Visualizing International Relations: Assessing Student Learning Through Film

Abstract

Much has been written in the last decade on using film as a pedagogical tool in the classroom and specifically in the teaching and learning of international relations (IR). Instructors assert that film has numerous beneficial effects in terms of student interest, engagement, conceptual understanding, and class performance. This article builds upon the existing literature and fills a gap by presenting and analyzing the empirical findings of recent classroom research on the usefulness of five films for student engagement, understanding, and interpretation of various IR topics (IR theory, media and war, and human rights). The data and their analysis reveal that film can potentially be a powerful and dramatic medium to aid student learning of IR, but the results are mixed. Students' written work also demonstrates that film's value can be overrated and that film can be superficial and confusing. This research sheds light on how we can better use film in the international studies classroom beyond its entertainment and illustrative value.

Contemporary globalization takes place visually—in images and videos transmitted by cell phone and webcams, state video surveillance in buses or on street corners, an activist or journalist's capturing of political violence then seen by millions, and the plethora of international films that document diverse global experiences. One of the main ways that most college students become aware of events and people across the world is through images. This is supported by a “pictorial turn” (Mitchell 1994) in contemporary culture, an “aesthetic turn” in international relations (Bleiker 2001), and the “society of spectacle” (DeBord 1995; Kellner 2003) noted by critical theorists.1 As one political scientist noted: “Our perceptions of current political events stem from the images and stories that our memory recalls from art—films, books, paintings, but also the recreated events on TV (Edelman 1995:2).” We do not objectively observe the world; it is translated and constructed for us primarily visually. A contemporary understanding of global phenomena requires visual literacy.2 In particular, film as one of the preeminent visual manifestations is a “potent form of political communication” (Engert and Spencer 2009:83).3

In light of this, film is one pedagogical tool that has been used more and more frequently in the classroom. In this paper, I evaluate with qualitative and quantitative data how film can be used to teach, understand, and interpret key topics in an international relations (IR) and international studies classroom,4 namely international relations theory, human rights, and media and war.5 More specifically, in classroom research, I sought to find out whether film can, in addition to illustrating and getting students interested in the material, help students better understand, interpret, and even illuminate or create new meaning within IR. While scholars claim that using film in the classroom (especially an IR one) can have positive effects on student interest, class performance, and conceptual understanding, there has been almost no empirical evaluation of these assertions.

This article thus fills a gap by providing data on both student perception and student written work to analyze the extent to which and how film is useful and whether it meets a number of key learning objectives; it also looks at potential disadvantages and ethical concerns with using film as a pedagogical tool. Moreover, I raise the question as to the relative value of using film in the higher education classroom, as many teachers may be concerned about its seriousness (for example, Broughton 2008; Sealey 2008). Finally, this study sets out a future research agenda on broader conceptual concerns related to images, politics, and violence that have not been considered in the pedagogical literature on teaching with film. To be sure, while research on one's own classroom and teaching presents a number of challenges, it nevertheless is useful to gauge whether the stated goals of a given pedagogical tool are being met.

The main research questions that this project seeks to answer are:

1. Do students engage with and demonstrate an interest in the material through the watching of a related film?
2. To what extent does film help students interpret, illuminate, and/or critically examine key topics in international relations?

In short, how useful is film in an IR classroom?6

This project finds nuanced mixed conclusions about the use of film as a pedagogical tool. Students in general perceived that film was useful beyond its entertainment value—for illustrating, explaining, and engaging them in IR topics. There were mixed findings regarding the relationship between students' film preference, their belief in its usefulness, and their ability to use it in written analytical work. Additionally, the fact that most students, when unprompted, did not use film in analytical essays may reveal that film was not as useful as traditional written text. This project has also found that entertaining, emotional, and dramatic narratives did not necessarily prevent or detract from students' learning and analysis and, in many ways, strongly engaged them and assisted in their learning. Conclusions are mixed in that film may increase students' understanding and interest in abstract IR concepts, but it can also sensationalize, simplify, and depoliticize importance issues in the discipline.

Previous Research on Film in the International Studies Classroom

Before examining the literature on using film in the classroom, we should take note of the debate on the relative value of cultural products such as film within pedagogy. Scholars recount how graduate schools of education and the academy in general tend to be skeptical of the use of popular film, music, and pop culture in the classroom (Broughton 2008; Sealey 2008:1–2). No doubt, many professors of international studies would agree and believe that we should not cater to a youth culture saturated by media spectacles. One scholar cites a critic who claims that popular culture is “not just marginal, trivial, or disruptive, it actually dulls consciousness: “the vast entertainment machine is, among other things, an industry for numbing” (Broughton 2008:22).” By contrast, others have found that entertainment should not just be ignored as fluff since it “has the capacity to intervene in the crucial civic issues and to shape public opinion (Broughton 2008:23).” However, while different forms of media such as film can be a powerful supplement in the classroom, they should not be seen as a substitute for effective teaching.

An additional important point in this debate is to note differences in types of film and what is considered entertainment. For example, in this classroom research project, I would argue that two to three of the five films would not be considered mainstream popular entertainment by contemporary students, even though they would still be considered in general more “entertainment” than “educational.” Many independent and foreign feature films tackle political and social issues in a serious way and should not be seen in the same category as a Hollywood blockbuster. In short, one should not start from the assumption that cinematic education, the fusion of teaching and learning with the moving image, is just “junk food.” At the same time, as this research shows, instructors still need to be conscientious and skeptical.

The literature on the use of film in the classroom is diverse and cuts across many disciplines. It is primarily descriptive and prescriptive, rather than explanatory. Most of the studies, including those in educational psychology, claim that the use of film in the classroom has a number of positive benefits for students: “[It] stimulates the senses, grounds abstract concepts, engages the emotions, contextualizes history, and facilitates an active-learning classroom environment (Kuzma and Haney 2001:34).”

The most prominent and often-reported benefit to using film and visuals in the classroom is in getting students interested in the material and engaging them in the class (Schillaci and Culkin 1970; Rebhorn 1987; Burton 1988; Tipton 1993; Gregg 1998; Champoux 1999; Kiasatpour 1999; Simpson and Kaussler 2009; Waalkes 2003; Sealey 2008; Valeriano 2008; Engert and Spencer 2009). The visualization of abstract concepts or historical events may be more captivating for students than just reading about them; moreover, because film is already a familiar medium for students, it breaks down some teacher–student barriers and may encourage students to be more active participants in the class.

Scholars also emphasize how visuals can further students' understanding of the material, illustrate and/or illuminate an abstract concept or theory, and reinforce course topics (Rebhorn 1987; Jordan and Sanchez 1994; Feldman 1995; English and Steffy 1997; Gregg 1998; Champoux 1999; Kiasatpour 1999; Crawford 1999; Weber 2001; Waalkes 2003; Sealey 2008; Valeriano 2008; Engert and Spencer 2009). One instructor found that “Film clips can create useful hooks for individual students to hang brand-new theoretical questions upon (Waalkes 2003).” Some educational psychologists have found that students have a difficult time learning and recalling abstract concepts7 (Bruner and Anglin 1973; Kuzma and Haney 2001) and that film can be useful at dealing with this problem. In reference to teaching international relations theory, one teacher asserted, “students need to be able to view and identify with the various narratives used to describe international politics by first seeing them acted out and then only later can they understand them in conceptual form by referencing them as -isms (Webber 2005:388).”

A few examples from international relations instructors' use of film are instructive into the potential uses and benefits. “Films can transform concepts into quasi-lived experiences that students may therefore retain long after class is over. A concept like ‘deterrence’ can move—at least somewhat—from existing only on a page or in a lecture into a student's imagined world [in reference to the film Dr. Strangelove] (Kuzma and Haney 2001:35).” Two instructors provide another example of the use of film to replace lecture or to illustrate an event or concept: “Remains of the Day [the film] was shown to first-year undergraduates instead of a lecture to explain aspects of the Interwar period and idealism,” and that “Films like Blood Diamond or Munich can convey a sense of crisis, urgency, emotions, and tension that books cannot (Simpson and Kaussler 2009:425).”8 As one of the main scholars in this area notes, “it is the capacity of film to dramatize the undramatic that merits special attention (Gregg 1998:4).” For example, Gregg uses Pontecorvo's film Burn that shows the dramatic violent confrontation between European powers and people of the Southern Hemisphere to bring the idea of imperialism to life. However, he and other scholars do not sufficiently examine how exactly film achieves the claimed benefits, that is, what is specific and unique to the medium that makes it a useful pedagogical tool. This is taken up in the conclusion.

