HomePublicationsTILTed PedagogySection 2 Chapter 6: Re-TILTing the Scale: Use of Cross-Institution Simulation-Based Learning Book MenuTILTed Pedagogy SectionsSection 1Section 2Section 3Section 4ChaptersChapter 1Chapter 2Chapter 3Chapter 4Chapter 5Chapter 6Chapter 7Chapter 8Chapter 9Chapter 10Chapter 11Chapter 12Chapter 13Chapter 14Chapter 15Chapter 16Book Resources Taren WellmanThis chapter focuses on the student learning benefits of simulation-based learning that leverages cross-institutional simulation to enhance realism in a role-playing negotiation simulation between undergraduate students at four universities. Matching students across institutions increases simulation realism by removing established peer relationships and mutual or shared knowledge of course concepts. Cross-institution simulation enhances collaborative learning experience by expanding diversity of backgrounds, increasing relationship and communication uncertainty, and introducing confusion and complexity to the environment. Added confusion and complexity is mitigated by transparency and structure in the assignment. When combined with a flipped classroom format, post-simulation formative assessment and feedback, and student-led self-reflection, the use of cross-institution simulation-based learning is a powerful and inclusive practice that deepens student learning and transfer of critical thinking and communication skills beyond the simulation context. Related Book ResourcesThese resources provide practical materials and additional readings to help instructors adapt or implement the cross-institution negotiation assignment featured in this chapter. Email/Zoom Negotiation Rubric This Email/Zoom Negotiation Rubric [PDF] [Word] is used to evaluate student performance in the email and Zoom-based negotiation assignment. It assesses both the process and outcomes of negotiation, with attention to preparation, communication, analytical reasoning, and reflective insight. Recommended Reading The following book forms the basis of our negotiations course and may be informative for readers connecting the featured assignment to course content: Fisher, Roger, William L. Ury, and Bruce Patton. 2011. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. Penguin Books. For additional reading about the specific benefits of introducing unknown role players via a cross-institutional assignment structure: Nerantzi, Chrissi. 2012. “A Case of Problem-Based Learning for Cross-Institutional Collaboration.” Electronic Journal of e-Learning 10 (3): 277–285. A discipline-specific demonstration of how negotiation role-play promotes critical thinking in students, examined in both short- and long-term contexts: Jones, Alex. 2018. “The Effect of Negotiation Role-Play on Critical Thinking Skills.” International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research 9 (6): 1294–1300. For additional guidance on implementing successful simulation-based learning exercises: Salas, Eduardo, Jessica L. Wildman, and Ronald F. Piccolo. 2009. “Using Simulation-Based Training to Enhance Management Education.” Academy of Management Learning & Education 8 (4): 559–573. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.8.4.zqr559. For additional reading on implementing a high-structure course or assignment, among other inclusive practices: Sathy, Viji, and Kelly A. Hogan. 2022. Inclusive Teaching: Strategies for Promoting Equity in the College Classroom. West Virginia University Press. Discussion Questions What teaching challenge is the chapter’s assignment trying to address, and how does that challenge show up in your own courses? How does the chapter’s use of the TILT framework (purpose, task, criteria) change the learning experience described, and what parallels do you see in your own teaching? What assumptions about students or learning does the chapter surface, and how might those assumptions influence assignment design? How does the assignment described in the chapter support student agency, autonomy, or choice? How does the chapter illustrate the connection between assignment design and deeper learning (e.g., critical thinking, metacognition, synthesis)? What evidence does the chapter provide that the assignment worked, and what additional evidence would you want to see? How does the chapter’s assignment align with or challenge your current beliefs about effective assessment? What aspects of the assignment design could be adapted to your discipline, and what would need to change? If you were to implement a version of this chapter’s assignment, what would be your first step—and what potential barriers would you anticipate? Share:
