THIS is why we do this experiential learning thing. This is exactly why. I had major anxiety about running the Power Game in a group this large—I have certainly never done it before, and I didn’t know anyone who had. We even sent it out over the OBTS-L listserv for insights from the most innovative and bravest teaching corps in the world, and there was almost no direct experience with large class Power Game facilitation. We were particularly flummoxed about how to manage collecting and potentially returning students’ $1. The List provided some great guidance for this, which ended being a lifesaver when time ran out and students seemed to not realize the task of deciding how to use the money was a real one, with real money they held in their hands. More on that later.
We also remembered our OBTC session from 2011 where we discussed the promise and the challenge of large-class experiential learning facilitation, and we re-visited those notes. Something that helped us repeatedly was a gem from Deborah Butler of Georgia State, who has been managing large classes for a long time: structure, structure, STRUCTURE as much as possible, and students may then be creative within those structures. There is so little room for personalized re-orientation if things go awry that we had to get into students’ shoes and heads and try to step-by-step walk though where the experience might be too much for them.
The first hurdle was the logistics of setting it up physically. In smaller groups, collecting their $1 and having them count off for their Group membership is a quick and easy 5 minute process. I know who they are, they know each other, and while they may not know what is going on, they know that a learning activity is coming so they just follow along. I puzzled and puzzled over how to get almost 200 students whose names we don’t individually know ready to do the simulation in a way that was efficient and not debilitatingly confusing for them (my prior posts have referred to their inexperience with active learning as a real skill development issue—they can be willing but simply have no frame by which to self-organize). Sarah got four of her grad students to volunteer to help facilitate and be the eyes and ears embedded in the Groups’ discussions; we shared with them the learning goals and what to listen for.
Prior to the actual class setting, we ended up mapping out (drawing it, on a sheet of paper) the physical layout of the classroom theatre and setting up stations for each piece of what they had to have to begin: Cara and Leah at the front door, handing out the instructions paper with their color-coded, randomized Group membership assignment stapled to it; Sarah and I checked everyone in using our own copy of the class roster, complete with a column where we documented if they needed to borrow $1; Fabian and Andrea had plastic tubs where we sent students to drop in their $1 and get a receipt (totally great List suggestion); an unmanned nametag sticker station (which next time, we would have someone man) so the debrief could be more personalized and behaviors/quotes could be attributed to a particular student. We allotted 20 minutes for the logistics set up and finished at 15 on the dot. For the money, we brought in $30 in $1 coins to let students borrow, and when they ran out, we kind of shook our heads and took on a disapproving affect. Students mirrored that, and some were clearly bothered with ‘letting us down’ (student quote) by not bringing it. Part of our discussion later was the various levels of engagement students portrayed, including whether or not they came prepared with their $1. A layer of the simulation students over the years have found really insightful is experiencing the opt-in and opt-out nature of their peers as they take on organizational roles, and the money thing is one aspect of that.
 |
We created a table in Word with these receipts
For this class in the New Zealand context, we made four Groups representing the usual levels in NZ organizations. Group 1 was the Senior Managers (they do not use the term ‘executive’ here); Group 2 was the General Managers; Group 3 was the Team Leaders; and Group 4 was the regular workers. After the physical separation in the room into the four Groups, isolating the 10 Senior Managers of Group 1 in the front, the 15 minute task timer started and the fun began. The very first interaction I had was with Group 1, who pulled me over and asked, “So, if we can change the rules, we can take Group 2’s and Group 3’s money, right?” [Clearly expecting me to say ‘No.’] I shrugged and said, “You can do whatever you want,” eliciting puzzled looks from the executive group. Another Group 1 member then asked, “And, they can’t do anything about it?” at which I smiled and said, “You’re Group 1. You have been given the ability to do what you want to do.” They conferred briefly, then marched over to the other groups to take most of their money, as I have seen happen so many times before.
As Group 1 was asserting itself with the money thing, a young man was suddenly up on a desk in the high part of the theatre, trying to bring Group 4 members together – all 110 of them—with impassioned and charismatic organizing. The room went hushed with everyone looking around to see where the loud voice was coming from, prompting the Group 4 “Organizer” to ask us if it was OK for him to be up on the desk rallying his members. We said “Of course,” prompting worried looks within Group 1, and energy from the emergent Group 2 and Group 3 leaders. And so it went.
At minute 7.5, Group 1’s self-determined CEO asked for the clip-on microphone we use during class, and told her classmates that Group 1 had changed the rules such that any communication between the groups would now cost $10. I heard “Federation” leaders (their term, not ours) conferring about creating a trading system where they would simply exchange money back and forth in response to the new rules—not fighting against it, but simply going around it—and I was amazed at how immediately they did what every employee rationally does in the face of rules, policies, and systems clearly set up not in their favor. Realizing the unintended consequences of their new rule, Group 1 announced a different rule at minute 10: a “tax” on communication, where any Group could talk to them (Group 1) about anything for free, but any discussions at all between/among any other Group members would cost $1, going directly to Group 1, with Group 1 sentries literally walking around the room enforcing the new communication fee.
Now, I have run this simulation about twice a year, sometimes more, since 1998, with all levels of students, and I have seen the executive group so blatantly try to stifle and control communication channels only a couple of times before. Usually the Top Group at least tries to be more circumspect–not fooling anyone–but they at least try. Group 1 was not at all mean spirited, which I found interesting; they were quite cheerful in their affect. But the effect of their clamping down was immediate, irreversible, and left them completely without trust or allies in the classroom.
And what of our Group 4 Organizer? Once Group 1 members realized his ability to rally the majority of the students, they invited him for a discussion, an invitation he seemed to gladly accept. Co-opting him was perhaps Group 1’s most strategic move. Long and complicated classroom actions short: Organizer entered into a deal with Group 1 without consulting his members. The deal did not really benefit Group 4, and I heard lots of grumbling surprise while I was seated quietly up in the top seats listening in. When Organizer announced the deal after the 2nd extra time session ended, several Group 4 members shouted down at him: “Why did you do that? How do we benefit? Why didn’t you ask us first?” …all questions that Organizer could not or would not answer.
We allowed about an hour for the debrief, not knowing how much students would participate. It was not enough. While we both think we had enough time to make sure students got the key learning outcomes and allow students to reasonably process what happened emotionally, we could have talked another hour. What was most different for me was not being able to really push students on certain comments and behaviors we heard/saw, because I did not know them and did not know whether they would be able to engage without shutting down. Not knowing the students meant I could not push them at super interesting junctures of the conversation. For example, during the discussion, Organizer made only one comment when I asked him a direct question and we expected him to be very active in the discussion. As the debrief went on, he was quite literally sinking into his seat, not participating in the debrief discussion after being so very active with his Group. I would have loved to pull him out on that and see what was going on—we could guess, of course, but having him share his own experience would have been outstanding. Similarly, when asked how Group 1 decided that CEO was indeed CEO, she said it was only because she happened to be at the front of the room, which was clearly not the case. Finally, we would have loved to ask particular members of Group 3 who we saw were quietly observant and upset but who did not speak up what they experienced.
Per usual, Group 1 did not come up with any tangible learning discussion outcomes and they did not seem to realize that they had to figure out what to do with REAL money. There was general milling about once class ended and more than a few asked about getting their money back. So here is what we did: we gathered up all the money we used, and we announced that students could cash in their receipt to get their dollar back (students who borrowed $1 did not get a receipt) if they wanted it back, and whatever was left (including Sarah’s and my $30) would be donated to a student hardship assistance charity on campus. This was also super interesting: students who brought their receipts down to get their $1 back were kind of sheepish, and some apologized. Of the roughly $160 we had in the room, we donated about $100.
As students were leaving class, many of them expressed surprise and appreciation for the simulation. One said he had never been in a learning situation more compelling than that one class session. The new class was coming in (there is only a 10 minute transition window, so things are usually rushed and chaotic), but a host of students were talking to us and the grad students about what just happened as we were gathering up our things, and they followed us out of the theatre. This was yet another time where I wished for informal discussion time, but they needed to get to another class and would be late even with a brief post-class interaction. Sarah and I have repeatedly noted that the institutional structure itself is a barrier to experiential learning, from the physical space to the lack of transition timing to the student norms of just coming and going. But just like any major change effort, small wins and bottom-up engagement will be what moves this along. As I walked home later that day, I was yet again grateful for the OBTS community and the support we got, and of course for the brilliance of the simulations itself.
Out of class fun
Hiking at Castle Rock, these huge formations left by the marching glaciers. 
Hiking along Cave Stream reserve.