Another related and important advantage that the literature examines that is particularly relevant for this research is the role of emotional learning. In learning, the categories “cognitive” and “emotional” are not distinct, but are aspects of one another (Sealey 2008). Dramatic films, personal stories, and visuals engage emotions and therefore can be an important learning tool (Berry, Schmied and Chad Schrock 2008; Gregg 1998; Engert and Spencer 2009; Kuzma and Haney 2001). “Research in neuroscience points out that emotions drive attention, create meaning, and have their own memory pathways. Strong emotions securely imprint information in memory (Kuzma and Haney 2001:35).” For example, in studying the Holocaust, one could argue that the uncomfortableness, silence, sadness, and shock felt by students upon viewing Holocaust images (for example, Resnais' Night and Fog) are essential parts of the learning process and experience and should not be ignored (Eaglestone and Langford 2008).9 Nevertheless, within the literature on images and violence, there is debate on whether viewing tragic and emotional images brings viewers closer and deeper to the subject or whether it can drive them away and encourage indifference and anger (cf. Sontag 1977, 2003; Haney 2000; Linfield 2010). Regarding the former, personal, dramatic, and emotional films can potentially be significant in fulfilling a number of learning objectives in the teaching of human rights and ethical issues in international affairs (Swimelar 2009),10 but some types of emotional films, such as war films, could also be misleading, inaccurate, and thus detract from learning.

Engert and Spencer (2009) discuss how there are four main ways of utilizing film in the IR classroom: to teach (i) events; (ii) issues of importance; (iii) cultural identities and narratives; and (iv) theories. The first two ways are more traditional and common, for example, using Thirteen Days to introduce students to the Cuban Missile Crisis or Hearts and Minds to explore the Vietnam War. As the authors reveal, there are a number of potential problems with using films in this way since popular Hollywood movies are made to entertain and earn a profit, not necessarily to accurately portray a historical event or educate students about a concept or theory. They also come with their own biases and assumptions, as well as privileging hegemonic discourses and societies (Ryan and Kellner 1990). As Valeriano (2008) notes, most IR films have a strong emphasis on war and the realist perspective that can hide other important aspects of IR, such as international organization, international political economy, and ethical concerns.

Engert and Spencer's category of film toward cultural narratives and theories is in a similar vein as Cynthia Weber's work on the subject. Both draw our attention to poststructuralism which would critique the traditional use of film as an illustrative supplement to traditional text and argue instead that “movies are neither objective nor culturally neutral texts, but socially constructed transcripts of reality: inherently subjective, equally valid, and most of all, culturally bound stories” (Engert and Spencer 2009:91).11

Cynthia Weber's substantive work on film and international relations theory goes the farthest regarding using film in the classroom by moving beyond its illustrative power to focus on its constructive power and its subjectivity. Weber focuses on having students interrogate different IR myths, such as “international anarchy is the cause of war (Weber 2001:281).”

I use popular films as vehicles through which students can rethink IR theory and IR myths…Popular films provide students with answers to the question, ‘How does an IR myth appear to be true?’ In so doing, popular films point to how politics, power, and ideology are culturally constructed and how the culture of IR theory might be politically reconstructed (Weber 2009:xxiii).12

Her International Relations Theory: A Critical Introduction is an excellent text to teach international relations through film as she pairs and evaluates multiple international relations approaches with a popular film and an IR myth, for example Lord of the Flies (realism), Independence Day (idealism),13 and Wag the Dog (constructivism).

Despite the lack of empirical evidence on teaching with film, one study does include some limited data on student assessment and tries to measure the effects of using film (Kuzma and Haney 2001). The instructors gave a pre- and post-survey to gauge student knowledge about foreign policy concepts and conclude that all students “passed” the post-survey and showed that their level of knowledge increased. But they do not provide data on this, and it is also not clear whether student knowledge would have increased even without the film.14 Kuzma and Haney note that written work understandably “provided better indicators of student learning,” than the surveys, but they do not provide details. They also admit that the short descriptions of course concepts in the post-survey “did not reflect the depth and complexity of their gained knowledge, their increased analytical and evaluation skills, or their ability to link the movies with the course readings.” But understandably, these are hard to measure. They also generally note that students liked the class, even those who were critical of many of the films.

Finally, the literature draws our attention to many potential drawbacks and challenges to using film that have been found by the authors reviewed here. Briefly, these can be summed up: (i) technical and logistical issues related to DVD use and access; (ii) the heavy use of in-class or out-of-class time to show full films may take away from other important course material and activities; in light of this, one teacher uses primarily clips to achieve similar purposes (Waalkes 2003); (iii) overexposure in the films to too much irrelevant content which may lead students to focus less on the academic concepts; (iv) driving students away due to anger, apathy, and emotional overload, as discussed above; (v) bias, such as a preference for certain topics (such as war) and certain theories (such as realism) to the exclusion of others (Gregg 1999; Valeriano 2008); (vi) movies can distort and simplify and also revise history (Engert and Spencer 2009). Thus, as Murray Edelman tells us, art makes order out of disorder, but this ordering can be oversimplifying and manipulative. The above two points however could be used to an instructor's advantage to lead a critical discussion about subjectivity, selectivity, and “truth.”15

The Classroom Research—Methods and Process

This research was conducted in two introductory international relations courses during the fall of 2009 and had Institutional Review Board approval. Almost all students consented to participate in the project; thus, there were a total of 30 student participants in section A and 25 in section B of the same course (55 total students).16 Five films that had been used in previous classes were chosen based on how well they fit with key themes of the course and key learning objectives related to engagement, illustration, and interpretation. I sought to choose diverse films, some that were metaphorical, not overtly illustrative of any IR event issue or theory and that were not contemporary or popular (for example, Lord of the Flies and Rashomon), and to pick others that were explicitly political and relevant and more mainstream and contemporary (for example, Wag the Dog and Sometimes in April). In support of Cynthia Weber's work, some of the films chosen also represent an attempt to get students to see films as inherently subjective texts and objects of analysis themselves, that is, texts that themselves contribute to our contemporary understanding of international politics. Each film was connected to an event, issue, and/or theory of the course: Lord of the Flies (realism and liberalism IR theory); Rashomon (postmodernism); Wag the Dog (media/war/foreign policy); Sometimes in April (Rwandan genocide and humanitarian intervention), and Standard Operating Procedure (human rights torture and humanitarian law). All films, except the first one, were screened outside of class in the evenings. After examining the distinctions between documentary film and narrative feature film and then providing brief summaries and points of relevance to IR of the five films, I examine the class structure and types of data used.

First, we must note the distinctions between documentary and dramatic narrative film. There are basic differences between the genres: the former presents information and/or educates about the social, political, historical world in the form of reconstructing or representing reality, while the other is concerned more with storytelling either of purely fictional nature or based on real events (Hill and Gibson 1998). However, the assumption is often made that documentary film is more effective for educational use because of its direct relationship to the “actual” as opposed to a constructed fictionalized narrative. But this does not always have to be the case. The line between documentary and dramatic narrative is not always easy to draw. As documentary theorist Bill Nichols notes:

“Narrative as a mechanism for storytelling seems quite different from documentary as a mechanism for addressing non-imaginary, real-life issues. But not all narratives are fictions. Exposition can incorporate large elements of narrative…Documentary film may also incorporate concepts of character development and subjectivity, continuity, montage editing, and the invocation of off-screen space. Like fiction, documentary can also suggest that its perceptions and values belong to its characters, or adhere to the historical world itself (Nichols 1991:6).

Nichols' point is especially apt considering the work of Errol Morris, whose film Standard Operating Procedure is the only official documentary used in this classroom project. Morris utilizes artsy re-enactments and special effects to paint Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison in exaggerated nightmarish hues; the stories told by American soldiers of prisoner abuse serve a similar purpose as fictionalized stories. Morris's film shows us the way in which “images—whether still, remembered, moving, fictive, or borrowed—accrue meaning to become what appears to be a coherent story (Orgeron and Orgeron 2007:241).” Moreover, the film itself provides an excellent opportunity for a conversation about how we even know what is real or fiction.

