charade to give plausible justification to a program, policy, or idea. These games might be designed to "prove" the viability of a plan against shoddy "throw-away" courses of action. In years when funding for the A-10 aircraft is front-page news, Air Force cadets are prone to creating lopsided games that "prove" that the A-10 is better than the F-35 stealth fighter. This type of game design can be particularly problematic when the results of the wargame are used to promote budgeting choices (Haffa and Patton [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref107">30</reflink>], 29; Davis [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref108">19</reflink>]). For example, Cold War games that predicted a quick and easy Russian success in the invasion of Eastern Europe could be leveraged to justify more US military spending (Dunnigan [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref109">23</reflink>], 252). Games with either pre-determined outcomes or too many objectives make assessment of learning extremely difficult.</p> <p>Designers should minimize the use of fiction. Game assumptions, the environment, and adjudication methods can be set up to minimize or exaggerate a threat or action's consequence, distorting lessons from the game (Perla and McGrady [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref110">57</reflink>], 13). For example, the terrain might be modified to improve line of sight distances to improve the potential effectiveness of tanks (Dunnigan [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref111">23</reflink>], 250–251). On the other extreme, to create balanced play, it is common to give one side additional capabilities such as more resources or better equipment. While the objective of balanced play is noble, it often leads to negative learning as players "learned" that the game approximated actual current capabilities.</p> <p>Designers should avoid promoting the results of a gonkulator as the output of a wargame. In simulating war, algorithms "can be used to evaluate the results of a massive air battle, the effectiveness of defense against cruise or ballistic missiles, and even the probability of the interaction of two submarines quietly searching for one another in several thousand square miles of ocean" (Haffa and Patton [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref112">30</reflink>], 30). A game with no human players lacks a decision-making element. It is really more of an econometric model to calculate the probability of victory than a wargame (Lin-Greenberg, Pauly, and Scheider [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref113">44</reflink>], 86; Perla [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref114">56</reflink>]). These games are heavy on statistics, operations research, and systems engineering (Mainardi). They can be particularly good at quantifiable metrics such as supply consumption, distribution, and optimum supply hubs (Dunnigan [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref115">23</reflink>], 258–260). They are often limited by inadequate understanding of enemy systems, decision-making, deception, battlefield innovations, interconnective dependencies, social activities, and suitable substitutions. Based on these limitations, econometric wargames are inherently poor at those types of conflict that are dominated by factors that are less easy to quantify such as unconventional warfare, information operations, and cyber-attacks.</p> <p>Finally, some games are designed to have a red team; a player or player group that is intended to think and act like a specific enemy (Zenko [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref116">77</reflink>]). The red team's role needs to be designed to facilitate learning. The red team might want to facilitate out-of-the-box thinking to stretch the blue team. But, in extreme cases, the red team can take the game in a direction that does not facilitate the learning objectives. On the other hand, the red team should not be designed in a mirror imaged way that just makes them one more player in the game. In war, forces are rarely symmetrical. When one side recognizes that they are significantly weaker than the other, they will often attempt to find ways to nullify their opponent's advantages.</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-13">Measuring learning</hd> <p>Every educator knows that a successful teaching experience does not necessarily equate to successful learning. Game completion does not equal learning occurred (Crookall and Thorngate [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref117">18</reflink>]). Winning does not equal learning. Completing the game might not even be necessary. Instead, the faculty may need to end the game early to ensure adequate time for assessment of learning (Bartels [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref118">11</reflink>]).</p> <p>Assessment needs to be part of the instructor's lesson plan. The optimum method depends on player setup. This paper summarizes five primary methods of assessment for wargame learning. No one method is best. Arguably, a combination of two assessment methods might be the ideal solution. For example, one study found that discussion improved retention for a follow-up quiz (Levin-Banchik [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref119">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>The traditional method of assessing learning in many classrooms is the quiz, exam, or essay. Even for a short quiz, this can absorb a large amount of classroom time. Class time is a valuable resource that many faculty are loathe to give up. To compensate, the formal assessment could be completed on student's time instead of during class but increases potential for cheating (even if worth limited or no points). Plus, this method often assumes that the students understand what they learned during the wargame. Some students may have difficulty articulating how their game moves equate to the objectives. In many cases, some type of post-game event can help the students connect the game activities with the desired learning objectives.