'The Game of Life': using a student developed course project to create a learning community in the classroom.

McGoldrick, KimMarie

Introduction

In the fall of 2000, students in a Women and Gender Issues in Economics course were assigned a course project to develop a program that would enlighten college residents regarding women in business and the glass ceiling. This course project was unique in a number of ways. First, it was initiated through a campus program (the President's College Associate Program) that attempts to bring residence life and classroom life together on campus. Second, students had complete autonomy in development of this project as long as the objective set out by the larger organization was fulfilled. The instructor played the role of a facilitator and troubleshooter but did not in any way steer the direction of this project. Finally, it provided a concrete example of a course project that helped to develop a community of learning inside the classroom.

This paper describes the student course project based on chronological development throughout the semester. It begins with a description of the President's College Associate Program followed by the link of this program with the course and the meeting-by-meeting development of the course project. It concludes with a discussion of the payoffs and pitfalls associated with the process and a summary of what the instructor might change if provided the opportunity to develop a similar project.

Westhampton College, the University of Richmond, and The President's College Associate (PCA) Program: A Unique Learning Environment Westhampton College was founded in 1914 as a women's college. It was developed as a coordinate college to and its student body was academically separate from the already existing male college, Richmond College (founded in 1830). Academic classes were merged in the 1970s but many of the colleges other governance components were kept separate. Each college has its own residence hall system, traditions, student government, honor system, judicial system, and student-faculty committees. The University promotes this coordinate residential system suggesting that it offers both the advantages of small, single-gender, residential colleges and the advantages of major coeducational universities. (Westhampton College Handbook web site)

The President's College Associate (PCA) program was established in 1991 in response to the University's Board of Trustees recommendation to "affirm, clarify, and enhance coordinate education." As a result the University was charged "... to consider additional ways in which to connect members of the faculty to the life of the residential colleges." This was motivated by the desire to instill a sense of life long learning in students, promoting their intellectual curiosity and the interdisciplinary nature of learning that would also enhance the residential learning experience. One specifically identified focus was directed at enhancing "programming related to gender issues and social interaction." Individual members of the university community (typically faculty) are asked to serve in the capacity of a College Associate to promote the ideals of the program. College Associates are provided a modest stipend of $1000 per academic year and a $500 program fund to pay for refreshments, materials, and/or honoraria for guest speakers. The University Handbook details explicit duties for every College Associate:

* To work with the Dean of the College to understand the mission and operation of the College.

* To work with the residential life staff responsible for the residence hall to develop an understanding of the needs and interests of the residents and the ways in which the programming model can respond to these needs and interests.

* To attend each semester several social events and/or educational programs for the residence hall.

* To plan three substantive educational and/or social programs per semester. The College Associate will either present these programs or invite colleagues to do so. The College Associate will complete a programming plan during the first three weeks of the semester so that the staff can market the overall program to the residents.

* To develop a positive relationship with residents and student staff in the residence hall.

* To create programs that focus on gender issues and the social interaction as well as other issues that will stimulate critical thinking and further intellectual discussion in the residence halls.

(University Faculty Handbook, pg. 64-65)

Linking the Westhampton College PCA with Women and Gender Issues in Economics

The course project was initiated in the summer of 2000 through an e-mail correspondence from the Head of Outreach and Instruction Services of our campus library, Lucretia McCulley. She re-introduced the PCA program and identified her current role as a Westhampton College Associate. Lucretia had solicited program ideas from students at the end of the previous semester and one of the topics they suggested for this coming year was "Women in Business and the Glass Ceiling." Her contact e-mail included a request for assistance in planning the program or a recommendation of some women in the Business School that might like to plan the program with her. Her goal was to involve students in the planning or to link the program to coursework that was being offered at the university. I suggested that maybe a better idea would be to use my Women and Gender Issues in Economics course as the development tool for this program and offered to set this up as my course project for the fall semester. Lucretia and I met once prior to the semester to set a program date and time and to develop some general guidelines for the project. This gave me the opportunity to suggest that students have complete autonomy in the development of the program. Since one of the main goals of this program is the involvement of students in the planning process, she was agreeable to letting the students have complete control over the development and implementation of the program.