At the same time, Sometimes in April, is a fictionalized story, but can perform similar functions of a documentary by illustrating the facts and events of the Rwandan genocide and the subsequent criminal tribunal (yet in more dramatic form). Nevertheless, the very genre of dramatic narrative film means that writers and directors do not have to stay close to the truth, and therefore, instructors are right to be cautious about using these kinds of films in the classroom, especially those that claim to be based upon real events, as there is a risk of blurring fact and fiction and potentially confusing students. This is especially true when students come to the class with low levels of historical and political knowledge. But this also presents an opportunity to discuss multiperspectivity and reasons why a political film may want to play loose with the facts.17

In this project, I made a conscious decision to use primarily dramatic narrative (fictional) film over documentaries for a number of reasons. Part of the goal of this research was to inquire precisely into whether film that (a) does not have a primarily educational goal or political message and that (b) most students would see as entertainment, can have pedagogical spillover effects. Students would not naturally see these films as political or as speaking to international relations concepts and theories, thus providing an opportunity to talk broadly about the power of a constructed reality.

Second, because of my interest in the relationship between the emotion and learning, I reasoned that narrative films that tend to be more personalized and dramatic would better address this question. While many political and human rights documentaries are emotional and can present compelling stories (for example, PBS's Ghosts of Rwanda), narrative film as a genre clearly has a greater potential to speak to the audience and connect them to particular characters and stories (for example, Sometimes in April). Related to this point is the fact that dramatic narrative film compared to more traditional documentaries has higher production values and can be creative with sound, light, and cinematography in a way that may dramatize the story better than a documentary.

Lastly, if part of the rationale for using film in the classroom is to test the relationship to student interest and engagement and likely increase them, then one may likely assume that dramatic narrative films would have an edge over documentaries. For this very reason, some instructors may not want to use feature film, seeing it as unserious, or even unreliable, a claim that this paper seeks to counter. Perhaps this is why dramatic narrative film is a good hard case, so to speak, to illustrate what film can do in the classroom.

The first film used in this classroom research was Lord of the Flies (1963, dir. Brook, UK), based on the classic book by William Golding about a group of British schoolboys who are stranded without adults on a deserted island after the plane that was carrying them away from war-torn Britain crashes. At first, the boys manage to cooperate well and rationally divide the tasks needed to stay alive and be rescued. But soon, without any higher power to enforce the rules (such as parents or the state), the boys form factions, put self-interest above the collective good, and use fear and violence to create alliances and competition over cooperation. The film is an excellent metaphor for the realist assumption about international anarchy (Weber 2009: chapter 2).

Rashomon (1952, dir. Kurosawa, Japan) is a Japanese classic that tells the story of the rape of a frail wife and murder of her samurai husband in thirteenth century Japan from at least five different perspectives, thus leaving the answer of “whodunit” open ended. On first glance, this would be an unappealing film for students given it is old, in black and white, and subtitled; moreover, it is not at all obvious how this film connects to international relations or even politics. But this is precisely why it is such an important film. Through a mysterious story, some of the central tenets of postmodernism are illustrated—the notions of subjective reality and multiperspectivity. This film is also useful because the discussion of fact vs. fiction tied in well to the idea that all films have a point of view regardless of genre.

Wag the Dog (1997, dir. Levinson, USA) is a satirical dark comedy about the collaborative efforts of a Hollywood producer and a Washington spin doctor to distract the public from a presidential sex scandal weeks before an election by fabricating a war with Albania. It is an intentional mix of unrealistic hyperbole and realistic critique of the relationship between what we see, what we believe, and how the media and government affect public opinion, especially during wartime. While Weber creatively uses this film to explore constructivism, in the classroom research project examined here, it was paired with readings on media and foreign policy and the book War is a Force that Gives us Meaning (2002) by Chris Hedges18 that looks at nationalism, militarism, the media, and the “drug” of war.

Sometimes in April (2005, dir. Peck, France/USA) is potent visual text that spurs students to ask questions about how states and international organizations grapple with the legal, political, and moral dilemmas of mass violence and genocide, and particularly in Rwanda. It is especially powerful because through the personal story of a targeted mixed Hutu/Tutsi family and a Hutu extremist brother on international trial, we see the Rwandan genocide personalized, thus making something so distant seem closer and more understandable. Moreover, Sometimes in April's portrayal of a typical middle-class Rwandan family likely not too different from many students' families, makes it relatable and helps avoid the standard stereotypes of a poverty-stricken, perpetually violent Africa.19 Finally, the film covers multiple aspects of the genocide—causes, process, outside intervention, war crimes trials, and reconciliation.

Standard Operating Procedure (2008, dir. Morris, USA) is Errol Morris's superb documentary that analyzes the Abu Ghraib prison abuse photos and the American soldiers who took them. Millions of people around the world have seen, for example, the image of the Iraqi prisoner draped in black, standing on a cardboard box, with electric wires strapped to his hands. The effects that the massive dispersal of these photos has had, particularly abroad, are important illustrations for students of the significance, power, and effects of images. The film offers a unique window into the Abu Ghraib prison, offering lessons about the individual psychology, the power of representation, and causes of human rights violations. One of the central notions in all of Morris' work is that photographs are inherently deceptive despite the conventional wisdom that pictures tell the objective truth or even “the whole story.” This is an illuminating point for most students, as most of them in this class claimed the belief in (the myth of) the photograph as something that reveals the “truth” and is “worth a thousand words.”

Three main types of data were used to answer this study's research questions. The first was student perception based on answers to a pre- and post-survey.20 The pre-survey focused on levels of knowledge of key IR concepts. The pre- and post-surveys asked similar questions about the role of film in society, but more importantly, the post-survey asked students which films were most liked and were seen as most useful for a variety of learning objectives.

Second was an assessment of written student work: online Blackboard film responses/reflections and take-home analytical essays. This is perhaps a better method to assess student learning since it directly examines whether and how students could articulate and show what knowledge, analytical skills, and meaning they gained from the films in interaction with the texts. For example, the online response questions for Sometimes in April were as follows:

1. How did the personal, emotional, and tragic nature of the narrative/images of the film affect you in terms of your connection to/interest in the topic and in your understanding of the Rwandan genocide and genocide/human rights in general? Explain with specific reference to the film.
2. What did you understand from the film about the reasons why states in the international community did not come to the aid of the Rwandan people during the genocide? To what extent does your answer to this question change after having read the nine-page reading by Mark Amstutz on the genocide?

The prompt for Lord of the Flies was

1. Lord of the Flies can be seen as an illustration of the two main approaches to international relations: realism and liberalism. Discuss the character(s) and/or events/scenes that represent each theory, that is, how do they represent each approach, for example, in terms of worldview and personality, visuals, dialogue, and action.
2. How has the film helped you understand IR theory—specifically realism and liberalism—and concepts in IR (such as collective goods problem, power, principles in IR, alliances). Give examples. (If it did NOT help you understand IR, please explain).

The motivation behind the first set of questions was first to address the common assumption that film increases student interest and engagement and in particular that emotional or dramatic stories can have a positive effect on interest and understanding as well. For both sets of questions, the aim was also to examine students' ability to grasp content and make meaning from visual sources. Could they make direct links between the film and the theories/concepts/and academic material?

Each student also completed a five-to-seven-page analytical essay for each topic/set of films (three essays in total). Two of the three essays did not ask students to write about or analyze the films, only that they should use any of the class materials and texts to answer the question, including the films. Thus, my assumption was that when unprompted, the more a student made use of the film as evidence and the way in which they used it would be indicative of important learning through film, in particular, addressing research questions two and three.21 By contrast, the essay on media and war (related to Wag the Dog) and that specifically was tied to a book asked students to analyze the film. This provided a comparison to the other two, where they were not asked or required to use the film.22 After the conclusion of the course, the essays were carefully re-read in order to code a student's use (or not) of the film. Use was coded based on minimal low-level use or “illustration” or more substantive higher-level use—”interpretation” or “illumination.” I also compared films that were most used in the essays with the extent to which those same films were reported as being liked or useful by students.

Lastly, another source was instructor perception of learning based on students' in-class comments and analyses and a teaching journal where observations from class discussions were recorded. Class time following the film consisted of small group discussions and then full-class discussions of questions, from the instructor and from students' own online responses.

Results

The findings of this research support much of the scholarly literature on teaching international relations with film, but overall, an analysis of written work compared to student's self-perception reveals more cautious conclusions about the academic usefulness of film toward analytical and interpretive ends. Many of these results are mixed, in part based upon which film is under review, student attitudes toward a specific film and topic, and previous knowledge. But by and large, the films appear to be effective in encouraging student interest and engagement and aiding in conceptual and theoretical understanding of international relations.

Background/Pre-Survey and General Results

In the pre-survey, a majority of students claimed to know “a little bit” about most of the issues and theories to be explored, though I believe (based on their later written work) that students over-reported their familiarity with many issues, especially IR theory (see Table 1 below). As anticipated, postmodernism as a concept and the film Rashomon connected with it posed the biggest challenge for students, with 62% of the students saying they had no familiarity with the theory, and this film being one of the least liked and least useful for students (Table 4).

Table 1. Pre-knowledge (Level of Familiarity) of Key Topics and Events Related to Films

Topic/Event	Responses: Level of familiarity
	Very Familiar	Know a Little Bit	No Familiarity
(Note. All numbers in percentages. Average total respondents: 53.)
International Relations theory (e.g., realism/liberalism)	17	70	13
Postmodern theory	2	36	62
International Human Rights	34	25	41
Rwandan Genocide	22	68	10
Prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Iraq	12	41	47

The most familiar issue/topic was the Rwandan genocide with 90% of students claiming to have a little or a great deal of familiarity with. Interestingly, compared to the Rwandan genocide, almost half the students had no knowledge of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. This was particularly surprising given that the issue directly involved the United States, it was such a visual and global media spectacle, and that it occurred much more recently (2004 compared to the 1994 genocide). This finding is equally interesting in that a majority of students also claimed to have familiarity with the issue of “international human rights,” even though the Abu Ghraib scandal was one of the most widely covered international human rights issues of the last 5 years.

As Table 2 illustrates, students over the course of semester were more likely to see film as playing multiple roles beyond entertainment, such as informing, educating, illustrating, and critiquing. These findings support one of the goals I had for the course—in promoting students' visual literacy and seeing the power of images in illustrating and constructing international relations. In almost every category, students were more likely at the end of the class compared to the beginning to find multiple roles played by film, with the biggest jump being the number of students who saw film as useful for informing or educating about a topic. The category that increased the most after this one was seeing film as a metaphor for larger theories and ideas.

Table 2. What Purposes, Other than for Pure Entertainment, Do you Think Feature Films and Movies Hold for Viewers and Society (Mark all That Apply)?

Statements	Number of students agreeing with each statement
	Pre-survey	Post-survey
(Notes.Total number of students: 53. Note that most of the results had less than the 55 students noted earlier because of student absences on the day the survey was given, student not answering a particular question, and/or students not turning in written work.)
To Inform/Educate About a Topic	18	41
To Illustrate Some Aspect of How World Works/What People Think	45	43
To Critique Some Aspect of Social, Political, Cultural World	36	47
As a Metaphor for Larger Theories, Ideas, Concepts of Our Time	29	41
None	0	1

Student Engagement and Interest Through Film

One of the main roles of film in the classroom that I aimed to evaluate was student engagement23 and interest in the film and the related academic material. The written work shows that emotional engagement with a dramatic narrative can lead to interest and understanding of the topic. However, in some cases, students focused too much on the personal and dramatic stories and less on the relevant academic material. This supports concerns by other scholars that film may distract students from serious conceptual study since they may get too caught up in the story. This alludes to the concerns noted above about whether some types of films and images could shock, anger, and sadden students to an extent that it would not engage them in both class participation and conceptual/theoretical thinking, but instead may drive them away or encourage indifference.

Table 3 reveals that a significant majority of students found film in general to be useful in becoming more interested in the topic, but this level of interest varies, depending on the specific film. The films shown later in the semester, specifically the more dramatic ones, which focused on human rights were rated as much more useful in terms of creating interest. The films that students rated as most useful here are also the same ones that students liked best overall (see Table 3). While as the instructor, I predicted that the first two films that were rated as least useful and that were liked least would have been the most useful (and written work analyzed below supports my conclusion).

Table 3. Question: How Useful was Film in General (and the Particular Films) in Becoming More Interested in The Topic?

Responses	Percentage of Students Agreeing with Each Response for Each Film
	Film in General	Lord of the Flies	Rashomon	Wag the Dog	Sometimes in April	Standard Operating Procedure
Very Useful	65	15	27	57	85	62
A Little Useful	31	58	42	39	13	34
Not Useful	4	27	31	4	2	4

Table 4 illustrates what films students liked the most and found most useful in general. These findings show that there is not necessarily a relationship between the two. For example, students by and large did not like Lord of the Flies, but almost half of them found it to be useful for understanding IR. I believe the number is even higher than 44% since qualitative analysis of film responses shows that essentially all students found that it was useful (see next section). Students also did not like or find very useful the postmodern film Rashomon. They commented that it was confusing, boring, and slow. Like Lord of the Flies, this film was to be a metaphorical and symbolic portrayal of IR theories, but student comments reveal that they preferred more realistic films that explained political issues directly, not symbolically. This might help explain why many students found Standard Operating Procedure interesting and useful because, as a semi-documentary, it was more “realistic.” Another complaint was that the main messages of these films could have more easily and efficiently been explained in class, so the films were seen as a time waste. As these cases illustrate, there was a clear link between student film preference and their believing that it was useful to their understanding IR concepts. Comments such as these were common: “Movies I liked more applied more directly to the issues we were discussing in class” and “All [films] were helpful, but I was really able to use the ones I enjoyed more to my benefit.”

Table 4. Films Most Liked and Most Useful by Students (Rated a 1 or 2 out of Five-point Scale)

Film	Most Liked	Most Useful
(Note. Numbers as percentages; percentages do not add up to 100 since the median rating of three was not calculated and included and because I am including two ratings and not only one).
Lord of the Flies	15	44
Rashomon	15	24
Wag the Dog	61	28
Sometimes in April	83	50
Standard Operating Procedure	31	48

On the other end, students preferred Wag the Dog and Sometimes in April, but fewer of those students found those two films to be useful. To be sure, a full 50% said that Sometimes in April was useful, but this is much less than the 85% who liked the film. Why were these films the most liked? Perhaps because they were so different from the ones they did not like? Many students preferred Wag the Dog because it was funny, entertaining, and “relatable.”24 Sometimes in April was most liked and rated as most useful primarily because the story was so compelling, tragic, graphic, realistic, and perfectly represented genocide, they said.

Standard Operating Procedure affected students differently; for many, they found it important and useful because it was “true” (that is, a documentary) and because they had little to no knowledge of the events. For others, the story's focus on individual soldiers and abusive photographs was too narrow and confusing: “[the film] was just gruesome and had little relevance to pertinent IR class topics.” For others students, the film made them mad and flatly they did not want to see Americans doing bad things: “[the film] made me depressed about my country and our moral policy.” In short, students tend to think that films they like are most useful; analysis of their written work supports this conclusion, to some extent (discussed further in analysis section). Nevertheless, the data also show that there are many types of learners with varying levels of preknowledge and abilities, and we should not expect that what is useful for learning for one student is the same for another.

Additionally, when specifically asked whether they were more, less, or equally as interested in the topics that were accompanied by a related film (compared to topics that were not), students overwhelmingly (80%) said they were more interested (Table 5).

Table 5. Do You Feel You were More, Less, or Equally as Interested in the Topic or Theory when there was a Film Connected to It?

Response	% Yes
More Interested	80
Less Interested	2
Equally as Interested	16

The qualitative analysis of Blackboard responses related to the Rwandan genocide and the topic of humanitarian intervention (Sometimes in April) helps answer the question regarding student interest, and specifically the relationship between engagement and understanding. These responses reveal the importance of emotional or affective learning, in addition to cognitive learning as discussed earlier. For example, 87% of students supported the view that the emotional and dramatic nature of the film on Rwanda positively affected their interest level, their capacity to connect to the issue and learn more about it, and helped their understanding of the wider academic topics.25 Given how revealing student responses on this point were, I will quote some at length:

There are countless documentaries on the [Rwandan] genocide, providing figures and graphic images, but a story people can relate to more creates a greater effect. The movie did not deter me from understanding the genocide but it interested me more to look into other genocides that happened and why. I want to understand why people could be as savage as the men in the movie, killing women and children, but also that nobody stopped the situation.

Though it was a fictional account, the fact that it was a personal narrative rather than a documentary of facts contributed to the incredible impact it had on me. The images of dump trucks filled with corpses and the massacre of innocent people in front of family members made the statistics, such as that of 8,000 people dead at the end of day one of the conflict, much more real to me.

This movie gave me motivation to continue with my studies and extracurricular activities here at Elon in order to positively affect the world once I graduate.

As Anne-Marie was dying outside of Kigali in between two cement pillars as her best friend and mentor watched, I got a text message on my brand new iPhone. Quite frankly, I wanted to throw it out of the nearest window. There I was sitting in a digital theater at Elon University checking my iPhone, while tragedies just like the Rwandan genocide were occurring around the world. The guilt I felt after watching Anne-Marie die stuck with me through the rest of the film and it continued to make me completely outraged.

This film put a human face on the human rights that were being violated. Instead of hearing about women getting raped and children slaughtered you witnessed it.

Considering the class discussions and the related teaching journal, the majority of students repeated what they wrote in their Blackboard responses—that the personal nature of both of the human rights films made the issue come alive for them, increased their interest, and helped them understand the political concepts. There was some debate in class, however, with some students stating that graphic, violent images and emotional narratives can have the opposite effect of turning students away. This supports Susan Sontag's claim that violent images may not engage the viewer to learn or to act, but to become indifferent or look away (Sontag 1977, 2003). This point though was very much in the minority; the majority of students agreed with Linfield's point instead—that it is important and necessary to see the “reality” of the violence and that this has led them to understand and rethink the machinery of international politics.

Usefulness of Film toward Understanding, Interpreting, and Illuminating

The short question is “what is a film good at doing in an international studies classroom?” On the more substantive question related to student understanding, interpretation, and critical thinking, all students reported that film in general was useful on all these points. For each particular film, only a couple of students reported that a film was not at all useful (Table 6). Interestingly, more students found the films useful for understanding rather than for increasing their interest.

Table 6. Question: How Useful was Film in General (and the Particular Films) in Understanding the Topic Better?

Responses	Percentage of Students Agreeing with Each Response for Each Film
	Film in General	Lord of the Flies	Rashomon	Wag the Dog	Sometimes in April	Standard Operating Procedure
Very Useful	69	65	59	69	75	79
A Little Useful	31	30	37	29	23	19
Not Useful	0	5	4	2	2	2

The other substantive post-survey questions ask students to think about whether the film illuminated for them some greater meaning or conceptual shift or whether it altered their own perspective on an issue; that is, did the film lead a student to think deeper or differently about an issue, such as humanitarian intervention, state sovereignty, power politics, or media and war? Table 7 reveals again that all students thought film in general was very or a little bit useful on this point, and strong majorities also agreed for all the films.

Table 7. Question: How Useful was Film in General (and the Particular Films) in Illuminating or Altering Your Perspective on the Topic?

Responses	Percentage of Students Agreeing with Each Response for Each Film
	Film in General	Lord of the Flies	Rashomon	Wag the Dog	Sometimes in April	Standard Operating Procedure
Very Useful	40	21	31	47	71	46
A Little Useful	60	62	40	41	25	46
Not Useful	0	17	29	12	4	8

Analyzing students' written work (analytical essays and online film responses) reveals even more about the ways in which students use film in the classroom and the extent of its usefulness. Here, students show whether or not film has been useful to them and in what ways instead of just claiming or reporting on a survey that it is. For two of the three essays, students were asked to analyze an international relations topic or theory; the prompt did not ask them to use or analyze any films (see Table 8).

Table 8. Use of Film in Analytical Essays

(Note. Sample: 73 student essays where prompt did not mention film—IR theory and human rights topics/films: This represents two class sets of essays on IR theory and one set of essays on human rights. Note that the sample size is smaller due to a data collection error and a number of uncompleted essays. I counted the frequency of occurrence within each essay or sample.)
Film not Mentioned	42 times
Film as Brief Illustration	22 times
Film as Interpretation, Analysis, and/or Illumination	19 times

My understanding and coding of specific examples from the student essays is as follows: (i) Illustrate—brief or minimal use of the film as an example or brief illustration of a point; no analysis, or deeper explanation26 or (ii) Interpret and/or illuminate—a deeper use of the film to show meaning, clarify a political concept, explain fully how the film relates to a political concept studied, and/or to communicate deeper reflection or new thinking.27

As Table 8 below demonstrates, when unprompted to use film, the majority of students did not use it in their essays (58% of all essays). For those that did, as expected, the most common use was that of illustration. Just a bit less common was the use of film for interpretation, analysis, or deeper reflective thinking. Interestingly, in the theory essay, the film more used by students was Lord of the Flies (compared to Rashomon), and in the human rights essay, Sometimes in April was used by far more than Standard Operating Procedure.

An interesting comparison is the one essay question related to Wag the Dog and media/war that specifically did ask students to use the film. In this case, almost everyone (94%) used the film as directed; half of them used the film to illustrate, and the other half were successfully able to more deeply analyze, interpret, and reflect on the film in relation to the IR concepts.

Analysis of the Blackboard online film responses is also instructive in learning whether and how students use and understand film in relation to IR concepts.28 Space prevents me from providing a substantive analysis of all posts for all films, so a sample has been chosen, and findings of the human rights films from the Blackboard responses are discussed above as they are more related to the previous research question. Students' survey responses when compared to their written film responses do not always cohere. That is, for some films, students' written work showed the film was more useful than they self-reported it was (such as Lord of the Flies and Rashomon, see Table 4); for others, they seem to self-report that the film was more useful than their written work reveals (such as Sometimes in April). I will explore reasons for this more in the discussion section below.

For Lord of the Flies, students were able to clearly identify characters, dialogue, scenes, and symbols that illustrated two IR theories (realism and liberalism). For example, the lack of adults on the island is a metaphor for “international anarchy” and one of the tenets of realism. When the boys organize as a community and agree about their rules for cooperation and survival, we see liberalism. Students confidently stated that this film was very useful to their understanding of IR theory. The most common answer here was that the film provided a concrete case with clear examples of the theories that they felt were a bit abstract in the textbook.29 One example from a student response:

Lord of the Flies has helped me understand IR theory, specifically realism because I wasn't exactly clear on what the repercussions would be if a society had no centralized authority. I've always wondered what it would be like, but I never really put it into perspective and thought about how it would cause people to act so selfish and so violently. It also made me realize that there are societies out there that have no central authority, like Iraq, which is such a broken country and has so many problems. It made me think about A Thousand Splendid Suns where women are in constant fear dying everyday due to their lack of central authority. It helped me understand IR concepts like the collective goods problem because when something from your society is removed from your environment, such as an important resource like food, people will become selfish in their nature and will fight even if it means killing someone to gain what they want (survival of the fittest or tragedy on the commons).

An analysis of online responses to Sometimes in April shows accurate understanding and analysis. For instance, 40 out of 52 students (77%) were able to correctly explain the causes of nonintervention in the Rwandan genocide and specifically show how the related reading added to these explanations. In short, they successfully made connections between a written text and a visual text and they often noted contradictions related to policymaking and conceptual dilemmas (such as the concept of sovereignty and human rights). These two tasks should be considered high-level analytical thinking for this introductory class. These analyses also frequently referred to and applied theories and concepts learned earlier in the class.

Below, two students illustrate multiperspectivity and nuance regarding these issues, something that most students in a course like this do not or cannot do, since most students come at the issue of genocide emotionally and are almost always in support of military intervention, not seeing the complexity of the issue.

The issue of human rights is not black and white. While genocide is wrong and it was terrible that no one stopped it in Rwanda, becoming involved in such crimes is not as easy as just stopping what is wrong. A war would cost billions of dollars and many of our own citizens' lives and years of clean-up. It was not an easy decision for our government to make.

If it were my son or daughter, my brother or sister, I would not want them to go to Rwanda, because it is too dangerous. They signed up to protect the US and not some other state. After reading the article though, I do see the other side. There is a “duty to protect” other lives and we are increasingly becoming a more globalized nation.

Discussion and Conclusion

This section analyzes main aspects of the results that answer the research questions and examines some of the most salient conclusions and implications of this particular classroom research project. The more general question is how does film help students visualize international relations? Student perception and an analysis of student written work reveals that, by and large, students find that film has potential academic uses beyond entertainment. Film is an important pedagogical tool for an array of goals and learning objectives such as illustrating and explaining IR content, educating and informing, encouraging student interest and class engagement, creating new meaning, and serving as political metaphors. But there are also potential drawbacks to consider.

On the Relationship between Student Film Preferences, Usefulness, and Understanding and Interpreting

An important finding is that there was a general positive relationship between students' film preference, their belief that it was useful, and their use of the film in written work. This supports much of the previous research outlined in the literature review. For instance, the majority of students preferred Sometimes in April and claimed that it was very useful for all the learning objectives. In their online responses and in the analytical essays, I also discovered that they were able to take this very personal and emotional drama and apply it to IR concepts and topics—causes and processes of genocide, debates on humanitarian intervention and changing notions of state sovereignty, workings of the United Nations, and the process of transitional justice. The personal, emotional story did not prevent analysis nor cause students to become indifferent as some critics such as Susan Sontag have noted.

Moreover, when given a choice in the human rights essay, students by far chose to use Sometimes in April compared to Standard Operating Procedure which they liked in lesser numbers. However, there were films such as Standard Operating Procedure that students did not like as much, but rated as useful even though their written work did not demonstrate that the film aided their learning and understanding of the topic.30 While many students asked good questions related to the topics explored in this film, almost none of them used this film in the analytical essays. However, one should not conclude from this analysis that only films that students like and find “entertaining” should be used in the classroom (cf. Valeriano 2008). Just because a student does not like a film does not mean it cannot help them understand or make meaning, as the earlier examples of Lord of the Flies and Rashomon illustrate.31

Are students' strong claims of “usefulness” in surveys mirrored in their written work? Here, the results show that students did find the films useful in a number of ways—for some films, at a higher level than they self-reported, and for other films, at a lower level. For example, almost all the online responses to Lord of the Flies and Rashomon clearly showed that students were able to make connections between the film and the IR theories.32 Some students reported in the surveys that Rashomon confused them, but most of the responses seemed to show some level of understanding and application.

However, the analysis of the analytical essays in particular, and perhaps most importantly, reveal some discrepancies with student self-reporting and the online responses. Many students may not or do not see film as very useful and relevant, especially in helping them answer complex conceptual questions. The fact that the majority of students in two of the three essays analyzed did not use film at all in their essays is an interesting finding. I interpret this in a couple of ways. One hypothesis is that some of these students did not see the use or analysis of a film in an analytical essay as a worthy or serious piece of evidence, compared to the required reading (even though they were told they could use it). The way films are often casually used in classes in general may have led students to see them as less serious “texts” and more as an entertaining supplement. Another hypothesis, not mutually exclusive from the first, is that students simply exaggerated how useful they believed the films to be in their self-reporting. Given that they knew this class had a focus on film, that it was the subject of classroom research, and that I felt strongly about the importance of film, it is possible that they could have overstated how much they really learned through film.

Nevertheless, in over 40% of the essays where film was not in the prompt, film was used, and while about half of the uses were merely illustrative, the other half did show a more serious interpretive and reflective use of the film. Furthermore, when the essay question specifically asked students to analyze the film (Wag the Dog essay) in specific combination with a written text (the Hedges book), almost all students were able to use film in a useful manner, with half of them able to do more high-level analysis or interpretation. This is an important finding that suggests students, when prompted, have the capability to make meaning from film and in strong connection with written texts.

I conclude that the results are mixed—a good number of students, whether we look at self-perception, online responses, or analytical essays, are making use of, effectively applying, and learning a great deal through film, but this can be qualified depending upon data source, film, and learning objectives measured. I also conclude that in many ways, student film preference is related to perceptions and instructor evaluation of usefulness, but the full story is much more nuanced and often dependent upon films chosen, and there is evidence here that in some cases, students showed learning gains even from films they did not particularly like or find extremely useful.

On Engagement, Interest, and Emotion

Another aspect of using film in the classroom that I sought to investigate was the relationship between student engagement, interest, and the emotional aspects of film.33 I discovered on the whole that the emotional, personal, and even violent nature of the human rights films in particular tended to engage students and deepen their interest in the topic. The first and third most liked films were the most emotional and violent ones (Sometimes in April and Standard Operating Procedure). Student writing revealed that they were animated about learning the “why” and “how” behind these events and that the powerful images not only increased their interest, but increased their understanding and even interpretive abilities in ways supported in the previous literature on teaching IR with film, for example, by making abstract concepts like state sovereignty more tangible and by providing specific examples and narratives that can “tell the story” of the concept (such as the balance between human rights and security). This analysis supports some visual culture scholars' claims that images of violence are crucial to one's understanding and action on human rights issues historically and today (such as Linfield 2010).

It does not appear that these emotional films prevented students them from making academic analyses. For instance, the majority of students' responses showed that while they were angry, sad, confused, and frustrated by the Rwandan genocide and the lack of intervention, they were able to step back and examine the reasons why intervention was lacking and connect this to state interest, realism, changing conceptions of sovereignty, and the workings of the United Nations. As noted above, when film was used for the human rights essay, Sometimes in April was the one used almost exclusively. Some of the words used to describe the film included “impactful, moving, powerful images, emotional, captivated interest.” Many students said they would never forget this film or the images. This illustrates the importance of the kind of images we see since many students stated that the reasons Rashomon and Lord of the Flies were not as captivating was because the images were just not very powerful. Whether instructors like it or not, students are more drawn to contemporary, relatable, and powerfully cinematographic films and the convenience of English language films.

To be sure, there were some students whose writing overwhelmingly focused on the details of the Rwandan family story and the tragic horrific images to the exclusion of the academic points, thus illustrating that the link between engagement and understanding may be tenuous. Even though Sometimes in April was chosen precisely because it does not decontexualize or depoliticize in favor of the personal, it may be that some students simply could not focus on both at the same time.34 Future classroom research on images and human rights aims to clarify this relationship.

It is also interesting to explain why students did not seem as engaged, interested, or have as strong an emotional response to the other human rights film, Standard Operating Procedure, which, given the American and contemporary focus of the film should have been more relatable than genocide in Rwanda. To be sure, students did say that the abusive and sexually humiliating photographs of Iraqi detainees angered them, but it became clear during class discussions and through online responses that this film caused some students to turn away; for many, it simply did not resonate and engage them as expected. The main reasons given by those students who did not find the film engaging or useful was that the story was too narrow and focused on the lives and reactions of the American soldiers involved in the abuse that it was hard for students to see the larger political story. Others said it was too hard to watch and they felt guilty. In short, many students did appreciate the personal and psychological aspect of the film, but they were less interested and more confused by this film than by the Rwandan film.35

Comparing these two films a bit further sheds light on how students respond to different types of political films. I hypothesize that young American students are uncomfortable seeing young American soldiers and the American military engaging in torture and abuse. This does not fit with their assumptions of positive American human rights policy and the good deeds of the military.36 While Sometimes in April also critiqued the West and the United States in particular, students still seemed more troubled by Standard Operating Procedure's narrative of unethical American behavior. Another potential explanation for the different emotional responses and levels of engagement may be the identity of victims and perpetrators. The Rwandan genocide fits the stereotype of suffering Africans (especially women and children) at the hands of other Africans, while Standard Operating Procedure's victims are Middle Eastern prisoners, or would-be terrorists who are “trying to kill us.”

In short, I believe an emotional connection through film for students can have the following benefits in the classroom and on student learning:

1. Increase student interest and engagement with the topic and material.
2. Encourage empathy and an ethics of caring and thus greater openness to an issue.
3. Be an important link to cognitive learning.
4. Illustrate the universalization of human suffering/tragedy (in films on these topics).
5. Illustrate, for example, that the challenges to solving political problems are not only technical, political, or economic, but may be individual and emotional37

These benefits regarding affective learning have been supported in the literature of film and pedagogy (Gregg 1998; Kuzma and Haney 2001; Berry et al. 2008; Engert and Spencer 2009). But these potential advantages should be seen in light of the drawbacks discussed earlier, specifically the challenges of using class time efficiently, balancing film and media with written text, making use of too much personal, irrelevant, and low-value content, and the need to provide a contextually and historically rich pictures of political events and concepts.

Lastly, as the literature review illustrated, political scientists and other nonfilm scholars examining film assert with numerous examples how film is a beneficial pedagogical tool, for example, using Pontecorvo's Burn to illustrate and explain imperialism or using Sometimes in April to greater understand genocide. But we rarely ask what exactly is it about film as a medium that accomplishes all of these tasks related to engagement, clarifying abstract concepts, etc.? Books, essays, lectures, and photographs can also tell interesting stories and be dramatic and emotional. As film scholars Bordwell and Thompson succinctly explain:

For about 100 years, people have been trying to understand why this medium has so captivated us. Films show us places and ways of life we might not otherwise know. Films offer us ways of seeing and feeling that we find deeply gratifying. They take us through experiences. The experiences are often driven by stories, with characters we come to care about, but a film might also develop an idea or explore visual qualities or sound textures. A film takes us on a journey, offering a patterned experience that engages our minds and emotions. It doesn't happen by accident. Films are designed to have effects on viewers (Bordwell and Thompson 2008: 2).

While a strong novel may accomplish some of the similar goals (and I often use literature in my international studies classes for this very reason), the visualization of an emotional narrative, particularly one with violence and conflict, may go farther to appeal to students and to help them make sense of and deconstruct complicated or abstract concepts and theories. The combination of images, sound, and text offers a range of stimuli unlike any other medium.