</p> <p>Perhaps the most popular method to connect the game to learning is the debrief (aka: discussion, hot-wash, or after-action review). While some games may be conducive to multiple discussions throughout the game (e.g., after each turn), the cumulative time required to play most games often leaves time only for a single debrief at the end. Debriefs are particularly valuable when the players have different roles or perspectives. Each can identify key issues, decision points. and explain their decision-making process (Christopher [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref120">15</reflink>]). This can be a useful method to ensure that students understand the theories that they applied in the wargame (Asal and Kratoville [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref121">6</reflink>]). The debrief is also the instructor's chance to correct any potential for negative learning. The debrief can be a good time to remind students of the fictionalized aspects of the game. To emphasize this, the debrief could include a question about how the game might have progressed if the fictionalized aspect was not included.</p> <p>Considering that some students may dominate the debrief, a survey or reflection paper can be used to ensure every player gets to express their thoughts. The survey is less intimidating and encourages deeper introspection (Ducharme [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref122">22</reflink>]; Kitchen [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref123">38</reflink>]; Stapleton [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref124">70</reflink>]). Of course, the survey is far less flexible than the debrief as the questions are pre-set. In the debrief, the faculty has the flexibility to ask follow-up questions or ensure that students appropriately understood a term.</p> <p>Another popular method of assessment is the observer with a scoring rubric (Keuhn [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref125">37</reflink>], 150). In large groups, or even small teams, it can be difficult to assess individual performance through a debrief. Observers can monitor the intra and inter-group dynamics to assess who is contributing and leveraging the learning material. Of course, if there are multiple small groups, one observer cannot monitor them all simultaneously. This might require the conversion of some students into an observer support role. Or the observer method could be combined with one of the other assessment methods.</p> <p>The final recommended method for assessment is the 360-peer review (Tee and Ahmed [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref126">71</reflink>]). In this, every player evaluates the contributions of their teammates, providing honest feedback on each member's contribution and level of preparation. Some students are willing to call out laziness, others seek to protect their friends as they might be sensitive to hurting a classmate's grades or reputation. Some players are micro-focused, oblivious of the actions of people with which they are not regularly interacting, which can limit the scope and value of their review.</p> <p>In an ideal world, any assessment includes both a pre and post event to capture the actual learning facilitated by the wargame itself. Of course, as an instructor it is not necessary to determine if the wargame taught the student, only whether or how much the student learned. But, from a pedagogical perspective, the instructor should seek to assess whether the pedagogical tools are providing the appropriate return on resource and class-time investment.</p> <p>Not every student will excel and exceed learning expectations. Despite even a perfect game design, learning is often still subject to the reality of the bell curve. At the top end of the curve, a small percentage of students learned very little from the game because they were somehow already well-versed on the topic (Sepinsky [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref127">65</reflink>]). On the lower end of the curve are those that, for whatever reason, did not prioritize the game. Perhaps they were forced into playing the game against their preference. Perhaps they refuse to see a game as an opportunity for learning (Sabin [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref128">61</reflink>], 341–344). Perhaps they have other, pressing tasks for which this game is preventing their completion. In other cases, the lessons are observed but not learned. The players might see something but then elect not to do anything with it or retain it (Doughery [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref129">21</reflink>]). In extreme cases, participants ignore bad results or heavy attrition as a one-off, a statistical anomaly, or blame a bad die roll or chance versus thinking deeply about the loss and how to mitigate it in the future.