Political Science Educator: volume 28, issue 2
Reflections
By Matthew P. Thornburg (mthornburg@misericordia.edu and Elizabeth A. Georgian (georgian@usca.edu)
Introduction
Our first day of class begins in an unusual way—with a murder. In our Introduction to the Law class (a 300-level course cross-listed between history and political science), we start with a simulation—Murder on an Island—where a shocking crime threatens to destabilize an isolated society already grappling with social divisions and inequality. While an interest in the law draws many students to major in political science, introducing the topic can prove challenging as students encounter both its byzantine procedures and a unique combination of political, ethical, and historical factors. Designed to be flexible and requiring little preparation by instructors and none by students, our simulation works well in an Introduction to the Law class but can also be used in other courses (such as International Law or American Political Development). Used thoughtfully, it lays the groundwork for serious discussions that take place over the remainder of the semester, spinning threads the instructor weaves together week by week.
The Problem
We encountered two, inter-related problems teaching the American legal system to undergraduate students. First, philosophical ideals of justice, order, and fairness collide with political realities of power and institutions through an inescapably historical, path-dependent, and unsettling process that steeps an institution in rituals, language, and procedures not clearly relevant to its ostensible goals (Krygier 2010). Students find the alien world of the courtroom overwhelming as they struggle to connect justice, law, and order with minutiae (such as the rules of evidence, distinctions between lay and expert witnesses, and the importance of the Brady rule. In short, they easily lose sight of the forest for the trees). Second, rigorous study of the law necessarily involves contentious issues (such as systemic bias, the death penalty, and jury nullification). Students with strong pre-existing opinions, often based on incorrect assumptions, can struggle to approach polarizing issues with an open mind.
Research on Our Approach
To meet these challenges, we leveraged the scholarship of teaching and learning. Research documents the efficacy of simulations and experiential learning in studying dynamic, complex processes (Baranowski 2006; Smith and Boyer 1996; Wright-Maley 2013). This efficacy increases when dealing with processes involving human experience and subjectivity (Lederman 1994). Simulations work well to teach these systems like the American legal system.
Unlike case-study approaches, simulations simplify complex realities and emphasize critical features (Prado et. al. 2020). Our simulation strips away the rituals, language, and procedures of the American legal system and students’ preconceptions about its functioning, forcing them to grapple with key concepts of the law. They even begin to understand why some of its procedures exist. For example, the murder victim’s body is examined by an English professor, lacking forensic training. When students argue about their testimony’s weight and admissibility, they set us up to introduce the differences between lay and expert witnesses and the rules of evidence later in the course. While we introduce countless real-life examples through case-law, combining these with a simulation leverages the strengths of both approaches.
Research also shows that conducting simulations prior to classroom lectures on contentious issues leads to more productive student engagement. By engaging with the topic experientially, not just conceptually, students approach it with a fresh perspective (Wright-Maley 2015). Instructors document successfully using this approach to teach both immigration policy and economic inequality (DiCamillo 2015; Wright-Maley 2013). Our course deals extensively with questions of power and systemic bias in the American legal system. The simulation plunges students into an imaginary society, buffeted by strong power dynamics where they experience the resulting inequality firsthand. As we return to these themes over the course of the semester, drawing on students’ personal experiences in the simulation deepens our historical, philosophical, and legal lessons.
Description of Activity
Murder on an Island opens on a deserted island, where two groups—the Trailblazers and the Followers—are stressed by looming food shortages. The Trailblazers, the first to arrive, numerically and politically dominate the followers, the second group. One morning, everyone wakes up to discover one of the Trailblazers murdered. As island residents, students are tasked with investigating the crime and bringing the crisis to a resolution.
With roles for 10-30 students, the simulation works best with around 15 students. Because we know most of our students before the class starts, we can cast based on strengths, but roles can also be assigned randomly. We prefer to contact the students chosen as the accused and the murderer in advance, to ensure they are comfortable in those roles. For students who find simulations stressful or have disability accommodations limiting public speaking, we include a journalist role that could easily be doubled if needed. The simulation takes about 2-3 hours of class time including set-up and debriefing and it’s important to keep students moving, otherwise they can bog down in minutiae and take too long to make decisions.
We begin the simulation with a brief introduction, describing the circumstances of the crime and the pre-existing divisions between the Trailblazers and the Followers. Students also receive a list of information commonly known and agreed to facts—in a law class, this functions as stipulations in a trial. Then witnesses and the accused break into “ally groups” of their friends on the island (designated in their role sheets). The groups serve to create a social structure and allow them to process the situation with people they trust. In real life, it also introduces students to each other on the first day of class, laying the groundwork for future engagement.
While the ally groups meet, the governing council (all Trailblazers) decides the process for determining guilt or innocence. They have wide latitude on the process—replication of any particular legal system is not a predetermined outcome—but we prompt them to consider the practicalities of fact finding, the political consequences of their choices for the community, and the standards and burden of proof. Students usually gravitate towards an adversarial trial with a jury and mostly (but not always) provide some representation for the Followers in the process.