The idea for encouraging (and in fact, requiring) student autonomy in the development of a program on women and the glass ceiling is based on the work by Aerni, Bartlett, Lewis, McGoldrick, and Shackelford (1999). This paper "explores connections among inclusive course content, a different learning environment, and a feminist pedagogy." (Aerni, et al, pg. 29) A more inclusive classroom is argued to be one in which the instructor moves from the more traditional method of lecturing on neoclassical materials to one in which a learning community is developed and economics is redefined. (pg. 36-37) It is further argued that both course content and learning environment must change if the classroom is to be more inclusive. One path toward this new classroom is described through initial changes in the learning environment that generate changes in course content. (pg. 38-39) Thus, if one of the two avenues for making the classroom more inclusive changes, the other will naturally develop as well. Since the content in this course was already expanded to include other approaches in addition to the neoclassical framework, this project was initiated in the hope of further developing the inclusive nature of the class itself by changing the learning environment. Student autonomy in the development and implementation of the course project would then filter to the classroom environment in general, creating one that was more in line with a learning community than one in which the instructors role was that of a sage-on-the-stage or a guide-on-the-side.

Women and Gender Issues in Economics is an elective course in economics that requires both principles of micro and macroeconomics. The course is designed to point out differences in economic circumstances between men and women. Through primary source readings and an associated textbook, alternative theories are presented, discussed, and critiqued in order to provide explanations for these differences. Students are graded on the basis of 3 equally weighted exams (25% each), daily preparation and assignments (10%), and the course project (15%). (A complete syllabus is available upon request.)

On the first day of class, students were introduced to the project through a brief discussion and a short description on the syllabus. Students were informed that they would be required to initiate a program in conjunction with the "President's College Associate (PCA) Program for Westhampton College this coming year. The PCA program tries to plan programs that bring the residence life and classroom life together on campus. One of the topics that students suggested for this coming year was "Women in Business and the Glass Ceiling." Our goal is to involve students in the planning and to link it to coursework that is being offered at the university. Thus, your course project is to design a 90 minute program that addresses issues related to "Women in Business and the Glass Ceiling" to be presented on Tuesday November 14 at 7pm. We are willing to give you a lot of freedom in the specific topics you wish to research and address, the mode of transmission of this information, and the general way that you organize yourselves to develop this program. One thing to keep in mind, you are developing this program for your peers not for us. Thus, part of your grade for this project will rest on how well you convey these important issues in this public setting. The remainder of your grade will come from the preparation aspect and will include a peer grade from others in the class as well as a grade based on my perception of the work you have put into the project." (Excerpt from syllabus)

Development of the Course Project

Each of the following sessions was conducted using class time. Because students were required to develop the project in its entirety, it was necessary to give them time in class to work through the process as a group. Although some assignments associated with the project were completed outside of class, the brainstorming, decision-making, and planning required all students to be present.

The first session

During the second week of the semester (9 weeks prior to the project presentation), 20 minutes were allotted to initiate the development of the course project. The timing of this first discussion session was not random. Two weeks into the semester was enough time that students began to feel more at ease talking in class (especially when encouraged early on) and they had received a brief introduction to alternative perspectives (neoclassical, institutional, feminist and Marxist). Thus, it was expected that students would be willing to share ideas and be open to other student suggestions. Intentions to discuss the project were announced in the class prior and students were encouraged to give some thought regarding what they might like to be exposed to if they attended such a program. At the start of the discussion the goals of the project were reiterated: to have a student developed presentation that would teach their peers about women in business and the glass ceiling. To begin the discussion, students were asked what topics they thought ought to be covered. Typical responses included earnings differentials, sexual harassment, and work/family tradeoffs.

The discussion was less than organized and a few students wanted to fall back into a traditional instructor lead discussion format. In the first step towards developing an inclusive learning environment, I reiterated that the project was to be constructed (and not simply presented) by the class and if they needed to add more structure to the discussion then it was up to them to do so. One student suggested that they set up a committee structure. Another suggested that they needed to focus on how they might present the material before they could decide on the content, yet another suggested the opposite. All agreed that they would not like to hear a lecture and wanted to incorporate audience interaction. When it was announced that there were only three minutes left in the discussion time, one student took charge and asked if the others would be willing to think about the presentation itself and come to the next session with ideas to make the session interactive. By consensus, they agreed that this would be their charge for the next session, one week hence. In assuming authority and defining their future expectations, students began to display characteristics consistent with a learning community.