</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-14">Conclusion</hd> <p>Wargames can be extremely useful learning tools when designed correctly. Faculty inclusion of a wargame in the classroom should focus on orienting the game toward the learning objective. Games can be designed to cover a wide variety of learning objectives. Games for classrooms should be selected based on the desired level of learning on Bloom's taxonomy: knowledge-based, experiential, analytical, or creation.</p> <p>Bloom's represents a progression or culmination. Educators cannot just start at the top of Bloom's pyramid. Game designers can aim high but need to start low. To play a high-Bloom's learning game, presumes students have a sufficient understanding of the lower-end of Bloom's (memorization and description). Otherwise, the complexity of the game can be overwhelming. Or the game will need drastic simplifications that obscure the complexity of the situations and the required decisions.</p> <p>Faculty should be realistic about their learning goals. Using games that are a higher level of Bloom's require more pre-requisite knowledge from the students. While some off-the-shelf games may work, faculty should consider game mods to ensure proper alignment with the learning objective and time availability in the classroom. Regardless of the game uses, faculty need some method to both facilitate and measure learning.</p> <p>Like any effort to improve learning, incorporating wargames into the classroom takes significant instructor time and resources (Sabin). It is far more effort than the old college model of providing the same canned lecture year-after-year and not worrying about whether the students learn. The old model no longer conforms to the expectations of higher education. Accreditation agencies expect more. The student is paying to learn something. The institution has self-imposed goals that each of its graduates achieve certain levels of knowledge and skills. Of course, the student still has the obligation to put in effort. To facilitate that effort resulting in a higher level of learning, wargames are one method to move students away from rote memorization and take their cognitive skills to a higher level.</p> <hd id="AN0182438165-15">Michael Fowler</hd> <hd1 id="AN0182438165-16">EDUCATION</hd1> <ulist> <item>1993 B.S., History, US Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, CO</item> <item>1997 Squadron Officer School (SOS), Maxwell AFB, AL</item> <item>1999 MBA in Finance, Western International University, Phoenix, AZ</item> <item>2003 Air Command and Staff College (ACSC), Air University, AL</item> <item>2005 Joint Forces Staff College, Norfolk, VA</item> <item>2006 M.S., International Relations, Troy State University</item> <item>2010 Ph.D., Security Studies, Naval Postgraduate School</item> <item>2012 Air War College, Air University, AL</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0182438165-17">POSITIONS</hd1> <p></p> <ulist> <item> 1. 1993–1996: Chief of Intelligence, 421st Fighter Squadron, Hill AFB, UT</item> <p></p> <item> 2. 1996–1999: Chief, F-16 Top-Off Intelligence Course, 56<sups>th</sups> Ops Support Squadron (OSS), Luke AFB, AZ</item> <p></p> <item> 3. 1999–2001: Chief, Aircrew Training, 5th Bomb Wing (BW), Minot AFB, ND</item> <p></p> <item> 4. 2001–2003: Analysis Systems Program Officer, AFC2ISRC, Langley AFB, VA</item> <p></p> <item> 5. 2001–2004: Dep. Chief, Analysis, Correlation & Fusion Branch, AFC2ISRC, Langley AFB, VA</item> <p></p> <item> 6. 2004–2006: Deputy Chief Knowledge Officer, SJFHQ-N, USNORTHCOM, Peterson AFB, CO</item> <p></p> <item> 7. 2006–2007: Dep. Joint Interagency Team Chief, SJFHQ-N, USNORTHCOM, Peterson AFB, CO</item> <p></p> <item> 8. 2007–2010: Doctoral Student, Security Studies, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA</item> <p></p> <item> 9. 2010–2011: Chief, Regional Intelligence Planning, IKD, USAFRICOM, Stuttgart, Germany</item> <p></p> <item> 10. 2011–2013: Chief, ISR Strategy and Assessments, J2, USAFRICOM, Stuttgart, Germany</item> <p></p> <item> 11. 2013–2014: Chief, Comparative MSS Division, Department of Military & Strategic Studies, USAFA, CO</item> <p></p> <item> 12. 2014–2018: Deputy Head for Curriculum, Department of Military & Strategic Studies, USAFA</item> <p></p> <item> 13. 2018-Present: Chief of Assessment, Department of Military & Strategic Studies, USAFA</item> </ulist> <hd1 id="AN0182438165-18">ACADEMIC AWARDS </hd1> <ulist> <item>2021 winner of Educational Wargaming Cooperative's Designer Challenge</item> <item>2020 Department Civilian of the Year</item> <item>2016 Department Outstanding Researcher of the Year</item> </ulist> <p>Naval Postgraduate School Outstanding Air Force Graduate Award</p> <p>Joint Aerospace Command & Control Course Honor Graduate</p> <p>Squadron Officer School Outstanding Contributor Award</p> <hd1 id="AN0182438165-19">MILITARY AWARDS</hd1> <p>Defense Meritorious Service Medal</p> <p>Meritorious Service Medal</p> <p>Air Force Commendation Medal</p> <p>Air Force Achievement Medal</p> <p>Joint Meritorious Unit Award</p> <p>AF Outstanding Unit Award</p> <p>AF Organizational Excellence Award</p> <p>National Defense Service Medal</p> <p>Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal</p> <p>Southwest Asia Service Medal</p> <p>Global War on Terrorism Service Medal</p> <p>Armed Forces Service Medal</p> <p>Humanitarian Service Medal</p> <p>AF Longevity Service</p> <p>Small Arms Expert Marksmanship Ribbon (Pistol)</p> <p>AF Training Ribbon</p> <p>NATO Medal</p> <hd1 id="AN0182438165-20">Military