När då då
Today, I finally got to test my latest pedagogical innovation in the classroom. Inspired by the boardgame “När då då?”, I have created hundreds of cards with different political philosophers, works and events that the students are to place along a timeline, making their knowledge and reasoning visible to each other as a form of collaborative learning. While attendance was not the best, the students who did show up seemed to really enjoy the game.
And, for once, this impression was not entirely based on wishful thinking on the part of the teacher. At the end of the seminar, I asked the students to fill out a digital exit ticket.
On a five-point scale, the students gave the game an average of 4.47 for helping them get a better sense of the chronological order of political thinkers, texts and events. The group discussions scored 4.20 for helping them understand how the different pieces of intellectual history fit together. Even more pleasingly, the statement that the game required them to actually use their knowledge and reason about where to place the cards, rather than simply guess, scored 4.60. But the real triumph came with the final question: would they like to do this kind of activity again in another course? Average score: 4.80 out of 5. Thirteen of the fifteen respondents simply ticked the maximum score.
The free-text answers were perhaps even more interesting. One student noted that the history of political thought somehow tends to exist entirely “before 1900” in their head, and that seeing everything on a timeline made it apparent that many philosophers and ideas are actually not that old. Others mentioned suddenly seeing how interconnected the different political thinkers were, how ideas influenced one another, and “how quickly development happened”. Another wrote that the game made them reason their way towards plausible conclusions from the different texts.
Obviously, fifteen enthusiastic exit tickets do not demonstrate that playing a homemade board game produces superior learning outcomes. There is selection bias, social desirability, a teacher standing next to them who seemed to really like his game, and all the other things that tend to ruin causal inference. Still, as a first classroom experiment, it worked remarkably well. More importantly, walking around the room and listening to the discussions, I could hear students doing precisely what I had hoped they would do: not asking “what year was this?”, but reasoning from what they already knew. If Hobbes wrote after the English Civil War, and Locke comes after Hobbes, and The Communist Manifesto surely has to be somewhere around the revolutions of 1848, then where on earth do we put Mary Wollstonecraft?
Which, pedagogically speaking, was exactly the point.
Labels: research























