A slightly delayed report on the latest version of my Gerkhania simulation, which I abandoned back in 2015 because it wasn’t living up to expectations. Last January I wrote a brief preview about changes I had made to it before the start of my spring semester comparative politics course.
Gerkhania now has three rounds of role play: a commission to establish a representative legislature, one legislative session in which students can earn points if certain bills are passed, and a third session with no point rewards. For each session, students randomly receive a short biographical profile with an ethno-religious identity. Because of the laws of probability most students will receive a different role each time. The roles also include objectives that students should try to pursue; the objective of one student conflicts with the objectives of most of the other students.
In the first session, the class almost agreed to three separate electoral districts before settling on a single, national district to elect members of a parliament. In the debate, students quickly affiliated with each other on the basis of their newly-assigned identities. The same behavior occurred in the other two sessions, even though students had different identities . Students spontaneously changed seats to sit next to those who had the same ethnicity. They tried to maximize their own group’s influence and marginalize the influence of others. Some students tried to simultaneously engage in logrolling across ethnic boundaries to achieve their individual objectives.
In the post-simulation debriefing, I highlighted two topics. First, the results of both legislative sessions, in terms of passage or failure of the bills I supplied, were nearly identical — despite the existence of a zero-sum environment for earning individual rewards in the first session but not the second. I asked students whether this outcome could be explained by rational actor theory.
Second, I tried to get students to think about the immediacy and fervor with which they adopted rapidly changing and completely arbitrary identities. I say “tried” because I don’t think I was able to get students to adequately connect their behavior during the simulation to concepts like identity salience, deindividuation, and culture. But obviously identity had a much larger effect than it did in my South China Sea simulation, which is what I had intended. So I rate this activity as a success.
Check out Anth101.com, a free online course in cultural anthropology created/hosted by Michael Wensch of Kansas State University. This project is one of the best designed exercises in online learning I’ve ever seen. Michael and his collaborator, Ryan Klataske, discuss the deep pedagogical principles behind the project at the anthropology blog Savage Minds. As someone with a long history of being a pretend anthropologist — which began by sneaking into an American Anthropology Association meeting long before I started my doctoral studies — I’m very impressed with how the course abandons teaching about anthropology as an academic discipline in favor of presenting it as an understanding of one’s individual and collective existence in the world. I know that sounds like the lofty clap-trap one often hears from idealistic academics, but Wensch has built the course around a series of exercises that show people how to experience the concept in some very practical and relevant ways. And his textbook The Art of Being Human, which accompanies the course for free, is an excellent read.
Today we have the first of two more guest contributions by Gigi Gokcek of the Dominican University of California.
Political development courses are inherently interdisciplinary, drawing upon economics, history, anthropology, sociology, geography, and political science. For students, however, this is a course about the politics of less-developed countries. I first taught this subject in a traditional way: readings on theory, methods, and cases about the Global South, with exams and a final research paper. This approach left me unsatisfied, despite positive teaching evaluations from students. I wanted to deliver a more animated, meaningful experience, the kind that comes from actually traveling to the places being studied. I also felt it was important that students understand the usefulness of creativity, discovery, and expression across a variety of disciplines. How could I do this without turning the course into a study abroad program that would exclude students who couldn’t afford the extra cost?
Albert Einstein once said that, “imagination is more important than knowledge.” I wondered if a thorough re-imagining of this course might allow it to better engage students in the analysis of development problems in the Global South. I redesigned the course as if I were the CEO of an international consulting firm, with students as employees who were regional and disciplinary experts on development issues. Working in pairs, their task for the semester was to investigate a specific development challenge in a country of their choice and offer a viable solution to the challenge to the country’s government. As the CEO, I required that each group present an oral and written report on their project. A pair of students even came up with a name for this imaginary firm: Gokcek Global Consulting.
Student projects included access to clean water, providing high quality public education in rural areas, safe travel through roads for children in gang-infested areas, and local policing of terrorism. Coincidentally all regions of the Global South (Middle East, Latin America, Africa, and Asia) were represented, even though this was not something I set out to achieve. Students selected countries or topics based on their own familiarity or curiosity. In most cases students already had traveled to or studied the selected country. Students learned about the multiplicity of factors that need to be considered when addressing a development problem, and the need to take a holistic approach to the study of any country. In short, without getting on a plane, students gained an appreciation and empathy for people living in the Global South.
As promised in my last post, I’m going to talk about the mechanics of my South China Sea simulation, but I’m also going to go in a different direction because of the bombing in Manchester and Simon’s subsequent post.
As I’ve done in the past with some of my other classroom simulations, I created a set of objectives for each actor — in this case Brunei, China, Malaysia, the Philippines, the United States, and Vietnam. Each objective was associated with a number of points that contributed to a player’s final grade, but players’ objectives often conflicted with one another — a feature deliberately intended to reflect competing interests and force negotiation. All of the objectives involved which Asian nation-state would be granted sovereignty over which territories. Although I gave actors the option to engage in military action, I specified probabilities that such actions would be successful. For example, an attack by the Philippines against a specific target had a 1:6 chance of succeeding, while acting in concert with U.S. forces had increase the chances of success to 2:3. However, an attack risked involving the Philippines in a regional war, the probability and costs of which I left completely vague. This uncertainty seemed to have beneficially made students reluctant to use military force, unlike my experience with some other simulations.
Given the number of contested islands and overlapping territorial claims in the South China Sea, the entire set of objectives and payoffs was rather complicated to create, but the complexity forced students to become much more familiar with the area’s geography, which I think was also plus.