Training</hd1> <p>Fundamentals of Intelligence Course, Goodfellow AFB, 1994</p> <p>F-16 Intelligence Formal Training, Luke AFB, 1997</p> <p>ACC Unit Command Control Trainer's Course, Dyess AFB, 2000</p> <p>Nuclear Command and Control Course, Fort Dix, 2000</p> <p>Joint Aerospace Command and Control Course, Hurlburt Field, 2002</p> <p>Intelligence Collection Management Course, Peterson AFB, 2006</p> <p>DoD Defense Support of Civil Authorities, 2006</p> <p>Advanced Knowledge Management Essentials, 2007</p> <p>Joint Enabling Capabilities Planners Course, Longare IT, 2011</p> <p>Information Environment Advanced Analysis Course, 2014</p> <hd1 id="AN0182438165-21">DATES OF PROMOTION:</hd1> <p>Assistant Professor Jul 13</p> <p>Associate Professor Jul 16</p> <ref id="AN0182438165-22"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref2" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, L., D. Krathwohl, and B. Bloom. 2001. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. Boston : Allyn & Bacon.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref10" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Appleget, J., R. Burks, and F. Cameron. 2020. The Craft of Wargaming: A Detailed Planning Guide for Defense Planners and Analysts. Annapolis, MD : Naval Institute Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref38" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Archer, C. C., and M. K. Miller. 2011. " Prioritizing Active Learning: An Exploration of Gateway Courses in Political Science." PS: Political Science & Politics 44 (2): 429 – 434. doi: 10.1017/S1049096511000291.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref64" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Asal, V. 2005. " Playing Games with International Relations." International Studies Perspectives 6 (3): 359 – 373. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-3577.2005.00213.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref63" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Asal, V., L. Griffith, and M. Schulzke. 2014. " The Dalig and Vadan Exercise: Teaching Students about Strategy and the Challenges of Friction and Fog." International Studies Perspectives 15 (4): 477 – 490. doi: 10.1111/insp.12056.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref8" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Asal, V., and J. Kratoville. 2013. " Constructing International Relations Simulations: Examining the Pedagogy of IR Simulations through a Constructivist Learning Theory Lens." Journal of Political Science Education 9 (2): 132 – 43. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2013.770982.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Asal, V., S. S. Sin, N. P. Fahrenkopf, and X. She. 2014. " The Comparative Politics Game Show: Using Games to Teach Comparative Politics Theories." International Studies Perspectives 15 (3): 347 – 58. doi: 10.1111/insp.12010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref39" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Asal, V., N. Jahanbani, D. Lee, and J. Ren. 2018. " Mini-Games for Teaching Political Science Methodology." Political Science & Politics 51 (4): 900 – 902.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bain, K. 2004. What the Best College Teachers Do. Cambridge, MA : Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bartels, E. M. 2020. Building Better Games for National Security Policy Analysis: Towards a Social Scientific Approach. California : RAND.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bartels, E. M. 2023. " Wargames as an Educational Tool." The Forge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bartles, E., M. McCown, and T. Wilkie. 2012. " Designing Peace and Conflict Exercises: Level of Analysis, Scenario, and Role Specification." Simulation & Gaming 44 (1): 36 – 50. doi: 10.1177/1046878112455486.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bryant, S., and T. Nagle. 2021. Wargaming for the New Great Game. West Point : Modern War Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caffrey, M. 2019. On Wargaming: How Wargames Have Shaped History and How They May Shape the Future. Newport, RI : Naval War College Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Christopher, E. M. 1999. " Simulations and Games as Subversive Activities." Simulation & Gaming 30 (4): 441 – 55. doi: 10.1177/104687819903000403.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clark, C. 2017. Inside the Wargame: The Challenges Facing Air Force's MDC2. Breaking Defense.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coffey, D. J., W. J. Miller, and D. Feuerstein. 2011. " Classroom as Reality: Demonstrating Campaign Effects through Live Simulation." Journal of Political Science Education 7 (1): 14 – 33. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2011.539906.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crookall, D., and W. Thorngate. 2009. " Acting, Knowing, Learning, Simulating, Gaming." Simulation & Gaming 40 (1): 8 – 26. doi: 10.1177/1046878108330364.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davis, D. L. 2012. " Truth, Lies, and Afghanistan." Armed Forces Journal. <ulink href="http://armedforcesjournal.com/truth-lies-and-afghanistan/">http://armedforcesjournal.com/truth-lies-and-afghanistan/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dorn, D. S. 1989. " Simulation Games: One More Tool on the Pedagogical Shelf." Teaching Sociology 17 (1): 1 – 18. doi: 10.2307/1317920.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doughery, C. 2020. " It's Time to Rethink Our Wargames." Inkstick.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ducharme, D. R. 2020. Handbook for Survey Development. Newport, RI : US Naval War College.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunnigan, J. F. 1992. The Complete Wargames Handbook: How to Play, Design, and Find Them. NY : William Morrow and Company.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fielder, J. D. 2018. " The Narrative History of the Chocolate Wars: A Short and Tasty Bargaining Game." Journal of Political Science Education 15 (1): 82 – 93. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2018.1446343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fielder, J. D. 2022. " Gaming to Lose: Learning from Failure in Classroom Games." In Simulations in the Political Science Classroom: Games without Frontiers, eds. M. Harvey, J. D. Fielder, and R. Gibb. New York, NY : Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Frank, A. 2012. " Gaming the Game: A Study of Gamer Mode in Educational Wargaming." Simulation & Gaming 43 : 118 – 32. doi: 10.1177/1046878111408796.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Glick, S. P., and L. I. Charters. 1983. " War, Games, and Military History." Journal of Contemporary History 18 (4): 567 – 582.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldblum, B. L., A. W. Reddie, and J. C. Reinhardt. 2019. " Wargames as Experiments: The Project on Nuclear Gaming's SIGNAL Framework." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorton, W., and J. Havercroft. 2012. " Using Historical Simulations to Teach Political Science." Journal of Political Science Education 8 (1): 50 – 68. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2012.641399.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haffa, R. P., and J. H. Patton. 2001. " Wargames: Winning and Losing." Parameters 31 (1): 9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heath, T. R. 2023. " Wargames Can't Tell Us How to Deter a Chinese Attack on Taiwan – but Different Games Might." Lawfare.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ip, A., and R. Linser. 2001. " Evaluation of a Role-Play Simulation in Political Science." The Technology Source 2 (1). <ulink href="http://technologysource.org/article/evaluation%5fof%5fa%5frole%5fplay%5fsimulation%5fin%5fpolitical%5fscience/">http://technologysource.org/article/evaluation%5fof%5fa%5frole%5fplay%5fsimulation%5fin%5fpolitical%5fscience/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jensen, B. 2017. " Next War: #Wargaming the Changing Character of Competition and Conflict." The Strategy Bridge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jensen, B., and M. Strohmeyer. 2022. " The Changing Character of Combined Arms." War on the Rocks.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Juul, J. 2016. The Art of Failure: An Essay on the Pain of Playing Video Games. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kanner, M. D. 2007. " War and Peace: Simulating Security Decision Making in the Classroom." PS: Political Science & Politics 40 (4): 795 – 800. doi: 10.1017/S1049096507071259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keuhn, K. 2021. " Assessment Strategies for Educational Wargames." Journal of Advanced Military Studies 12 (2): 139 – 153.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kitchen, V. 2022. " Using Games and Simulations to Scaffold Experiential Learning in Global Politics." Journal of Political Science Education 18 (1): 119 – 37. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2021.1987258.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Knight, J. K., and W. B. Wood. 2005. " Teaching More by Lecturing Less." Cell Biology Education 4 (4): 298 – 310. doi: 10.1187/05-06-0082.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koster, K. 2014. A Theory of Fun for Game Design. 2nd ed. Sebastopol, CA : O'Reilly Media.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lacey, J. 2016. " Wargaming in the Classroom: An Odyssey." War on the Rocks.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lean, J., J. Moizer, M. Towler, and C. Abbey. 2006. " Simulations and Games: Use and Barriers in Higher Education." Active Learning in Higher Education 7 (3): 227 – 42. doi: 10.1177/1469787406069056.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levin-Banchik, L. 2018. " Assessing Knowledge Retention, with and without Simulations." Journal of Political Science Education 14 (3): 341 – 359. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2017.1405355.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lin-Greenberg, E., R. B. C. Pauly, and J. G. Scheider. 2022. " Wargaming for International Relations Research." European Journal of International Relations 28 (I): 83 – 109. doi: 10.1177/13540661211064090.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mattlin, M. 2020. " Anarchy is What Students Make of It: Playing out Wendt's Three Cultures of Anarchy." Journal of Political Science Education 17 (1): 226 – 36. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2020.1861457.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mason, R. C. 2018. " Wargaming: its History and Future." The International Journal of Intelligence, Security, and Public Affairs 20 (2): 77 – 101. doi: 10.1080/23800992.2018.1484238.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGrady, E. 2019. " Getting the Story Right about Wargaming." War on the Rocks.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLeary, P. 2015. " DOD Wargaming Push to Study Tech Capabilities." Defense News.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Medeiros, S., and L. Campani. 2023. " Tracing the Chinese Wargaming Knowledge and Application within Strategic Thinking Frameworks." Revista da Escola de Guerra Naval 29 (2): 249 – 66. doi: 10.21544/2359-3075.29205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meibauer, G., and A. A. Nohr. 2018. " Teaching Experience: How to Make and Use PowerPoint-Based Interactive Simulations for Undergraduate IR Teaching." Journal of Political Science Education 14 (1): 42 – 62. Iss. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2017.1377083.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milley, M. A. 2020. Developing Today's Joint Officers for Tomorrow's Ways of War: The Joint Chiefs of Staff Vision and Guidance for Professional Military Education & Talent Management. Washington : Joint Chiefs of Staff.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moizer, J., J. Lean, M. Towler, and C. Abbey. 2009. " Simulations and Games: Overcoming the Barriers to Their Use in Higher Education." Active Learning in Higher Education 10 (3): 207 – 24. doi: 10.1177/1469787409343188.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nygaard, C., Courtney, N. & Leigh, E. (Eds.). 2012. Simulations, Games and Role Play in University Education. Oxfordshire, UK : Libri.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Scott, D., and S. D. Orr. 2022. " The Fast Fashion War: Wargaming the Role of Machine Learning and Agile Technology in near-Future Conflicts." Small Wars Journal.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perla, P. 1990. The Art of Wargaming: A Guide for Professionals and Hobbyists. Annapolis, MD : Naval Institute Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perla, P. 2022. " Wargaming and the Cycle of Research and Learning." Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies 5 (1): 197 – 208. doi: 10.31374/sjms.124.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Perla, P., and E. McGrady. 2011. " Why Wargaming Works." Naval War College Review 64 (3): 8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pettenger, M., D. West, and N. Young. 2013. " Assessing the Impact of Role-Play Simulations on Learning in Canadian and US Classrooms." International Studies Perspectives 15 (4): 491 – 508. doi: 10.1111/insp.12063.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reddie, A. W., B. L. Goldblum, K. Lakkaraju, J. Reinhardt, M. Nacht, and L. Epifanovskaya. 2018. " Next-Generation Wargames." Science 362 (6421): 1362 – 1364. doi: 10.1126/science.aav2135.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rubel, R. C. 2019. " Squeezing the Turnip: The Limits of Wargaming." PAXsims.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sabin, P. 2015. " Wargaming in Higher Education: Contributions and Challenges." Arts & Humanities in Higher Education 15 (4): 329 – 48. doi: 10.1177/1474022215577216.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sasley, B. E. 2010. " Teaching Students How to Fail: Simulations as Tools of Explanation." International Studies Perspectives 11 (1): 61 – 74. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-3585.2009.00393.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schechter, B., J. Schneider, and R. Shaffer. 2021. " Wargaming as a Methodology: The International Crisis Wargame and Experimental Wargaming." Simulation & Gaming 52 (4): 513 – 26. doi: 10.1177/1046878120987581.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schneider, J. 2017. " Cyber Attacks on Critical Infrastructure: Insights from War Gaming." War on the Rocks.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sepinsky, J. 2021. " Is It a Wargame? It Doesn't Matter: Rigorous Wargames versus Effective Wargaming." War on the Rocks.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, C. M. 2004. " Using Role-Play Scenarios in the IR Classroom: An Examination of Exercises on Peacekeeping Operations and Foreign-Policy Decision Making." International Studies Perspectives 5 (1): 1 – 22. doi: 10.1111/j.1528-3577.2004.00151.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shaw, C. M., and B. Switky. 2018. " Designing and Using Simulations in the International Relations Classroom." Journal of Political Science Education 14 (4): 523 – 34. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2018.1433543.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shellman, S. M., and K. Turan. 2003. " The Cyprus Crisis: A Multilateral Bargaining Simulation." Simulation & Gaming 34 (2): 281 – 91. doi: 10.1177/1046878103034002007.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shellman, S. M., and K. Turan. 2006. " Do Simulations Enhance Student Learning? An Empirical Evaluation of an IR Simulation." Journal of Political Science Education 2 (1): 19 – 32. doi: 10.1080/15512160500484168.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stapleton, P. A. 2020. " Knowledge Surveys as an Assessment Tool of Simulation Course Outcomes." Journal of Political Science Education 16 (4): 413 – 29. doi: 10.1080/15512169.2018.1526089.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tee, D. D., and P. K. Ahmed. 2014. " 360 Degree Feedback: An Integrative Framework for Learning and Assessment." Teaching in Higher Education 19 (6): 579 – 91. doi: 10.1080/13562517.2014.901961.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wedig, T. 2010. " Getting the Most from Classroom Simulations: Strategies for Maximizing Learning Outcomes." PS: Political Science & Politics 43 (3): 547 – 55. doi: 10.1017/S104909651000079X.