Changing a Course on Development, Part 6

My general approach to teaching is to emphasize the upper levels of Bloom’s taxonomy. Creation and evaluation are important. Memorization, not so much. While game design gives students the opportunity to create something connected to course content, they should also evaluate whether what they’ve created is on target. So, as promised in my last post, here is the relevant assignment, be due after students play the games that they have designed:

1. Read the rubric below.

2. In the form of a 3-4 page, double-spaced essay, evaluate the game you played that was designed by another team. How well did the game:

Work independently, do not discuss your essay with other students.

 

Changing a Course on Development, Part 5

In my last post in this series, I discussed integrating the SCAMPER technique with student game design via a writing assignment and in-class presentations. I’m a firm believer in the benefits of iteration when it comes to learning, so I’m including a second round of game design. For the second round, students will again use SCAMPER, but this time they will actually build new games. Here is the preparatory writing assignment:

Problem

People frequently do not understand the relationships between economics, politics, and the environment. Games are powerful learning tools, but there are few high-quality games about these relationships.

Solution

Design a game that illustrates a relationship between economics, politics, and the environment.

Apply SCAMPER to an existing game other than the California Water Crisis game  — for example, Risk, Mahjong, Settlers of Catan, or Monopoly — to design a framework for a new game. Choose a topic of interest. Put the game in a specific context, such as “the effects of sea level rise in Boston” rather than “climate change.”

Audience

Write a proposal to Hasbro’s Product Development Division in which you discuss the new game you have designed by using SCAMPER on an existing game. Identify the topic of the new game, what features of the existing game will change, how they will change, and why these changes are beneficial.

After students have submitted their individual proposals, I will again cluster the class into teams. The members of each team will discuss their ideas, decide on a single design to pursue, and create and deliver in-class presentations. I’ve devoted a subsequent class session for teams to physically construct the games and another one for students to actually play the games. Debriefing will occur via another writing assignment, which will be the subject of my next post.

Keeping it fresh V: summertime madness

It’s that period in the year where we’re all doing all those things we said we’d do now, because we didn’t have time then.

Supposedly.

Personally, thanks to the continued pyschodrama of British politics, I’m still knee-deep in commitments to lots of people, with only scant sight of any end. Indeed, I’m increasingly of the opinion that ‘summers’ (in the sense of a break) don’t really exist.

Fortunately, my habit and commitment to write a weekly post here reminds me that this project has fallen off the wagon somewhat. By the end of February I had a good sense of what I was going to do with my revised module on negotiation, so I parked it.

And now it’s July and I need to get the handbrake off once more.

Those with better memories will recall that I plan to create a series of interlocking activities that shape subsequent work and allow for a mix of exploring different issues, while also deepening their understanding of the interlinkages.

The main issue has been to find a topic that can link these all together.

While the shores of IR promise the potential of conflict and peril, I am concerned that it doesn’t let me drop down to more mundane and domestic issues.

Likewise, modelling an environment in politics risks having to make use of structural divisions on ideological lines that might be difficult to sustain over a semester.

If the framework is to work, then it needs to give enough space to allow for a range of activities, while also generating meaningful consequences to handle down the line.

With this in mind, I’m inclining to make the group into some fictional advisory committee to a government, which can then pronounce on assorted issues, sometimes representing different interests, sometimes acting on personal conscience.

An interesting opener to this – and the idea that came to mind this morning – is that this structure lends itself to a nice ice-breaker, where students can get to know each other and begin to assess their capacities.

Historically, I’ve used Victor’s Hobbes card game for this, mainly to highlight that people are shits (not Victor, obvs) and that since negotiation requires you to deal with people, you need to work on how you handle them.

However, what I have in my mind’s eye is something that speaks more to building some trust and confidence in each other, given that they will be having to have a functional relationship over 11 weeks.

Of course, knowing what you’re aiming for isn’t the same as actually having it mapped out, but it’s an important start: as and when I find myself trying to escape the turmoil of Brexit, I can at least have a clear point to work from.

Unless the football thing intervenes.

Changing a Course on Development, Part 4

Despite varying degrees of success in my first-year seminar — which I decided to stop teaching — I’m going to again have students design board games based on course content. But I’m going to organize this process differently than before. 