The second session

Again 20 minutes of class was allotted for the discussion. There were now 8 weeks before the presentation and the class was 3 weeks into the semester. Immediately upon opening the floor for discussion one student asked if the class would be willing to consider an idea that she had thought of since the last session. She suggested an interactive game that some members of the audience could directly participate in. It would be one that would allow us to develop a number of topics related to women in business and the glass ceiling. It was The Game of Life. Everyone started talking at once, so I stepped in as a facilitator and asked them to raise their hands, assuring them that they would all have a chance to comment. Many of the comments were along the following lines: "It would be interactive." "What are the rules of The Game?" "Could we replace the topics on the board with ones related to women in business and the glass ceiling?" "Can we make a life size board?" "Does anyone have this game?" As the discussion progressed, students bought into the idea. The biggest concern at this time was whether the instructor approved of the idea. I made a conscious effort not to provide an opinion and simply told them that I had confidence that they could make it work if they were committed to it. In reacting in this way, I was attempting to reinforce the learning community that had begun to develop. A vote was taken and the choice of The Game of Life was unanimously adopted.

The remaining 10 minutes were spent discussing some of the initial details that would need to be hammered out before proceeding. The class decided that 3 players of The Game would be optimal as they felt it would be enough to ensure variety without getting bogged down in the game itself. Players would begin The Game as college graduates but each would have a different major from a different university. Since the class was comprised of business and economic majors, it was natural that they would first suggest business disciplines (economics, finance, accounting, management, and marketing) for these majors, but one student quickly noted that this might not give enough variation needed to show differences over the careers of these graduates. Another student reminded the class that not only business students would be coming to the program since it was university sponsored. Students finally settled on one business major, finance, one major from the hard sciences, biology, and one major from a field thought to be more traditionally dominated by women, education.

Students familiar with The Game of Life suggested that the volunteer players would roll a die initiating movement through squares that represent different stages in the graduate's life. Each square would represent a topic that was related to women and business and the glass ceiling. Landing on a square would lead to a discussion of the topic as it related to that particular player. Since each player had a different major, the reaction to circumstances within each topic could be vastly different. Thus, they could explicitly or implicitly build in comparisons across the graduates and show how the cumulative decisions affect the player's financial security at the end of their lifetime.

At this time a number of challenges were identified. Each player would need a scenario specific to c their major that described her progression through t the stages. These scenarios would be linked directly to the topics represented by the squares on the game board. Thus, the students' first task would be to identify those topics. Second, in order to show differences in the financial security at the end of their work life, some monetary compensation or payment must be built into each square on the board. Finally, to add scholarly content to the scenarios, students were directed to include some background and statistical justification for topics associated with each major. It would not be sufficient to simply tell the graduate what happens to them at this stage, rather it was necessary to suggest for example that since, on average, education majors earn an annual salary of XX dollars and finance graduates earn an annual salary of XXXX (larger) dollars, the starting salary of the graduate with an education major would be less.

One student suggested that they attempt to identify the important life stages and then break into committees, one for each major, which would try to identify topics associated with each of the life stages. Each student was given the opportunity to suggest a life stage and the instructor, acting as facilitator, recorded this list on the board. Students eagerly offered suggestions which quickly became more oriented towards topics (the details) than life stages (the bigger picture). Yet the result of this brainstorming session generated a number of topics and a natural emergence of life stages. Initial stages included: 1st job, marriage, starting a family, divorce, going back to school, death of a parent, children leave home, parents come to live with individual, promotion, and retirement. Since some of these were obviously related, I suggested condensing these into 5 stages that would allow for more flexibility in developing scenarios based on subtopics. Consensus lead to the following 5 life stages: 1st job, promotion, relationships, family, and retirement. The instructor agreed to develop a master list of the initial topics sorted by life stages for use in the next session. (See Appendix A) With little time remaining, students separated themselves into "Major Committees," one for each of the three majors.

Although only 3 weeks of class had passed and this was the second session discussing the project, it was clear that the class had begun to transform. Students eagerly participated, they respected each other's voice and began to rely less on the instructor for guidance. This change trickled over to the general class discussions as well, as demonstrated by students being more likely to express their thoughts on assigned readings and critique the positions described by their classmates.

