Alf / Hahn / Zürn Planspiele - Erkenntnisse aus Praxis und Forschung

Rückblick auf den Deutschen Planspielpreis und das Europäische Planspielforum 2021
1. Auflage 2022
ISBN: 978-3-7568-2586-8
Verlag: BoD - Books on Demand
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Deutsch, Band 13, 204 Seiten

Reihe: ZMS-Schriftenreihe

Dieser 13. Band der ZMS-Schriftenreihe bringt zusammen, was seit 2010 zusammengehört: Das Europäische Planspielforum und den Deutschen Planspielpreis. Als größte europäische Tagung zum Thema Planspiel ist das Europäische Planspielforum eine nicht mehr wegzudenkende Größe in der Planspielszene. Das Forum richtet sich gleichermaßen an Planspielhersteller, Lehrende und Forschende. Auf der Veranstaltung und in diesem Sammelband werden Planspieltrends und neue Simulationen präsentiert, Fragen der Anwendung und Didaktik von Planspielen diskutiert sowie Ergebnisse der Planspielforschung erörtert. In diesem Jahr lautete das Thema des Europäischen Planspielforums "Facilitation: Emotional - digital - zentral.". Als Methode steht Facilitation dafür, eine Gruppe von Menschen darin zu unterstützen, von ihnen angestrebte Ziele selbstgesteuert zu erreichen. Die Beiträge im Band beleuchten Facetten der Facilitation von Planspielen, dabei liegt ein spezieller Fokus auf der Online-Lehre sowie der Evaluation von Planspielveranstaltungen. Mit dem Deutschen Planspielpreis werden seit 2010 herausragende Studienabschlussarbeiten und Dissertationen für ihren innovativen Beitrag zur Planspielforschung ausgezeichnet. In den Beiträgen der Preisträger*innen und ausgesuchten weiteren Autor*innen werden Forschungsergebnisse, beispielsweise zu zwei politischen Planspielen für die Grundschule, präsentiert. Der Band versammelt wie gewohnt wieder eine breite Vielfalt an Themenstellungen. Dieser Band entstand als Kooperationsprojekt des Zentrums für Managementsimulation der DHBW Stuttgart mit der SAGSAGA, der Gesellschaft für Planspiele in Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz e.V..

Autoren/Hrsg.