The next stage of the simulation is fact finding and the trial (assuming they decide to hold one). Once the process of the trial is finalized, the instructor’s primary role shifts to keeping students focused and moving forward. We remain flexible about the part students play in these processes. For example, while the roles suggest a Follower represents the accused while a Trailblazer makes the case for their guilt, in practice a more confident Trailblazer may step up instead. Interestingly, classes sometimes fail to provide the accused a defender at all.
It’s important to take notes throughout the simulation, jotting down salient points to revisit during debriefing and build on throughout the semester. Regardless of the decisions of an individual class, common themes always emerge that complement course material. In our class, we begin by exploring the strengths and weaknesses of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems of justice, moving on to questioning whether the power dynamics on the island created systemic bias. We also encourage students to think about the consequences of the trial for the island society and push them to determine next steps, whether they find the accused innocent or guilty, setting the stage for later discussions of wrongful conviction and capital punishment. Specific pieces of testimony lead into lessons about the various rules of evidence. Used in a class on international relations, for example, the emphasis could shift to the alliances and how they function.
Reflections
One of us regularly uses Reacting to the Past games, which emphasize historical context, deep textual engagement, and require extensive preparation by instructors and students while the other prefers abstract games, ranging from five minutes to a class period, requiring little preparation, and focusing on demonstrating social scientific concepts. Murder on an Island brings together the strengths of both approaches in a simulation that is flexible and easy for experienced and inexperienced instructors alike to use. The lack of necessary context and preparation helps draw students into the class quickly and encourages them to keep an open mind, while the broader social context, higher stakes, and longer duration allows for deeper learning and engagement. Research shows many students arrive at college underprepared and wrestle with low self-efficacy as a result (Hsieh et al. 2007). By beginning our course in an approachable way, we build self-efficacy for students and creates “buy-in” to the deeper engagement with the material.
While we use it to focus largely on questions about the structure and functioning of the legal system, instructors could shift the emphasis to questions of alliances, conflict, and diplomacy or the impact of resource constraints on social and political functioning. For instructors looking to add simulations or games into their pedagogical toolbox, it offers an easy starting point, adaptable to multiple classes and disciplines. For Reacting to the Past instructors, it could be used as a set-up for many games, including The Trial of Anne Hutchinson: Liberty, Law, and Intolerance in Puritan New England (2022), Restoring the World, 1945: Security and Empire at Yalta (2020), or Watergate, 1973-1974 (2023). Regardless of how it’s used, Murder on an Island offers students and instructors a fun, fast-paced introduction, opening the door to serious discussions.
References
Baranowski, Michael. 2006. “Single session simulations: The effectiveness of short congressional simulations in introductory American government classes.” Journal of Political Science Education2(1): 33-49.
DiCamillo, Lorrei. 2015. “Exploring an interdisciplinary expedition in a global history class.” The Journal of Social Studies Research39(3): 151-162.
Hsieh, Peggy (Pei-Hsuan), Jeremy R. Sullivan, and Norm S. Guerra. 2007. “A closer look at college students: Self-efficacy and goal orientation.” Journal of Advanced Academics18(3): 454-476.
Krygier, Martin. 2017. “Law as tradition.” Legal Theory and the Social Sciences: 335-360.
Lederman, Linda Costigan. 1984. “Debriefing: a critical reexamination of the postexperience analytic process with implications for its effective use.” Simulation & Games 15(4): 415-431.
Prado, Andrea M., Ronald Arce, Luis E. Lopez, Jaime García, and Andy A. Pearson. 2020. “Simulations versus case studies: Effectively teaching the premises of sustainable development in the classroom.” Journal of Business Ethics161: 303-327.
Smith, Elizabeth T., and Mark A. Boyer. 1996. “Designing in-class simulations.” PS: Political Science & Politics 29(4): 690-694.
Wright-Maley, Cory. 2013. “Deficit crisis simulation: Using Monopoly to teach about the deficit debate.” Social Studies Research and Practice 8(1): 89-101.
Wright-Maley, Cory. 2015. “What Every Social Studies Teacher Should Know about Simulations.” Canadian Social Studies 48(1): 8-23.
—-
Matthew P. Thornburg is an Associate Professor of Government, Law, and National Security at Misericordia University. While his research focuses on elections, Dr. Thornburg teaches on topics as diverse as law, conspiracy theories, and statistics.
Elizabeth A. Georgian is a Professor of History at the University of South Carolina Aiken. While her research focuses on religious history, Dr. Georgian teaches on topics as diverse as law, women’s history, and the history of illness and medicine.
Published since 2005, The Political Science Educator is the newsletter of the Political Science Education Section of the American Political Science Association. As part of APSA’s mission to support political science education across the discipline, APSA Educate has republished The Political Science Educator since 2021. Please visit APSA Educate’s Political Science Educator digital collection here.
Editors: Colin Brown (Northeastern University), Matt Evans (Northwest Arkansas Community College)
Submissions: editor.PSE.newsletter@gmail.com