The third session

The third session (6 weeks to the presentation, 5 weeks into the course) began with a "to do" list including a summary of decisions yet to be made, tasks to be assigned, and steps to be completed. The instructor provided this list basing it on the completion of the project to date and it was intended to be a simple reinforcement to keep students on task. (See Appendix B) The first task at hand was to finalize the list of topics for each life stage. After trying unsuccessfully as a collective to finalize the list of topics to 25, students decided that it would be necessary for them to work through their Major Committees to determine the list. A representative from each of the (3) Major Committees would solicit votes from their group and compile a final list of topics and provide these to the instructor at the next class period. A master list would then be constructed that included all the topics suggested by students, which would be provided in a form that used inclusive language and eliminated duplication. This process reinforced student voice and authority over the project. It was from them as individuals and through their collective voice that topics were to be decided, again reinforcing the class as a community of learners.

The remainder of the session focused on the game board details. Since the students wanted this to be an interactive program, it was immediately clear that using an actual size, although modified version of The Game of Life would not be satisfactory. Instead they agreed that a life size modified version of The Game would provide the most interaction. Suggestions lead to the conclusion that poster boards decorated and linked together would provide the appropriate size. The development of a more extensive game board necessitated the formation of a Board Creation Committee using volunteering students from each of the Major Committees.

Despite the formation of this new committee, all students were involved in brainstorming about the details of the game board. The first issue to arise identified the tradeoff of multiple landings on a single topic. While multiple landings would allow for a direct comparison of differences in the ways each player (major) reacted to the topic, it would also inhibit the number of topics that could be realistically covered in the allotted 90 minutes. Students decided that they would not allow for multiple landings on a single topic and thus wanted each topic (squares on the board) to be removable. A game rule was established that players landing on blank (removed) or occupied squares would be moved one space forward. Other details such as how many squares could be reasonably covered in an hour (about 25), how large the squares would be (limiting the topic definition to be written on each square), and what might be used to decorate the board to make it look similar to The Game of Life were also discussed. At the end of the session the instructor provided the charge for next session, 2 weeks hence: The Board Committee was to have a initial plan for the game board ready for class review and the entire class would be asked to agree upon the list of topics for each life stage.

The fourth session

To start this fifteen-minute session (4 weeks to go, 7 weeks into class), the instructor handed out a summary of the 26 life stage topics compiled from the student work turned in since the previous session. It was remarkable how similar the lists were. Appendix C provides an example of a verbatim list of the topics that students in the Finance Major Committee compiled. Appendix D contains the instructor-modified version of the compiled lists from each committee. Again, the modifications were included to allow for some flexibility in the development of subsequent scenarios, incorporate inclusive language, and to eliminate duplication.

The instructor reminded students that all scenarios were to be turned into the professor one week prior to the presentation (3 weeks hence) and that research would need to be conducted to locate statistics to support the scenarios. In other words, it would not be appropriate to simply make up the scenario; it would have to have some basis in fact. Examples were provided in the previous session and included on the "to do" list (see appendix B) (1)

The Board Creation Committee reported that they had devised a model for The Game and shared this with the class. They planned to include mountains, rivers, and the path of life. After receiving feedback on their ideas they divided up tasks, identified supplies needed, and set up a time with the instructor to purchase supplies. (The instructor agreed to purchase all supplies as long as the expenses were not outrageous.)

During this session, students identified the need for at least one person to be in charge of The Game on the day of presentation. For example, someone was needed to introduce the game and its rules, start the game, give players a turn, identify the scenario and the major so that committee members could then read the associated scenario and discuss it with the audience.

Students felt that 2 hosts would be best, but concern was raised that these hosts would contribute less to the overall project if they were simply required to complete tasks the day of the presentation and not develop scenarios. The instructor noted that advertising and evaluation (by audience and class peers) tasks had yet to be developed and assigned. Hosts were subsequently allocated these tasks.

The instructor provided the charge for the next class period: Major Committees were to allocate the writing of each of the 26 scenarios keeping in mind the overall goal relating these to women in business and the glass ceiling. Students would then also be able to begin researching and drafting their scenarios. The Board Creation Committee was to set up a meeting time with the instructor to purchase supplies necessary for completion of the game board. Hosts were to provide drafts of advertising and evaluation tools. No class time was taken for these tasks; rather, students were required to check in with the instructor on each of these items.

