Frontiers Simulations

INSTRUCTOR GUIDE / INTRODUCTORY INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

AFTER YOU.

Their climate promise changed. What happens next?
Students advise a government, distinguish their recommendation from their forecast, and investigate competing explanations for a stronger climate commitment.

Timing
Plan for 36 minutes of core investigation and a 7-minute debrief. These are estimates awaiting a timed learner pilot; there is no compulsory clock.

Before class
Suitable for introductory IR. Define emissions, pledge, political partner, and hypothesis in plain language. Prior climate-policy knowledge is optional.

Play After You ↗

Timing

Plan for 36 minutes of core investigation and a 7-minute debrief. These are unpiloted estimates; longer explanatory reading may require extra time. There is no compulsory clock.

Before class

The game teaches the required concepts. For an introductory class, begin with the three separate questions: what should the cabinet do, what do you expect it to adopt, and why did the observed decision happen? Longer source explanations can be assigned before or after the core.

Play After You ↗ · Public articles and further reading ·

Choose class or fun

The visible For class / For fun switch preserves work. For class, complete the evidence activities, forecasts, required reasoning, and final review, then print or save a PDF and submit it separately as instructed. For fun, every chapter and evidence record is open for exploration with optional notes and printing. When returning to class, the app identifies unfinished required work.

Earlier exploration means a subsequent prediction is not a blind first response. Assess the recorded reasoning and revision.

Learning goals

  1. Explain how a partner’s commitment could alter expectations, competitive objections, or a domestic bargain.
  2. Distinguish shared climate benefits from the distribution of policy costs, and promises from adopted measures and achieved reductions.
  3. State a conditional hypothesis, connect two dated observations to its mechanism, and evaluate a serious rival.
  4. Propose a specific comparison or observation that could weaken a favored explanation.

Teaching principles

The countries, people, records, dates, and targets are fictional. Published research is labeled separately. Assess how a learner connects a claim to evidence, not a preferred policy, a correct initial forecast, or use of support.

The class debrief

  1. Invite two different explanations. Ask each learner to describe a positive pathway from conditions to the adopted decision, then identify their strongest record.
  2. What does E4 change? It dates the idea before the announcement. Ask separately when adoption became possible and whether later reinforcement remains plausible.
  3. For a domestic account, what changed in support or the funding bargain? For an international account, what changed in expectations or objections? A mixed account should connect those processes.
  4. Which next observation would have different implications for the competing accounts? Compare decision records, exposure to partner signals, or the timing of a cabinet majority.
  5. Separate what the real articles measure from the fictional evidence: national pledges, survey preferences, cabinet adoption, and achieved cuts are different outcomes.

Assess the reasoning

Maximum 10 points. Prose and structured responses use the same criteria. A learner can keep, revise, narrow, or combine explanations and earn full credit with reasons. Completion records tasks; human review evaluates the argument. A mixed explanation must connect mechanisms, not merely list them.

Dimension012
Puzzle and concepts0: Does not identify the decision or conflates a promise with delivery.1: Identifies a relevant question but leaves an important concept unclear.2: Explains the partner-response puzzle and distinguishes relevant outcomes.
Hypothesis0: No identifiable expectation or explanation.1: Gives a plausible expectation but an unclear condition or connection.2: Specifies a condition, expected outcome, and mechanism linking them.
Evidence0: Asserts a cause without an identifiable supporting observation.1: Names relevant records but incompletely explains their relevance.2: Links two specific observations to the claim, including what each adds or challenges.
Rival account0: Omits a rival or dismisses it without a reason.1: Names a credible rival without explaining its different implications.2: Explains a credible rival and an observation that would distinguish its contribution.
Limits and next test0: Claims unsupported certainty or supplies no relevant next inquiry.1: Names a limitation or additional evidence in general terms.2: Identifies a specific unresolved link and a comparison or observation that could challenge the claim.

Research links

The public reading guide contains the same explanations, findings, limits, and links as the game. Required concepts are taught inside the simulation; external reading is optional unless you assign it.

Open / print the complete reading guide ↗

Review status

The recovered release passed AI reading and JavaScript functional checks. Actual students have not been recruited or tested; timing and learning effectiveness need a learner pilot. Browser rendering and PDF pagination were not verified in this recovery.