I will discuss what went wrong with the simulation in the near future, but I will mention here — and this is what relates to Simon’s post — what I see as a failure that I often witness in my geographically-situated simulations: because of the point rewards, students very quickly become rationally-acting deal-makers. Nationalist and ethnic identities that the simulations are supposed to model quickly get tossed out the window. In the language of simulations, players find it easy to abandon their roles. In the real world, Vietnamese and Chinese policies reflect a strong sense of nationalism, and the two states would never agree so easily on who owns the Paracels. If they did, there would not be a conflict to simulate. Continue reading →
Here is a quick report on using Leanne’s international trade scavenger hunt and a related exercise:
I awarded five points to any student who found an item from all five regions and five points for each unique item; all other rules were the same. In a class of thirteen students, nine posted photos to the online discussion. Points earned ranged from zero to twenty-five, for a course with a grading scale of 1,500 points. One student said he was unable to upload his photos; my response was “not my problem.”
As Leanne experienced, my class found very few items from sub-Saharan Africa. Two students took photos of clothing made in Mauritius, which really isn’t part of Africa, but I counted it as such anyway. When I asked what the scavenger hunt revealed about trade flows, they were for the most part clueless, and it took a lot of prodding on my part to get them to see the possible implications of the scavenger hunt’s results.
I found this a bit disappointing because the class had engaged in a similar exercise the week before, in which teams of students tried to identify the country of origin for every item they had with them in the classroom. After about ten minutes of students searching for labels, I compiled a digest of what they had discovered by writing on the board categories of items — such as “clothing” — and the countries from which the items originated. The purpose of the exercise, which I communicated to students after some discussion, was to demonstrate that everyone in the room was a participant in globalization, whether they were conscious of it or not.
A follow-up to Amanda’s post about teaching in the time of Trump. Trump’s campaign and administration represent an opportunity to teach about racism in the construction of national identity. I stumbled into this subject accidentally in my globalization course last week, with an assignment that asked students to write a response to “Is France or the USA a more global society?” Students were supposed to reference the following items:
Zoe Chace, “Act One: Party in the USA,” This American Life, episode 600, 28 October 2016, http://tal.fm/600/1.
Earlier this week students in my globalization course wrote draft statement of purpose essays for Fulbright grant applications. This exercise hit several objectives:
The writing task was authentic. Even though the vast majority of the class will probably never actually seek to be a post-graduation Fulbright award recipient, almost all of them write application essays for scholarships. Scholarship application essays have a nearly identical audience and purpose.
The exercise reinforced for students the idea that they can actively experience other parts of the world — instead of just reading about it — and will almost certainly benefit from doing so. In this I was assisted by the assistant director of our office of international programs. She visited the class to give a 15-minute overview of the Fulbright program and to provide an example of a recent alumna who just received a Fulbright award to do work in Colombia.
Students were incredibly engaged. For thirty minutes I heard nothing but the clicking of keys as students wrote furiously on their laptops. The resulting drafts demonstrated that students took the work seriously, perhaps because they were writing about their own interests and potential futures.
I owe 100% of the credit for this game to Ashley Rondini at Franklin & Marshall College.
The Game: Word Challenge
Potential Topics: Social Justice, Attribution Error, Levels of Analysis, Methods and Measurement, Bias and Hidden Assumptions
Materials: Envelopes, letters for each team (listed at the bottom of this entry), timer
Prep Time: 5 minutes (mostly cutting squares and putting them into envelopes Play Time: 5 minutes Class Size: 6-100 Debrief Time: As long as you like, this one just keeps opening up the more you look at it. I bridged directly into my lesson. So… 15 minutes debrief and then to lecture.
Guest Contributor Dr. Kevin Pallister of the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth joins us today to introduce his new negotiation simulation, recently published in PS: Political Science & Politics (April 2015). Dr. Pallister can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org and is willing to share all of his simulation materials upon request.
Teaching undergraduate students about international financial institutions and issues of economic development can be challenging, especially in an introductory political science class with lots of non-polisci majors. Teaching a large (90-student) introductory international relations class a couple of years ago, I thought of how best to help my students learn about economic globalization and development. This led me to develop a negotiation-based simulation to teach students about the conflicts of interest and potential for cooperation on issues of international economic globalization and development. This was the first time I designed a simulation, and only the second time I had run a simulation in the classroom (after earlier in the course running G. Dale Thomas’ excellent “Isle of Ted” simulation).
This simulation is designed to teach students a number of key concepts in the areas of IPE, globalization and development, such as the role of power, collective action problems, bargaining tactics, and naming and shaming efforts of NGOs.
I recently attended a workshop on diversity and inclusiveness in the classroom that included the following advice:
Attend to room logistics. We exist in physical space, and the organization of that space can produce a welcoming or unwelcoming environment. The arrangement of tables and chairs might facilitate student self-segregation according to gender, ethnicity, or physical ability.
Be explicit about equal participation in discussion and group activities. Often this means deliberately calling on the students who otherwise don’t talk.
Be aware of student non-verbals. Does student A produce negative facial expressions whenever student B speaks? Does student C appear mentally disengaged?
Use multiple outlets for students to voice their thoughts. Students who might be reluctant to express themselves verbally in class might be quite willing to do so in writing online.
Maximize diversity when forming groups. Create teams composed of students who have different genders, ethnicities, cultures, and socioeconomic backgrounds. Otherwise they will tend to group with people most like themselves.
Create and reinforce rules for discussions. This can include the use of a talking stick, tokens, or other devices to ensure that everyone in class has the opportunity to speak and be heard.
Model validating behavior in response to student words and actions — nod when someone else is speaking, use phrases like “thank you for that,” and be encouraging rather than sternly critical.