No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Teaching Theory and Space: Human Territoriality in Political Science
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 June 2021
Abstract
Learning theories in political science can be difficult for students. This article describes a technique that helps students to understand how a theory about human characteristics may impact behavior. I use a mini-simulation in which two volunteers are asked to enact a gimmick in front of the classroom, demonstrating the theory of human territoriality (Asal et al. 2018). As the volunteers engage in small talk, I point out that they engage with one another at a certain distance and angle that reflects social space. As the exercise progresses, students easily relate to the theory of human territoriality, which is defined as the symbolic and physical connection to a space considered as their own. This mini-simulation achieves the following learning objectives: understanding (1) that theories are relevant and help to explain human behavior; (2) the workings of the individual level of analysis; and (3) that theories are not universal and have limits to their application across culture, time, and space. This teaching technique does not require preparation time or resources, and students easily comprehend the expected learning outcomes. Having received overwhelmingly positive feedback in evaluations, I offer this as a viable technique for teaching theory in general because it helps students to comprehend what a theory is supposed to do—that is, to understand, explain, and sometimes predict behavior.
- Type
- The Teacher
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association
References
REFERENCES
Allee, Todd L., and Huth, Paul K.. 2006. “Legitimizing Dispute Settlement: International Legal Rulings as Domestic Political Cover.” American Political Science Review 100 (2): 219–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, Graham, and Zelikow, Philip. 1999. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. New York: Longman Publishing.Google Scholar
Anderson, Benedict. 2006. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar
Asal, Victor, and Blake, Elizabeth L.. 2006. “Creating Simulations for Political Science Education.” Journal of Political Science Education 2 (1): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asal, Victor, Jahanbani, Nakissa, Lee, Donnett, and Ren, Jiacheng. 2018. “Mini-Games for Teaching Political Science Methodology.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (4): 838–41.Google Scholar
Asal, Victor, Kollars, Nina A., Raymond, Chad, and Rosen, Amanda M.. 2013. “Editors’ Introduction to the Thematic Issue: Bringing Interactive Simulations into the Political Science Classroom.” Journal of Political Science Education 9 (2): 129–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asal, Victor, and Kratoville, Jayson. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baranowski, Michael K., and Weir, Kimberly A.. 2015. “Political Simulations: What We Know, What We Think We Know, and What We Still Need to Know.” Journal of Political Science Education 11 (4): 391–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, Benjamin S. 1956. “Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, Vol. 1: Cognitive Domain.” New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 20–24.Google Scholar
Butcher, Charity. 2012. “Teaching Foreign Policy Decision-Making Processes Using Role-Playing Simulations: The Case of US–Iranian Relations.” International Studies Perspectives 13 (2): 176–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caruson, Kiki. 2005. “So, You Want to Run for Elected Office? How to Engage Students in the Campaign Process without Leaving the Classroom.” PS: Political Science & Politics 38 (2): 305–10.Google Scholar
Dyson‐Hudson, Rada, and Smith, Eric Alden. 1978. “Human Territoriality: An Ecological Reassessment.” American Anthropologist 80 (1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellington, Thomas C., Grillo, Michael, and Shaw, Carolyn. 2006. “Simulations and Role Playing (S&RP) II Track Summary.” PS: Political Science & Politics 39 (3): 541–42. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096506300893.Google Scholar
Frederking, Brian. 2005. “Simulations and Student Learning.” Journal of Political Science Education 1 (3): 385–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasgow, Sara M. 2014. “Stimulating Learning by Simulating Politics: Teaching Simulation Design in the Undergraduate Context.” International Studies Perspectives 15 (4): 525–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glazier, Rebecca A. 2011. “Running Simulations without Ruining Your Life: Simple Ways to Incorporate Active Learning into Your Teaching.” Journal of Political Science Education 7 (4): 375–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guàrdia, Lourdes, Maina, Marcelo, and Sangrà, Albert. 2013. “MOOC Design Principles: A Pedagogical Approach from the Learner’s Perspective.” eLearning Papers 33.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Mark D. 2020. “‘Networks of Power’: A Simulation to Teach about Durable Inequality.” Journal of Political Science Education 16 (1): 79–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, Paul K. 2009. Standing Your Ground: Territorial Disputes and International Conflict. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul K., and Allee, Todd L.. 2002. The Democratic Peace and Territorial Conflict in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Dominic D. P., and Toft, Monica Duffy. 2014. “Grounds for War: The Evolution of Territorial Conflict.” International Security 38 (3): 7–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Rebecca, and Bursens, Peter. 2015. “The Effects of Active-Learning Environments: How Simulations Trigger Affective Learning.” European Political Science 14:254–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kollars, Nina A., and Rosen, Amanda M.. 2013. “Simulations as Active Assessment?: Typologizing by Purpose and Source.” Journal of Political Science Education 9 (2): 144–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krain, Matthew, and Shadle, Christina J.. 2006. “Starving for Knowledge: An Active-Learning Approach to Teaching about World Hunger.” International Studies Perspectives 7 (1): 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krathwohl, David R. 2002. “A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview.” Theory into Practice 41 (4): 212–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malmberg, Torsten. 2019. Human Territoriality: Survey on the Behavioural Territories in Man with Preliminary Analysis and Discussion of Meaning , Vol. 33. Berlin, Germany: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Mann, Bonnie. 2013. Sovereign Masculinity: Gender Lessons from the War on Terror. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mendenhall, Elizabeth, and Tutunji, Tarek. 2018. “Teaching Critical Understandings of Realism through Historical War Simulations.” PS: Political Science & Politics 51 (2): 440–44.Google Scholar
Omelicheva, Mariya Y., and Avdeyeva, Olga. 2008. “Teaching with Lecture or Debate? Testing the Effectiveness of Traditional versus Active-Learning Methods of Instruction.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (3): 603–607.Google Scholar
Peterson, Spike. 2004. “Feminist Theories Within, Invisible to, and Beyond IR.” Brown Journal of World Affairs 10 (2): 35–46.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John Gerard. 1993. “Territoriality and Beyond: Problematizing Modernity in International Relations.” International Organization 47 (1): 139–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sack, Robert David. 1986. “Human Territoriality: Its Theory and History.” Cambridge Studies in Historical Geography, No. 7. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schacht, Steven, and Stewart, Brad J.. 1990. “What’s Funny about Statistics? A Technique for Reducing Student Anxiety.” Teaching Sociology 18 (1): 52–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schacht, Steven, and Stewart, Brad J.. 1992. “Interactive/User-Friendly Gimmicks for Teaching Statistics.” Teaching Sociology 20 (4): 329–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senese, Paul D., and Vasquez, John A.. 2003. “A Unified Explanation of Territorial Conflict: Testing the Impact of Sampling Bias, 1919–1992.” International Studies Quarterly 47 (2): 275–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Senese, Paul D., and Vasquez, John A.. 2008. The Steps to War: An Empirical Study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shellman, Stephen M., and Turan, Kürşad. 2006. “Do Simulations Enhance Student Learning? An Empirical Evaluation of an IR Simulation.” Journal of Political Science Education 2 (1): 19–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spaaij, Ramón. 2008. “Men Like Us, Boys Like Them: Violence, Masculinity, and Collective Identity in Football Hooliganism.” Journal of Sport and Social Issues 32 (4): 369–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tagma, Halit M. E., and Paul, Lenze. 2020. Understanding and Explaining the Iranian Nuclear “Crisis”: Theoretical Approaches. Lanham, MD: Lexington Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Kirsten. 2013. “Simulations Inside and Outside the IR Classroom: A Comparative Analysis.” International Studies Perspectives 14 (2): 134–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tickner, J. Ann. 2005. “Gendering a Discipline: Some Feminist Methodological Contributions to International Relations.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 30 (4): 2173–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasquez, John A. 1995. “Why Do Neighbors Fight? Proximity, Interaction, or Territoriality.” Journal of Peace Research 32 (3): 277–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Cynthia. 1995. Simulating Sovereignty: Intervention, the State and Symbolic Exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wedig, Timothy. 2010. “Getting the Most from Classroom Simulations: Strategies for Maximizing Learning Outcomes.” PS: Political Science & Politics 43 (3): 547–55.Google Scholar
Wunische, Adam. 2019. “Lecture Versus Simulation: Testing the Long-Term Effects.” Journal of Political Science Education 15 (1): 37–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar