Teachers of conflict, negotiation, and alternative dispute resolution who have transitioned their in‐person courses to synchronous video conferencing are posed with significant pedagogical challenges. How will they stoke their students’ curiosity and maintain their students’ interest? How will students find the motivation and energy necessary to engage in nonstop videoconferences, day in and day out? How are they to maintain the high cognitive function required for our courses in the face of Zoom fatigue and reduced social interaction? In light of these challenges, we explored another activity that students (and their teachers) not only engage in, but can’t pull themselves away from. Drawing on the literature examining psychological and neuroscientific aspects of binge‐watching television shows, we propose an innovative approach to designing courses our students will want to binge‐learn.

Online dispute resolution (ODR), the practice of resolving disputes via the Internet or digital applications, has been developing since the mid‐1990s. As the field has grown and gained traction, it has increasingly received attention from professional associations and industry leaders in the world of alternative dispute resolution (ADR). More recently, it has begun to receive recognition from sources outside of this field — in both the public and private sectors. As the field develops and individual initiatives become widely adopted, the attention it receives from external sources will undoubtedly focus on questions of quality, ethics, practitioner training, service provider qualifications, and monitoring. These questions — already beginning to be heard from within the field — derive, in essence, from one shared overall question, that of appropriate governance for the ODR field. In this article, we will explain what we mean when we discuss a field's governance and suggest that the field itself should investigate issues of its own governance. We explore and explain the current “low‐to‐no” state of governance in ODR — and the developments that are likely, should the field fail to actively address this issue. We discuss the costs of no governance, and the potential costs and disadvantages of employing a higher‐governance model. We ask whether ODR can, indeed, be governed at all, and illustrate why addressing ODR governance is a very complex venture, in terms of the web of factors to be addressed, no matter how beneficial internal governance may be. We do not, in this article, intend to decide any of these questions — but, rather, to pose them to the ODR field and to the wider fields of ADR and conflict management. We point out why the ODR field is at a developmental point that is highly suitable for discussing and deciding these questions — and why these decisions might have far‐reaching implications for a wide range of conflict‐related fields.

Even as online learning is increasingly embraced by institutions of higher education, the past decade has seen the arrival of yet another new educational vehicle: massive online open courses (MOOCs). These courses are designed to disseminate knowledge at an unprecedented scale — even as they engender concerns about quality, learning efficacy, and the future of higher education. In this article, I discuss the MOOC phenomenon and describe a MOOC on negotiation that I developed and taught, exploring the advantages that such a course offers for negotiation and conflict resolution education in particular.

Negotiation educators have long considered the use of role‐play simulations as an essential classroom teaching method, and have had high expectations regarding their suitability and efficacy for teaching. In this article, we review the literature to examine the degree to which simulations deliver on these perceived benefits, finding that simulations enjoy only limited advantages over other teaching methods. We note three trends that have developed as part of this reevaluation process: improving the way simulations are conducted, deemphasizing the use of simulations as a teaching tool while seeking new methods, and finding paradigm‐changing uses for simulations. With regard to this last trend, we describe our own experiments assigning students to design their own simulations, rather than participate in them as role players. Among other benefits of the design method, we found that designers showed greater improvements in concept learning and motivation than did role players.

This article introduces the “pseudo‐reality” method of constructing and conducting conflict resolution training workshops. This method focuses on creating a backdrop against which participants engage in building negotiation and mediation skills using real‐life events and facts — but only to the extent that these events and facts promote the learning process. By creating pseudo‐reality, trainers can overcome strong preconceptions or biases that can interfere with the learning process while at the same time preserving the advantages of working within a familiar, realistic environment. This method is meant to be used when the main goal of a workshop is skill building rather than imparting substantive knowledge of a specific conflict. The article illustrates this method by describing its use at a workshop conducted recently in Cyprus, in which the Israeli–Palestinian conflict served as a backdrop for conflict resolution skill building. Finally, the article describes a model designed to help conflict resolution trainers create pseudo‐reality in their own workshops.