Understandably, some IR and other scholars, as noted above, may be hesitant to supplement academic content with seemingly less-academic films, videos, photographs, or even novels and journalistic accounts of political events. This raises the question of the relative value of different resources and tools. This classroom research, my teaching experiences in numerous other classes, and studies of visual literacy (for example, Felten 2008; Sealey 2008) are convincing that, on balance, the integration of numerous forms of media, particularly visual, has a strong potential to enhance teaching and learning. But this also depends upon each individual instructor and/or department's goals and objectives in the classroom that will differ.

Lessons Learned and Final Points

Film in the classroom goes beyond just “show a film in class.” It requires careful consideration about what films may work for what type of class and for what topic, when to show the film (before or after lecture on the topic), how to couple the film with a written text, how to analyze the film, how to structure class discussions, and especially important, how to write effective questions that maximize student learning via film. It also requires being clear with oneself early on in answering the question: “Why am I having students watch this film?” “What do I expect them to learn from it?”

In this course, I have seen that students have come to believe even more strongly that images within society, and especially as connected to politics, are very important—not only for illustrating, but for communicating what elites think is important and should be focused upon. I believe my students became more visually perceptive; for example, they could deconstruct and interpret certain scenes in films, examine how the cinematography and sound contributed to meaning, and recognize the multiple realities behind images. That is, at the same time that they started to affirm that visuals were significant, they also made important strides in understanding the potential dangers of relying too heavily on visual images. They started to question the assumption that pictures tell us everything. This was especially evident in the class' analyses of Rashomon and Standard Operating Procedure, where the idea that reality is what we “see” was put into question. The latter film was particularly useful because the premise of the film itself is that while pictures and images can reveal so much, they also have the potential to hide, distort, and manipulate. I believe this double-edged sword is one of the most important lessons that students took away from this project.

A strong case could be made that visual analysis in the classroom can have a “ripple effect.” Through deconstructing films and images and drawing attention to the politics of images, students may gain skills that will aid them to become more critical and literate toward multiple kinds of media and texts. Thus, a possible spillover benefit that is nevertheless difficult to measure is that in addition to a better understanding of IR, students may demonstrate critical perspectives on images in their conversations with others about movies.38 This may have repercussions for countering the “society of the spectacle” phenomenon noted earlier.

In addition to the conclusions in the results section that are highly positive, I also discovered that this project encouraged students to ask many important questions. Many of their writing assignments focused on questions that the film raised for them and that they wanted further information about. These were also often used as the basis for in-class discussion. This is an important finding since many would agree that an important critical skill students can gain is to learn to ask good questions. I believe this to be high-level learning.

One of the aspects of this classroom research project that presents some interesting opportunities for further research is the relationship between images of political violence and suffering and learning. This article's examination of the role of emotion in human rights film and learning is an initial step toward this. This topic has so far been neglected in the literature on teaching with images or film. One question for instance to investigate is to what extent does an ethics of caring lead to action and is this a learning objective? Given that so many of the films that instructors use deal with violence and tragedy and given the strong debate on these issues within visual studies and communications, international studies teachers and scholars should be more attuned to the effects of these images upon student learning. As a follow-up to this article, I intend to pursue this research agenda.

In conclusion, this classroom research has started to fill a gap in the literature on teaching international relations with film by measuring and analyzing student learning outcomes quantitatively and qualitatively. Repeating this classroom research over several semesters and years and with other instructors' classes would provide greater insights into how international relations is visualized. The project has shown that a conscientious use of film in the class can have positive outcomes on student interest, engagement, understanding, interpreting, and more. But film is not a silver bullet or a guaranteed successful pedagogical tool. While film may engage and bring students into closer contact with the issue, it could potentially drive them away if the film is boring or overly depressing. While film may increase students' understanding of abstract concepts, it might also sensationalize, simplify, and depoliticize the very issues we want to complicate and interrogate. While students may perform better on exams or successfully analyze visual texts, this does not mean that film always has benefits. The time film takes away from either class time or the extra time requirements outside of class are a sacrifice that teachers need to consider. Some students may treat the class or the subject less seriously if there is a heavy dose of ineffective use of film, under the assumption that film is purely entertainment. Thus, instructors have an important, yet somewhat demanding tool at their disposal to show students that visual literacy is an important skill for the understanding of international relations.

1. 1

   The “pictorial turn” in contemporary culture examined by Mitchell refers to the “widely shared notion that visual images have replaced words as the dominant mode of expression in our time (Mitchell 2005:1).” See also Mitchell 1994; Bleiker's esthetic approach to global politics is in contrast to the dominant (mimetic) approach to representation and politics that aims to represent politics as it “realistically” is. An esthetic approach assumes “that there is always a gap between a form of representation and what is represented therewith. Rather than ignoring or seeking to narrow this gap, as mimetic approaches do, esthetic insight recognizes that the inevitable difference between the represented and its representation is the very location of politics (Bleiker 2001:510).” This approach is broader than film, images, and art. Kellner's use of Guy Debord's “Society of the Spectacle” is discussed in a footnote later in the paper. See also Michael J. Shapiro's Cinematic Geopolitics, 2009.

2. 2

   On visual literacy, see for example Mirzoeff 1999; Elkins 2007; and Felten 2008.

3. 3

   Both narrative film and documentary can be used for similar purposes in teaching international relations. This research used four feature films and one documentary that included a number of fictionalized re-enactments (Standard Operating Procedure). Later in the paper, I examine the differences between documentary and dramatic narrative film and discuss why I have focused on the latter.

4. 4

   This particular research project was done in the course “Introduction to International Relations” which is cross-listed with international studies. Institutional Review Board approval was received for this research. Some of the general ideas in this paper also stem from the use of film in an upper-division human rights course where students worked on oral and written projects in connection with a human rights film festival.

5. 5

   This paper understands “film,” a broad concept, to mean a focus on the narrative content and to some extent the cinematography of narrative fiction and documentary films (to a lesser extent). This classroom research and paper does not consider the film industry, film production, distribution, or technologies. In a previous course on film and politics, I have examined the politics of film production and distribution, and this would be another interesting avenue to examine in a future international studies class.

6. 6

   As used in this paper, “usefulness” is understood as the extent to which a film aided a student in being able to accomplish both (1) and (2) noted above. In short, to what extent did a film aid students (in terms of their perception and instructor evaluation) in understanding, explaining, and analyzing international relations concepts and theories? As discussed later in the paper, there are potential concerns of bias here since students may claim and perceive a film as being useful precisely because the instructor has chosen it for a particular lesson.

7. 7

   A recent article examined the collaboration of scientists and animators to visually represent the complex inner workings of living cells with the understanding that these abstract concepts could be better understood in a visual form. See “Where Cinema and Biology Meet,” NY Times, 15 November 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/16/science/16animate.html?hpw (Accessed June 25, 2012).

8. 8

   The role of emotion in visual representation presents an important point here that will be revisited when looking at human rights specifically.

9. 9

   There is a distinct literature on the representation of the Holocaust that examines these complex issues. See for example, Shelly Hornstein, Image and Remembrance: Representation and the Holocaust, 2002. See also Barbie Zelizer, Remembering to Forget: Holocaust Memory through the Camera's Eye, 1998.

10. 10

    An example of the catalyzing power of emotion and film is Lilya 4-Ever (dir: Moodysson, 2002) (This film was used previously in a different IR class than the ones under review here). This gripping, morose, cinematographically rich tale of child abuse and transnational sex trafficking from the former Soviet Union does not tell us much about the broader causes, effects, and local/global efforts to ameliorate human trafficking. However, its intensely personal and emotional story helps us achieve the first three objectives noted above and was successful (as perceived in class discussions and research papers) in getting students to ask important questions about global trafficking and its connections to changing global politics. Students reported that they gained an exceptional (yet tough-to-watch) visual representation of what a specific case of trafficking may look like––through Lilya's struggle to escape abandonment and poverty in a post-Soviet country to her sexual exploitation in Sweden. Students reported that this made a complex subject more real and interesting and that they empathized with 16-year-old Lilya and were drawn into the issue.

11. 11

    This approach is similar to the research outlined in this article where films are used not only to illustrate material, but to some extent to critically evaluate how our understandings of international relations theory, foreign policy, and human rights are constructed by the images and stories we see.

12. 12

    An example is her use of the film “Lord of the Flies” to examine the realist principle or myth, “anarchy is the permissive cause of war.” I also have used this film and Weber's related reading in teaching IR theory. See Weber 2009.

13. 13

    See Webber 2005 for complete article on teaching IR using Independence Day.

14. 14

    This point illustrates a fundamental challenge in this type of classroom research––the challenge of having a control group to test the independent effect of film given that there are so many variables involved, such as different students and class dynamics.