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, Y. H., S. J. Bae, E. M. Bartels, and B. M. Smith. 2019. Next-Generation Wargaming for the U.S. Marine Corps. Santa Monica : RAND.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, Y. H., and G. Heath. 2021. " Is the Department of Defense Making Enough Progress in Wargaming? " War on the Rocks.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Work, B., and P. Selva. 2015. " Revitalizing Wargaming is Necessary to Be Prepared for Future Wars." War on the Rocks.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wunische, A. 2019. " Lecture versus Simulation: Testing the Long-Term Effects." Journal of Political Science Education 15 (1): 37 – 48. Issdoi: 10.1080/15512169.2018.1492416.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zenko, M. 2015. Red Team: How to Succeed by Thinking like the Enemy. New York : Basic Books.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0182438165-23"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> While the term simulations is popular in the academic literature, in military terms simulations are inherently virtual. Therefore, this paper uses the term wargames to include all types of games.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Michael Fowler</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> <p></p> <p>Mike Fowler is an Associate Professor of Military and Strategic Studies at the US Air Force Academy. His research interests include military strategy, intelligence studies, and wargaming. This article is the view of the author and does not necessarily reflect the view of the US Air Force Academy. Public release #: USAFA-DF-2023-377.</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref129"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1458815
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Wargames as Pedagogical Tools: Using Wargames for Higher Education
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Michael+Fowler%22">Michael Fowler</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Political+Science+Education%22"><i>Journal of Political Science Education</i></searchLink>. 2025 21(1):163-182.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 20
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Games%22">Educational Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Games%22">Computer Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Simulation%22">Computer Simulation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22War%22">War</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Active+Learning%22">Active Learning</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Objectives%22">Learning Objectives</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Software+Selection%22">Computer Software Selection</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Material+Evaluation%22">Instructional Material Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Curriculum+Development%22">Curriculum Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Reinforcement%22">Positive Reinforcement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Goal+Orientation%22">Goal Orientation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Motivation%22">Student Motivation</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15512169.2024.2349549
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1551-2169<br />1551-2177
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Wargames and crisis simulations can be useful pedagogical tools when deliberately used. This paper explores the spectrum of pedagogical objectives; what use are wargames for learning? What types of objectives can they explore? How do you align the learning objectives with the right type of game? The paper leverages Bloom's Taxonomy of learning as a method to guide game selection according to the desired classroom learning objective. For each type of game, the paper identifies lessons from higher education classroom use that others should consider before applying their own wargame.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1458815
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1458815
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15512169.2024.2349549
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 20
        StartPage: 163
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Games
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Games
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Simulation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: War
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Active Learning
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Objectives
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Software Selection
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Material Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Curriculum Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Reinforcement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Goal Orientation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Wargames as Pedagogical Tools: Using Wargames for Higher Education
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Michael Fowler
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1551-2169
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1551-2177
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Political Science Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1