The fifth session

With only two weeks left before the presentation, students were reminded that drafts of their scenarios were due in one week. Each student in the Major Committee was responsible for writing between 4 and 7 scenarios. At this time the instructor reminded students that each scenario needed to be based in statistical fact. It was further suggested to students that, for the sake of consistency, they develop scenarios approximately three paragraphs long with a summary of the graduates life to date, relevant information about the specific topic landed on, and the consequences of the actions taken or decisions made by the player. The first paragraph was especially important since although the total script was based on the graduates interactions with all 26 topics, it as very unlikely that even one half of these topics would be landed on and discussed. Thus, the first paragraph would allow students to bring the audience up to date as to the other life stages passed over. Students suggested that the chairs of each committee should be allocated fewer scenarios and instead they were assigned the task of ensuring consistency across scenarios and turning in the compiled scenarios after the presentation.

Hosts presented their advertising plan and flyers for review by the class providing the opportunity for individual and collective critique. Students with experience in advertising events on campus made suggestions for improvements. It was determined that they should not simply rely on postings, but rather would also request that faculty in the Business School announce the program in their classes. Hosts also placed an announcement in the student newspaper and in SpiderBytes (the campus wide events summary e-mail list). (See Appendix E for an advertising sample that was posted across campus.) The two evaluation instruments (audience and class) were provided to the instructor who provided some comments and requested some minor modifications (Appendices F and G).

The final session

In order to allow students to work out unforeseen problems that might arise during The Game, the instructor allocated a full class period the day before the presentation to practice. This was intended to be a complete run through from start to finish. To make this as realistic as possible, two staff/ faculty volunteers and the instructor acted as players. A number of problems were identified such as hosts not having worked out how they would begin the game and set out the rules. It became clear that the hosts would be critical in developing audience participation and other class members really pushed for the hosts to be better organized. Another problem identified was how to link the scenarios directly to monetary compensation. This was important since students had determined that they wanted to compare the three players at the end of the game to show how education levels, careers decisions, and other circumstances could have a major impact on the financial security of women as they entered retirement. One class member suggested that this might be yet another way of involving the audience. For example, the hosts could solicit opinions about how much of a financial impact each topic and resulting decision or action would have on the player. This would result in either monetary compensation to or payments required from the player.

Although a number of problems were identified during this session, it was clear that the class as a whole felt ownership in the project. Group discussion followed every identified problem and consensus building was critical in developing each solution.

The program

Despite the practice session, the actual program got off to a rocky start. A couple of key students arrived late with materials, the die to be used for the game was forgotten, and the rules of the game were not as clear as they could have been. Refreshments were served to delay the program until the entire class was present. Students improvised and picked numbers out of a hat to move players along the game path. Rules were clarified as the game was played.

Of the 26 squares on the game board, approximately 14 were covered in the hour program. Recall that Appendix D describes these topics in sufficient detail that students were able to develop scenarios, but the size of the board spaces limited the language that was used to present these topics to the audience. For example, while the class agreed that the first space should be "Interviewing for your first job (application process, actual interview, aftermath, occupation, education)" this was shortened to simply "First Job" on the board itself. Each player began on the first square learning about their major and their first job. As players landed on subsequent squares, the student responsible for that scenario first brought the players life up to date (incorporating some of the highlights of squares passed over during play) and then described the scenario itself. The following is the "First Job" scenario associated with the finance major. "In the past four decades, there have been many changes in the American Labor Force. 'Since 1960, there has been a sizable increase in the participation rates of all women under age 55, but particularly among women aged 25 to 44. This increase in part reflects declines in the birthrate and increases in the divorce rate over this period. Most notable, however, has been the large increase in the participation rates of married women with small children' (Blau et al). Because of this increase in the labor of young-to-middle-age women with young children, employers have had to modify the benefits they offer employees. If an employer wants to be competitive and attract top notch female employees, he or she needs to provide benefits such as child-care subsidies or alternative work schedules and models. Both single and married women with children typically place a high priority and time commitment on child-care. In order to promote content and healthy female employees, an employer must understand and respect these values Many young women entering the workforce look for companies who are family-friendly because they know that in the long-term future they will be interested in having children. You have just graduated with honors from the Wharton School of Business of the University of Pennsylvania with a bachelor's degree in Finance. All the major financial investment firms have been calling to recruit you; however, after some initial interviews you are unsure if this is the type of work you want to pursue. Working Mother magazine publishes a list of the top 100 employers for rooms and families. You know that sometime in the distant future, you want to have children and decide to pursue a job with one of the companies that the magazine recommends. IBM has been a constant on the list for the past 15 years (Companies Rated as the Friendliest to Working Moms). You apply for a job with IBM and are offered an analyst position in their corporate headquarters finance and strategy department. You are pleased with the salary and the benefits and are excited about starting your new career with IBM."

The player representing the Finance Major also landed on the second square "Employment Practices." The following scenario was presented: "Some Americans feel that affirmative action is no longer necessary for women. Statistics show otherwise. 'Women make up 46% of the national workforce, but represent only 5% of the top management at Fortune 2000 industrial and service firms. White men comprise 43% of the workforce but hold 95% of senior management positions' (Women Employed Fact Sheet). Some argue that affirmative action is no longer necessary because Americans make decisions based on merit alone. When in fact, 'Corporate executives interviewed by the Wall Street Journal believe that probably only 30 or 40% of American companies are committed to diversity absent federal pressure' (Women Employed Fact Sheet). Many Americans support affirmative action. 'According to a June '97 Gallup Poll, 82% of African Americans and 51% of whites think we need to 'increase' or 'keep the same' affirmative action programs in this country. Also, a December '96 National Opinion Research Council poll found that 79% support affirmative action as 'measures promoting equal opportunities in hiring, promotion, and government contracts without the use of quotas' (Women Employed Fact Sheet). You have been working for one month at your new job as an analyst in the corporate finance and strategy department of IBM. You are having trouble with George; one of your male colleagues who insists you only got the position because the company needed to put a female in the department to look politically correct. You decide not to go to your manager right away, and instead try to handle the situation yourself. You put in many extra hours to make sure your reports and presentations are excellent and offer to help colleagues who are stressed or lagging-behind. As the other workers in the department begin to see what outstanding work you do and that you are a good team-player, they make you feel welcome and ignore the comments of George who eventually leaves the firm to work for a political think-tank."

Audience participation was clearly one success of the program. The first opportunity for interaction occurred when players were chosen randomly from the audience. Later, after catching on to the idea that they would be able to determine monetary rewards or payments, some audience members became vocal expressing their opinions as to the extreme of the monetary impact of the associated decision. One player got behind on the board after "rolling" the number 1 a couple of consecutive times and the audience began rooting for her. Evaluations filled out by audience members reinforce these observations. Table 1 summarizes results of the evaluations that were completed. Unfortunately, many participants had to leave the presentation a few minutes early and thus did not fill out an evaluation. Based on the results from those who did fill out an evaluation, the program met its goals. Participants enjoyed the program. It kept their interest and they learned something they did not know before the presentation. They also would recommend it to others. Open ended questions suggest that students were appreciative of the interactive nature of the program, but felt that it went on a bit long and that some of the statistics were boring.

Students creating and presenting the project had similar positive reactions. Comments on the student evaluation of the class project (Appendix F) suggest that the work was generally equally divided, everyone in the class lived up to their responsibilities, and they generally enjoyed creating the program. Two student comments sum up the project particularly well. "I was apprehensive about how we were going to pull the presentation off as its structure seemed vague to me until the day before, however, I think it went really well. I was amazed at the consistency in the construction of the scenarios. I have attended quite a few PCA programs in the past and the attendance at ours was relatively quite high!" "I was not excited about this assignment at first--it seemed too overwhelming. "Create a program" = so broad! However, as the class worked together and the game plan developed, I became more interested, especially once I had a specific role in the program. Overall, I'm impressed with how our class pulled together. I'm proud of what we created and hope that it is used in the future."

Grading

>From the onset, students knew that their overall project grade was to be determined on the basis of meeting the originally stated goal, "to design a 90 minute program that addresses issues related to 'Women in Business and the Glass Ceiling' ..." As such, part of this grade was based on "how well [they] convey[ed] these important issues in this public setting." Clearly this has both a content component to be graded by the instructor (as determined by the extent to which their chosen topics were linked to women in business and the glass ceiling) and a process component (as influenced by participant evaluations). Additionally, the College Associate (Lucretia McCulley) and I discussed the success of this program compared to other programs conducted by students that semester.