15. 15

    This classroom research finds, however, that these potential negative consequences did not materialize in any significant way.

16. 16

    Even though the total number of participants was 55, the number of essays and other work analyzed was usually between 51 and 54 since not all students were present on the days that the surveys were handed out and not all students completed all assignments. Personal data of the students beyond their gender, class year, and previous knowledge of IR (as noted in the results) were not collected, and perhaps with such a small sample, this information would not be very significant. Yet, some basic observations of the student profile can be made––there were more women (34) than men (21); there was no obvious ethnic or racial diversity present; and in general, the students are of middle to high socioeconomic status.

17. 17

    An interesting addition to this classroom research project would be to compare directly the effects of dramatic narratives that are based upon real events (for example, the Rwandan genocide) with ones that are not (for example, Lord of the Flies).

18. 18

    The book was a national bestseller, the winner of the Los Angeles Times Best Book of the Year Award, and a finalist for the National book Critics Circle Award. The author is a journalist and international war correspondent.

19. 19

    The fact that its writer and director is not American or Western, but of Haitian background, is important here. The film is a much more powerful and realistic examination of the Rwandan genocide than Hollywood's American-directed Hotel Rwanda.

20. 20

    The relevant survey questions that were analyzed for this research can be found in the results section. The full survey instruments are available upon request.

21. 21

    Examples of analytical essay prompts: First essay on theory: Many of the alternative theories of world politics––such as constructivism, postmodernism, Marxism, and peace studies––present a different lens and a different understanding of world politics/international relations than the more conventional approaches of realism (and even liberalism). Choose two of the above alternative theories. (i) What are the limits and weaknesses of realism from the perspective of each approach (that is, what are the realists “missing?”); (ii) what then by contrast does the approach argue/claim about how international politics works?; and (iii) What strengths and advantages do you find in Realism after studying these other approaches? Give examples. Third essay on human rights: (all questions to be answered) (i) Examine the tensions between two fundamental norms and principles––state sovereignty (and relatedly state power and security) on the one hand and universal human rights on the other. (You must give examples, whether legal, political, and/or ethical to support your answer.) (ii) Then discuss how the three main cases we have examined––the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and torture of prisoners and detainees in the US “war on terror,”––illustrate these tensions and (iii) Lastly, in examining in particular Andrew Sullivan's persuasive essay/letter to President Bush, what arguments does he use to appeal to the former President in getting him to see why torture should not have been used and to take responsibility for the systematic use of torture on prisoners? Briefly, what is your response to his letter and the idea that we should have accountability for these human rights abuses instead of just forgetting about them and “moving on?”

22. 22

    By contrast to the other two, the essay question related to Wag the Dog: (i) Looking specifically at the Chris Hedges' book, discuss what you found to be his most important or significant point/argument and what evidence does he provide to support this point? (ii) Using the Hedges book, the Wag the Dog film and the readings/class lecture on war, conflict, and media––draw out and explain/discuss two main themes that run through and tie together all of these multiple “texts” or sources. Then point out at least one main difference or point of contention between the three sources. You must use examples from all of the three stated sources above, but particularly from the Hedges book. Your paper must show evidence of an intertwining and understanding of all three sources.

23. 23

    I understand engagement to be along the lines of George Kuh's understanding: “The engagement premise is straightforward and easily understood: the more students study a subject, the more they know about it, and the more students practice and get feedback from faculty and staff members on their writing and collaborative problem solving, the deeper they come to understand what they are learning and the more adept they become at managing complexity, tolerating ambiguity, and working with people from different backgrounds or with different views.” At Educause Quarterly: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/WhatemIsemStudentEngagementAny/199393 (Accessed December 1, 2010).

24. 24

    I assume students used “relatable” because the film was American (and in English) with well-known Hollywood actors and focused on media issues.

25. 25

    Note that the prompt asked them to consider what role, if any, this had; thus, this may have made some students more likely to agree.

26. 26

    An example would be this statement, “as we saw in the film, the West did not want to intervene in Rwanda.”

27. 27

    A few examples for this coding category: “After watching Rashomon, I find there are some strengths and advantages in realism because of its simplicity. Because there were so many interpretations to what happened on that day in the forest, it shows how difficult it is to narrow down information to the actual truth. By over-critiquing situations, it brings more complications when you would have been better off with the more simplified version.” While there may be problems with this logic, it nevertheless shows something more than using a film to illustrate, but using a film to interpret the wider concepts. Another example from Standard Operating Procedure: “This film highlighted the tension that can be caused when military officials give orders that directly violate individuals' human rights…The tension comes into play when we discuss how wartime changes the protection of sovereignty and human rights. Does wartime eliminate the right to either of these?”

28. 28

    I analyzed each set of responses a bit differently sometimes looking for different things in them. Therefore, I did not code them and quantify. Moreover, when I asked “to what extent were students able to apply the film to a theory or concept?” in relation to Lord of the Flies, for example, every student was able to do this so the findings would be more useful and interesting if some qualitative specifics could be discussed in addition.

29. 29

    But it should be noted that the reading connected to this film specifically applied IR theories to the film, which can perhaps partially account for high levels of student understanding and successful interpretation. For all other films/topics, there were no readings that discussed the film in particular.

30. 30

    A concern here is that students' self-reporting or perception of the usefulness of a film may be exaggerated since students may assume that if a professor assigns a film for a lesson, then they are expected to find something useful in it. At the same time, as the results reveal, many students freely reported that a film was not useful to them. An interesting twist to this research for the future would be to include a film that the instructor did not see as useful or worthy as a way to test the premise of usefulness. The author thanks an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

31. 31

    For example, only 15% of students claimed Lord of the Flies was one of their favorites, but 44% said it was useful. Note this result was when students were asked to rank films from 1 to 5. Thus, they specifically compared them to each other. The higher numbers on preference and usefulness for Lord of the Flies was when they asked to rate each film separately on these criteria. On the specific questions of usefulness related to interest in the topic, 73% said it was useful. In terms of “understanding” IR concepts, 95% said it was useful. The data are similar for the other films, such as Rashomon. In short, student perception shows that there may be films in which there does not need to be a positive relationship between preference and usefulness.

32. 32

    With Lord of the Flies, part of the explanation for the high level of understanding may be that the reading associated with it (Weber 2009) examined the film in relation to IR theories.

33. 33

    A side note of concern that is an interesting avenue for future research is that using film as a pedagogical tool may run up against students' familiarity with the “society of the spectacle.” This term, originally coined by French theorist Guy Debord and examined more recently by critical media theorist Douglas Kellner, refers to “a media and consumer society, organized around the production and consumption of images, commodities, and spectacles (Kellner 2003:1).” Kellner specifically states that, “Spectacles are those phenomena of media culture which embody contemporary society's basic values, serve to enculturate individuals into its way of life, and dramatize its controversies and struggles, as well as its modes of conflict resolution. They include media extravaganzas, sports events, political happenings, and those attention-grabbing occurrences that we call news––a phenomena that itself has been subjected to the logic of spectacle and tabloidization in the era of the media sensationalism, political scandal and contestation, seemingly unending cultural war, and the new phenomenon of Terror War (Kellner 2003:1).” The three films on genocide, torture, and media scandals that were shown may apply to this concept, as would most of the more popular films that other instructors have used in IR classes such as Independence Day. Student responses to the films should be seen as embedded in the context of the politics of visuality in the twenty-first century. For instance, the findings in terms of which films students liked most, found most useful, and linked appropriately to IR concepts may be related to what appears “normal” to students in the society of spectacle.

34. 34

    This is an important point discussed by Ignatieff (1998) and to be explored in further research. That is, many of the images in the media and film about human rights overly focus on the personal and dramatic that they ignore causal explanations for the events or abuse and they remove the story from its political, historical, and cultural contexts. This is one reason why I think that teachers choosing a film on Rwanda would do better with Sometimes in April or the PBS documentary Ghosts of Rwanda rather than the Hollywood Hotel Rwanda.

35. 35

    Part of the explanation also may lie with the need when using this film for clearer and more substantive readings that are discussed before the film, and not after. This would have made the larger points and bigger picture of Standard Operating Procedure clearer.

36. 36

    Although at this point, students had already read a discussion of military overreach and hyper-nationalism more generally in Chris Hedges' War is a Force that Gives us Meaning, but I don't recall students making the connection.

37. 37

    A good example here is the dramatic film Grbavica about the effects of mass rape during the war in Bosnia. The film does well to show implicitly how one of the roadblocks to postwar reconciliation on many levels in Bosnia is connected to these individual and emotional concerns.

38. 38

    The author thanks an anonymous reviewer for this point.