There will be two rounds of game design and each will use SCAMPER, an acronym for a design thinking technique that I will demonstrate with an in-class exercise. In the first round, each student will complete a writing assignment that applies SCAMPER to the California Water Crisis (CWC) game used by Andrew Biro. Here is what SCAMPER looks like in this context:

  • Substitute: what part of the game can be substituted for some other part?
  • Combine: can two separate processes in the game be integrated into one?
  • Adapt: can an aspect of some other game be adapted for use in this game?
  • Modify: can a process that is part of the game be modified, enhanced, or simplified?
  • Put to other use: can a part of the game serve some other function within the game?
  • Eliminate: can any part of the game can be removed/omitted?
  • Reverse: what happens if some process in the game is reversed?

Here are the directions for the first round’s writing assignment: Continue reading

Chickens and eggs in online resource development

What’s that HAL? You can’t lip-read because I’ve covered up my webcam?

As the token European in the ALPSblog team, I guess I should make some passing reference to the football [sic] World Cup, but given my abject disregard for the game, this isn’t going to happen. I’ll leave it at pointing you to others who do want to link it in.

Instead, I want to consider a new challenge I’m grappling with this summer: building properly online interactive resources.

This is for a project I’ve mentioned before, a resource for Oxford University Press to frame their online materials in and around EU politics, produced by a team of colleagues here at Surrey (when they’re not watching the football). With a mix of text, audio and activities, we want to try and make the most of the online-ness of it all.

The issue has been to know quite what that might actually mean.

Very helpful was a recent conference call with their tech people, who basically told us that we can propose whatever we like. That might sound banal, but their view was very much that they’d rather rein us back in than have us stick to a list of prescribed formats. In essence, they’d tell us if we’ve gone too wild in our thinking. Continue reading

The simplicity-complexity dilemma

Having been all chuffed with how my EU simulation was received in Prague at EuroTLC, I read Patricia’s post about using doughnuts to model a two-level game with a mixture of admiration and jealousy.

The admiration comes from the elegance of its design and jealousy from the feeling that I’d not come up with something nearly as good.

So, props to Patricia (and hello to my local doughnut vendor), but it also raises an interesting question that was niggling me in Prague and which has been a long-running debate here on ALPSblog, namely the tension between making something ‘realistic’ and drawing out the essence of a situation.

It’s a generic problem for all teaching and learning: we can’t (or shouldn’t) hope to describe and explain every last thing in the world around us, so we use heuristics of theory and extrapolation to provide ‘good enough’ models. Continue reading

The Doughnut Negotiation: Win-Sets with Sprinkles

Today we have a guest post from Dr. Patricia Blocksome, Assistant Professor of Social Science, US Army School of Advanced Military Studies. She can be reached via her LinkedIn profile at https://www.linkedin.com/in/pblocksome/.

 

Putnam argues that international negotiations between states occur simultaneously with domestic negotiations between intrastate coalitions – the two-level game. At the domestic level, politicians have to form coalitions large enough to ratify an international agreement. These domestic coalitions establish the win-set, the spectrum of acceptable outcomes for the state. At the international level, each state attempts to achieve an agreement that falls within its domestic win-set. When states have overlapping domestic win-sets, an international agreement is possible. Negotiations can occur concurrently over two or more different issues, leading to potential trade-offs, where a gain in one area can offset a loss in another.

So how does this apply to doughnuts? Continue reading

Model Diplomacy: Smart, easy to use foreign policy simulations

Model Diplomacy is a series of free National Security Council simulations put out by the Council on Foreign Relations. Michelle used it in her class last year, and I decided based on her positive experience to try it in my intro to IR class this year.  In this post I’m going to explain the basics of Model Diplomacy, discuss my experience using it, and give my recommendation.  Spoiler Alert: I loved it.

Continue reading

Snippets from Comparative Politics

Some end-of-the-semester thoughts on my comparative politics course, in relation to a post from the beginning of the semester and to Simon’s post last week about a framework for active learning.

