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 40–50 minutes for the solo Class investigation, plus a short debrief if assigned. This is a planning estimate. Students work at their own pace.

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 40–50 minutes for the solo Class investigation, plus a short debrief if assigned. Allow extra time for close reading or discussion.

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

Start For Class and enter the student name. Class or section is optional. For Fun uses separate progress and optional writing. In assessed Class answers, type, dictate, or reuse text within the same answer. When the assignment is complete, choose Print / Save PDF and upload the PDF to Canvas. Keep the progress JSON to resume or move to another device in the same mode.

A student who has previously seen an outcome can still explain and revise the forecast. Use any exposure information in the report when interpreting the first prediction.

Class writing checkpoints

  1. Advice, 20 words. Recommend a policy for Luma and identify a benefit or cost.
  2. First forecast, 20 words. Predict what the cabinet will do before hearing Vela.
  3. Forecast after Vela, 25 words. Explain why the announcement does or does not change your prediction.
  4. Evidence-based forecast, 25 words. Record what you learned from the first packets. Use a dated record to explain why you keep or change the forecast before the decision is revealed.
  5. Causal explanation, 90 words. Connect dated evidence to a mechanism, a plausible rival, and a limit.
  6. Research transfer, 60 words. Explain what the study measures and identify evidence connecting public preferences to a decision in the new case.

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 timing is an estimate for planning. Use a student pilot to measure time and see where learners need support.