INTRODUCTION: REQUIREMENTS & GRADING

Reading

The central premise of the “Reacting” pedagogy is that ideas influence lives and that the problems confronting particular lives influence the evolution of ideas. A less obvious corollary is that the study of ideas cannot be undertaken without consideration of the social context in which they emerged, and that the study of people requires an awareness of the intellectual constructs that have shaped their societies and cultures.

This is important to each game because students will be obliged, in a very short time, to acquire a solid understanding of complex ideas, and also to navigate through an historical situation that is equally complicated.

The readings, consequently, tend to be of two types: 1) the works of important thinkers; and 2) books and articles that establish the social or historical context. Students may be daunted by their first encounter with Plato’s Republic, the Analects of Confucius, or the sermons of Puritan ministers. These works are not easy because the ideas themselves are (literally) so thoughtful. There are good reasons why they have had so powerful an impact on civilizations. Students cannot understand such texts without engaging with them fully, and in the light of the historical moment that brought them to the fore. Students may be tempted to take a point that makes sense to us without bothering to figure out how the argument was originally framed. (“We all know that democracy is good, right?”) This strategy almost surely will not work:  the superficiality of engagement with the material will be evident to the instructor. More importantly, these “easy” arguments, though perhaps attuned to the mindsets of a student’s classmates, will be hard to defend when sharply examined by those whose roles contradict the student’s own. Socrates/Plato has devised an ingenious worldview, with a series of powerful presuppositions; this is true of Confucius and the Puritans, too. If students fail to engage with the entire train of their ideas, they will be hard-pressed to make persuasive arguments. 

In “Reacting” games, the task of the reader is simplified by the fact that the student’s position is determined at the outset. That is, if a student has been assigned the task of persuading the people of Athens that democracy is good, then her reading of Plato’s Republic will be adversarial. If she is assigned to be a Hindu radical in India, 1945, she will be inclined to criticize the literature of the Islamic nationalist Muhammad Iqbal. She will look for weaknesses of evidence or argument. 

“Reacting” students will also need to understand the historical context. Some students in every game will have roles that are indeterminate or ambiguous. The “indeterminates” are partially free to read the primary texts and listen to the class debates with an open mind. But heed the modifier partially:  the roles of these students are not determined, but they are still shaped by history. Their “victory objectives” oblige them to “represent” a type of actual historical person. This cannot be defined precisely:  the “indeterminates” will have the freedom to arrive at their own opinions, but their opinions must in some way be consistent with their historical “role.” This, too, is like life. When, for example, you are called to serve as juror, you are free to vote your opinion, yet you have also agreed, through your oath as juror, to abide by the laws of the state. “Indeterminates,” though free to take whatever position they wish, are still obliged to represent with some credibility their social/historical role. (In their initial paper and remarks, the “indeterminates” may wish to request guidance from the disputants.) 

To win the debates—to persuade the “indeterminates” to support their individual objectives—students must understand the historical and social context of their assumed lives. To further promote historical verisimilitude, additional “roles” will be included in some games. That is, the objectives of some students may be “determined” (stated at the outset) and yet not correspond with those of the major factions. In life, some people always have their own, or merely different, agendas. The purpose of such roles is to establish additional links to the actual forces that impinged on the historical debates. A close reading of the historical context will provide clues as to these forces.

Writing 

“Reacting” students have two primary ways to express their views: orally and in writing. Each game will have approximately two written assignments totaling ten to twelve pages. Each paper will be graded by the instructor. The instructor will inform students of how much of their grade is based on written work.

Students are largely free to choose whatever form of written expression they wish. The purpose of written work is to help them achieve their victory objectives. Students may think it advantageous to write a legal indictment, a poem, a sermon, a newspaper article, a diary entry, or whatever else serves their purpose. A common form of expression will be an essay to rebut the arguments of your opponents. For many roles, students will find it wise to coordinate their work with others whose goals are similar to their own.

Because the purpose of written work is to persuade other students, it will be posted on the class web site on the internet, or distributed to the entire class through e-mail or by hard copy. The instructor will advise students on how to make papers available to the entire class.

Just as students will sometimes criticize the views of those whose purposes differ from their own, they will subject each student’s written work to a sharp reading. The written work will form an important part of class discussions. 

“Reacting” students must understand the ideas that inform their historical roles; they must also persuade others that the ideas make sense. Writing will be an exercise in persuasion. Students need not believe what they argue, but they must make their case persuasively. 

And students must submit their work on time. A beautifully crafted defense of Socrates does him no good if he has already sipped the hemlock. Late work harms the factions as well. The requirements of the game—particularly the mechanism for posting all papers on the web site—further necessitate timely submission of written work. The instructor will likely impose a penalty for written work that is late.

Class Participation

“Reacting” students must also seek to achieve their game objectives by expressing their views in the full classroom. They will sometimes speak as a member of a particular team or faction; sometimes they will be alone; and sometimes their role will be indeterminate, allowing them the freedom to write their own game objectives in response to what they read and hear. But in all roles, students must sooner or later seek to persuade others so as to achieve their objectives and win the game.

There is one constraint on oral performance: students may refer to notes but reading aloud is unnecessary (the full and precise text of major presentations may be posted on a web site). Class performance counts for ___ percent of the grade for each game, as graded by the instructor; it is nearly impossible to receive an “A” for classroom presentations that have been read aloud verbatim. Most games include a half grade bonus (B becomes B+) for those who win, that is, achieve their game objectives. The instructor will tell students at the outset whether the game includes a bonus.

Unless a student-player is “dead” or has somehow been silenced, all students can participate freely in all oral discussions. Those students whose roles make them responsible for running the class may determine who speaks and when. This may prove frustrating. As a means of ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to speak, the classroom may be provided with a podium, at which anyone may stand. Anyone who approaches the podium asserts a right to give a speech, to pose questions, or to address the class. If someone is already at the podium, other students must take place in line behind her.