Alf, Tobias

Hahn, Simon

Zürn, Birgit

Trautwein, Friedrich

Leseproben

The Art of Facilitating the Undesired
Martin Gerner Simulation-game facilitation requires more flexibility, intuition and participatory/involving elements in order to obtain playful insights without limiting degrees of freedom. First, most corresponding formats of workshop/conference facilitation or leadership trainings usually require tight, to-the-point and managerial qualities of facilitators. Secondly, in many conventional facilitation settings context conditions are more or less given or at least predefined. Third, people do act a part once they feel located in certain situations that are professionally facilitated. That makes them likely to change their behaviour, since psychological phenomena, such like self-assertion, social-desirability-response sets or profiling, may dominate the discourse. This casestudy based reflective account argues for more flexibility, intuition and participatory elements that are appreciated in order to address the desired, playful insights. Facilitation as a service must not be replaceable, much less when it comes to simulation games! Mehr Beinfreiheit, Bauchgefühl und Hingabe sind beim Moderieren von Planspielen gefragt, denn nur so lassen sich spielerische Erkenntnisse gewinnen ohne Freiheitsgrade einzuschränken. Üblicherweise werden bei Moderationen von Workshops, Konferenzen oder Führungskräftetrainings präzise, zielführende und anleitende Eigenschaften von Moderatoren erwartet. Zudem ist in vielen Fällen der Kontext einer Moderation klar vorgegeben oder mindestens umrissen. Oft genug füllen Menschen Rollen aus, sobald sie sich in bestimmten professionell moderierten Situationen bewegen. All diese Aspekte können dazu führen, dass Menschen ihr Verhalten anpassen, weil psychologische Phänomene, wie Selbstbehauptung, soziale Erwünschtheit oder Profilierungsdruck, den Diskurs dominieren. Auf Grundlage einer fallbasierten und -reflektierten Betrachtung wird für mehr Flexibilität, Intuition und Partizipation plädiert, um zu spielerisch erwünschten Einsichten zu gelangen. Moderation sollte als Dienstleistung nicht austauschbar und beliebig werden, erst recht nicht, wenn es um Planspiele geht! 1. Crafting simulation games through facilitation Among simulation-game aficionados and science-based communities there is little doubt that designing, facilitating and debriefing game artefacts as models of reality constitutes genuine craftsmanship (Kriz et al. 2018, p. 204; Alklind Taylor 2014, p. 73). It is particularly the talent of integrating different stakeholder perspectives aiming at solving complex challenges that rather calls for artisanship as adequate label (Hunter 2009, pp. 19 et seqq.). In any case, simulation games are increasingly entering manifold learning contexts, since they perfectly appeal to the human gaming nature as homo ludens; they demand freedom of decision-making and responsible action; and they provide novel, innovative and adaptive learning arrangements different compared with conventional learning and teaching formats (Gerner 2018, p. 84; Klabbers 1989b, p. 3). Etymology-wise facilitation is of Italian origin and refers to making things easier. It has frequently been attributed with “the art of unlocking the power of a group through dialogue and the pursuit of clarity, engaging active participation and embracing the richness of diverse perspectives” (Reis 2018, p. 5; cf. Sipponen-Damonte 2017; Flinker 2020). Thus, sensu stricto similarities with moderation techniques are limited, since facilitation strives against influencing, teaching, urging or judging. In fact, facilitation aims at unveiling the multi-faceted potential of team performance uno actu, i.e. by a single act. In this respect, facilitators are responsible for providing the framing context, including space (setting/location, physical environment), people (emotions, relations, involvement) and process (information, operations, energy) (Reis 2018, p. 5). Given the qualitative imperatives of simulation games – lively-spirited, self-efficacious and opening-exploring – paired with the notion of facilitation, simulationgame facilitation requires more flexibility, intuition and participatory/involving elements in order to obtain playful insights without limiting degrees of freedom. The following considerations are based on multiple years of facilitation experience, first and foremost, underpinned by some theoretical concepts of correlating the notion of simulation games with those of their facilitation. The reflective account starts with explaining typical pitfalls of facilitating simulation games that are related with three paradoxes commonly encountered in many facilitation contexts. Following this inventory-taking the basics of defining simulation games are recapped as modes of desirability. These are liaised with facilitation techniques that are likely to prevent from experiencing aforementioned pitfalls. Last but not least, personality-involving facilitation is advocated for through reconciling characteristics of simulation-gamespecific facilitation with corresponding facilitator’s disposition. 2. Exploring pitfalls of simulation-game facilitation Facilitating interaction-based, face-to-face simulation games is sort of a tightrope walk. It particularly challenges those profoundly trained in facilitation techniques for professional purposes, such like business, higher education or civic commitment. Three cases may explain why; they may be labelled as… • given paradox = taking processes for granted; • invisible paradox = applying routines; and • desired paradox = supporting self-evident, mainstreamed or familiar opinions. The following considerations are based on multiple years of facilitation experience, first and foremost, underpinned by some theoretical concepts of correlating the notion of simulation games with those of their facilitation. Having trained pupils in civic education and students for more than ten years, roughly one hundred simulation games have been facilitated as free-lancer. The principal-agent relationship has become increasingly thought-provoking, since game design and facilitation ought to comply with institutional arrangements, such like mandate, objective, agenda or philosophy, of course. This has led to rethink some of the most prevailing instances of facilitating simulation games; they have been subsumed under given, invisible and desired paradoxes in this reflective account. The given paradox is closely connected with contextual frames for managing complexity (Klabbers 1989b, pp. 4–5; Berting 1989, pp. 9–10; Mautner-Markhof 1989, pp. 24–26). In conventional facilitation settings context conditions are more or less given or predefined, at least. This applies, for instance, to the time frame allotted, learning or managing objectives, the direction of discourse, or interventions from the audience or through clips, just to name some. In other words, even though pretending otherwise, the dramaturgy of discourse and/or interaction is often intentionally set in advance (van der Meer, Roodink 1989, pp. 81–83). The intended notion of facilitation is replaced by the classical instruction paradigm. According to the model, the instructor provides the game-based simulation with dynamic content, either instantly/ in real-time (ad hoc) or in advance (a priori) through a scenario-authoring interface (Raybourn 2007, p. 208; Alklind Taylor 2014, p. 5). This implies that the instructing parts are aware of the fact, that the “more control of the game world (…) is relinquished to learners, the less control (…) an instructor has over the learning objectives of the game” (Neville; Shelton 2009, p. 620; cf. Alklind Taylor 2014, p. 75). Recalling the adopted notion of facilitation in terms of influencing, teaching, urging or judging instructive approaches diverge from facilitative ones considerably. Pre-designed instructions do certainly have their right to exist for establishing given contexts, but hardly coincide with those required for facilitating simulation games, strictly speaking. The invisible paradox captures the clash of expectations with uncertainty (Klabbers 1989b, p. 3; Klabbers 2018, p. 227). Most corresponding formats of workshop/ conference facilitation or leadership trainings usually call for tight, to-the-point and managerial qualities of facilitators. High-level facilitating performance is usually associated with measurable success in terms of how connecting people, inspiring smalltalks, setting corporate agendas or creating commitment for action, inter alia. In other words, there are articulate expectations of facilitation routines that cover tangible or perceivable aspects. According to the iceberg model, however, most messages in interpersonal communication are considered to be transmitted in an unconscious manner beyond assessable perception. Particularly simulation games are spontaneous, interactive hot spots of multiple, purposefully clashing expectations. They involve both overt and hidden, invisible agenda that need to be reflected in the course of designing and facilitating. To be specific, as “subject matter experts, (facilitators) cannot only ensure that the game facilitates learning for the learners, but that it is also designed with (facilitators’) agenda in mind” (Alklind Taylor 2014, p. 6). Paul Watzlawick once claimed “one cannot not communicate” (Watzlawick et al. 1988, p. 51); his statement is of utmost relevance when pretending to cover invisible aspects of communication/ interaction as part of...