Teaching.IU

Context

Inclusive and responsive higher education has increasingly topped the list of university strategic plans, conference themes, and applied best practices across a multitude of professional disciplines. Important humanistic concepts such as equality rights and non-discriminatory legislation have also entered into the forefront of U.S. political platforms as an effort to create an informed and responsive public. Higher education is nowhere near exempt from such movements and sharpened focus on preparation of new professionals. Social justice advocacy is defined as “activism against oppression and discrimination, geared towards systemic change of oppressive systems within political, economic, and social structures in institutions and societies” (Marbley et al., 2015, p. 45). Comprehensive areas of concern that fuel the transparent need of social justice advocacy include, and are not limited to, experiences of racism, classism, sexism, and heterosexism among all ages of people (Bemak & Chung, 2011).  

As validated in several other investigations of college climates, Warikoo and Deckman (2014) found that 83% of students in higher education describe diversity on campus in a favorable manner. Grounding the meaning and application of this important perspective into the learning environment is often placed in the hands of educators, especially for residential and first-generation students. Initiating difficult or interpersonally challenging discussions among students in classroom settings has been a consistent pedagogical strategy facilitated by faculty to promote systemic advocacy and social justice comprehension (Toporek & Worthington, 2014). Many counseling, psychology, social work, and other human services programs require social justice advocacy exposure as part of the student curriculum, although suggested pedagogical applications or techniques are less commonly illustrated throughout recent literature (Motulsky et al., 2014). Bemak and Chung (2011) recommend a two-fold strategy for the training of helping professionals which include fostering the holistic and philosophical knowledge of inequities among future clients, as well as the action-oriented and proactive application of this understanding in order to address imbalances along both individual and systemic levels.  

Service-learning projects have been broadly adopted as an appropriate tool for student engagement in social justice in counselor education and other related programs (Gehlert et al., 2014; Midgett et al., 2016). Unfortunately, many of these assignments are prescribed to the individual student and reported in written reflections or processed in limited small group discussions. There are relatively few pedagogical strategies publicized which promote interactive and immediate cultivation of systemic awareness in the higher education classroom. Individual faculty members who both wish to and can take the time to formulate activities that foster student intrapersonal and interpersonal awareness of prevalent social issues manifest much of this desired transformative engagement out of their own professional commitments, specialties, and scholarly passions. There are countless more educators who can benefit from a medium source, which can provide a rich landscape for small group student engagement, discussion, and meaning-making that reaches a larger scope of new learners.

Step-by-Step Implementation

1. The instructor may want to open the box(es) prior to the activity and complete the basic assembly before introducing the rules of play to students. This requires punching out cardboard pieces from their frame and building the game markers (approximately 5-10 minutes).  
2. Decide which version of the game you would like to play: Standard Play or Simplified Play. The board flips over, and the two versions are represented on opposite sides. The list of step-by-step instructions and the player cards all include guidance for both forms of the game. The Standard Play experience is more advanced, takes longer to complete, and requires the players to take on additional roles or “skills” throughout the game. The Simplified Play version is recommended for workshop or classroom activities, or for a younger audience who may be less experienced with board games. 
3. Set up the board and distribute the materials. This includes the “Activist” standees, player sheets, power markers, and movement cards to all players in the game (outlined in instructions provided). Each board can accommodate up to five players, although observers are encouraged to be a part of the discussion as well. Every player in the game is on the same team—“the system” is the opponent! 
4. Before play begins, players must decide on their collective “movement” for the game. These can be politically current and related to your course content (e.g., “Legal rights and equality for transgender parents”) or jovial and fictional (e.g., “Free the dragons campaign”). The collaboration required for success will initiate similar discussions among players and observers regardless of the target.  
5. During the course of play, each player will attempt to gain power and movement for their cause through prompts provided on the cards in the game. Simultaneously, through the same prompts, the system will also move towards blocking the movement progress. Movement is directed toward a holistic set of 10 sectors on the board: neighborhoods, workplaces, government, media, farms, environmental, culture, internet, faith-based communities, and college campuses. The movement team wins once they obtain three “victories” among these sectors, while the system wins if it obtains three victories.  
6. Play begins by one player rolling the dice. They then move their “Activist” standee the number of spaces directed on the board. If the icon on the board matches one of their movement cards, they may choose to play that card and follow its instructions. This move is called, “Agitate.” A second possible move is, “Educate,” and the player can choose to draw another movement card for use at a later time. The third and final move is called, “Organize,” and that person gains one supporter on their player sheet. Finally, optional “discussion prompts” are provided on various movement cards throughout the deck. These may include statements such as, “What resources do we have in our local community that could help us with this movement?” These discussions are not required but promote a deepened connection to the game and real-world application. Again, all instructions are provided in each kit and contain symbols that match each corresponding game piece for ease in comprehension.  
7. Length of time in play is largely dependent on several variables. This includes the version of the game selected, the number of players and observers present, and the depth of ongoing discussion that takes place in between turns. The TESA website estimates 1-1.5 hours for completion. 

Effectiveness

This strategy was conceptualized and implemented for the first time by this author in a 50-minute education session at the 2nd annual, “Teach, Play, Learn” conference at IU South Bend (July 2019). Four board games were purchased for the interactive session, and approximately 25-30 higher educators were in attendance.  

Informal feedback from the participants was highly positive. An instructor for another IU South Bend department has borrowed a board and is implementing it this semester with nursing students. The game will be utilized in this author’s Group Counseling course this fall, as well as the Crisis & Trauma Counseling class next spring. Formal conference feedback and presenter evaluations are still pending from the analytics team at IUPUI. 

Adaptability 

Although my example is with creative writing, this could be adapted for composition, speech, fine arts, and other disciplines—any area where students need to develop drafting and revising skills.