First, the simple stuff:

Running this course with only ten students at 8:00 a.m. is problematic, for reasons I have mentioned before. Lack of students definitely decreases the level of activity in my Gerkhania simulation. Attendance has picked up but is still only eighty or ninety percent, so in the future I really need to give pop quizzes — in paper, rather than electronic, form — on a semi-frequent basis.

I have noticed a problem with the reading responses. For these assignments, I usually pair an article from an academic journal — often the Journal of Democracy — with shorter and more current items from news outlets like The Atlantic, Politico, and The New York Times. Some students developed the habit of reading only the latter and ignoring the former. I need to force students to read the journal articles, but haven’t quite figured out the best way of doing this.

Now for the complex stuff: Continue reading

Building a grid for measuring the effect of Active Learning

The great thing about colleagues is the way that they get you to move beyond yourself. Reading Peter’s summary of our Nicosia discussion is a case in point, setting out our agenda in a way that makes me want to write more about the ideas involved.

That means the dream I had last night about how to run my negotiating course will have to wait until next week, for which we might all be graeful.

At the centre of Peter’s idea is the creation of a framework that would allow colleagues to engage in a more systematic and rigorous examination of the effects of Active Learning. In so doing, it plots a middle path through the challenges I set out before.

On the one hand, a framework can be too vague, offering no real purchase on the issues involved, nor a mechanism for comparison of individual pieces of research, even if it would have the benefit of flexibility.

On the other, prescription might guide the work much better, but at the risk of missing out important elements. And that’s after the long, hard struggle to agree such a detailed model in the first place.

The compromise approach suggested by our discussions is to divide the big question of ‘what effects?’ along three discrete and meaningful dimensions.

The first is to unpack ‘Active Learning’. Our workshop alone contained simulations, creation of videos, semi-structured facilitated group discussion, problem-based learning and more: each rather different, each brought together by not much more than the placing of the student in the centre of the learning activity.

Indeed, much of my informal conversation in Nicosia was precisely about what makes Active Learning, Active Learning. Given the range, it’s difficult to come up with a definition that includes the kind of range listed above, but excludes something like a lecture. And there’s a question about whether lectures should be excluded in any case: colleagues using EVS might feel that they’re doing Active Learning.

And no, I didn’t get to an answer on this one. There’s maybe something in thinking about learning as being about stimulus-response, with active learning focused more on the response element, but by that point I was feeling that I was hopelessly out of my depth and in need of an educational scientist with some emergency theory.

Digressions aside, this dimension logically matters: the type of thing you do in your learning environment should influence what students learn from it. By differentiating across the variety, we might be able to spot commonalities and differences, especially as it doesn’t a priori exclude consideration of the effect of non-Active Learning situations too, as a benchmark.

Which leads to the second dimension of types of effect.

Here again, much discussion ensued in Nicosia about what types of effect to consider and how to group them. As I’ve discussed already, Bloom’s tripartite cognitive-affective-psychomotor domaining forms an obvious starting point, even if you can have a discussion about whether something like self-confidence is a skill or a disposition or something else.

However you resolve this one, there are still the three main areas of ‘facts’, skills and attitudes. Clearly one can break each of these down into more specific elements, and consider interactions between each of them – if my students enjoy it more, do they learn more facts? – but this does at least begin to structure the range of what we might consider.

The third dimension – of context – is somewhat different, since it’s not about the activity per se, but rather the environment in which Active Learning takes place. Several of our papers dealt with school children rather than university students, posing a question of whether this made any fundamental difference.

My personal experience makes me think that it is more a difference of degree than kind: the high levels of confidence and knowledge allow university students to take simulation scenarios further than school pupils, in terms of depth, realism and reflection. However, others find rather different dynamics, which suggest that differentiation across this might hold value.

Again, we come back to the impact of types of Active Learning and to the scope and magnitude of effects.

And this might be the biggest challenge: measurement.

Peter didn’t try to specific minimum or common standards for measuring effects, in part because of the scale and scope indicated by the three dimensions. However, we have to hope that as we start to work on this, we might all develop a better sense of what works how: to take the obvious example, some techniques will work better than others for different effects.

So, a plan. And a grid.

On to the next step.