The second component for the project grade was generated for each individual based on a peer evaluation and their work turned in. The peer evaluation required students to provide a description of their own contribution and that of other members of their committee group by identifying their specific responsibilities and how they fulfilled these expectations. They were also asked to identify any member of the class that did an outstanding job given their responsibilities and explain why they felt this was the case. Finally, they were asked to rate the contributions of their fellow group members using a 1 to 5 scale, 5 being the best. They were instructed not to give more than one 5 rating, to provide a rating of their own contribution, and provide a brief explanation of their rating. These descriptions and ratings provided a basis for differentiating the contributions of individual students. The grade for each individual was also constructed based on the scenarios, advertising and evaluation, or the game board itself dependent on the committee to which the student belonged. For example, since the key component of the game, the dice, was forgotten on the day of the presentation, the student responsible for that component of the game board received a lower grade than their peers.

Conclusion

One goal of this project was to have students, as a class, develop and present a program that explored issues relating to women in business and the glass ceiling. Clearly it is important for the instructor to assume and consistently remain in the role of facilitator if this process is to be truly student driven. This, at times, can be difficult since students so naturally look to the instructor for guidance and suggestions and faculty are conditioned to step in and guide when students struggle. While it would have been easier to assign students to a specific type of presentation or develop a standard research project, having students involved in the development of such a program has specific advantages.

Given the additional goal of exposing students outside of the class to these issues, asking students how they might want to be exposed to such material only makes sense. One obvious benefit of having students involved in the development of a program for their peers is that they are more apt to be diligent in its development lest they are embarrassed. Students also felt more ownership in the project. They committed time to the project because it was something they had created.

This was a very unique program on our campus. Very rarely do students develop programs for other students and even more rarely are these programs of a more academic nature. This has the potential to have an especially large impact on the students participating as both presenters and game participants because students were responsible for researching issues that they are likely to face in the near future. Students were more likely to research issues that were important to them and their peers, they were more likely to provide information that their peers would find most helpful and interesting, and they were more likely to present this information in a way their peers would understand. Thus, the potential impact on the campus community is very large indeed.

The scenarios developed for the project incorporated many different life paths, exposing students to alternatives to those traditionally considered when initially discussing women in business. Students incorporated single mothers, intact marriages, and divorce into their family issues; they considered job migration from both the tied-mover and the tied-stayer perspectives; and they discussed career changes late in life. By addressing alternative ways in which women dealt with these issues they also opened up course content to include issues and views from a variety of economic perspectives.

Finally, and in addition to the benefits listed above, the learning environment in the classroom changed. Having students involved in a common project through the semester developed a class bond in ways that that were seen throughout the semester. Students were more likely to volunteer information and request alternative ways of covering the materials (such as asking for debates). Although based on observation alone, class discussions appeared to be more inclusive with few students dominating.

>From the instructor's perspective, this project was a truly unique teaching adventure. Clearly, there was a lot of risk inherent in allowing students to fully develop the project. These risks may be summarized as a loss of control over the content, process, and outcome of the project. Yet it was clear that requiring students to publicly display their project (in this case, play their game) has the advantage of minimizing these risks to a large degree as it transfers some risk to the students.

The extensive use of in class discussions of the project clearly limits class time available for course content. Alternatively, requiring students to prepare class material through a variety of exercises (reflective essays, answering content questions and even developing content questions) and telling them that project discussion could only occur after course materials were sufficiently covered minimized the loss of content coverage as students were better prepared for in class learning. Additionally, the learning community developed through the course project contributed to the efficient use of class time as students began to take responsibility for their own learning.

Finally, the commitment of instructor time for this project was significantly less than more traditional course projects such as papers and presentations. The majority of instructor time spent in the project included combining student ideas and lists into master versions, having periodic discussions with committee groups, making one trip to a store for supplies, reading draft scenarios, and reviewing evaluation instruments and advertising tools.

The development of a learning community requires that students take responsibility and share authority in the classroom. The project described in this paper contributed to this process through the requirement that students fully develop and implement a presentation to their peers. While many changes in the process might be suggested, these are likely to create constraints taking ownership and authority away from the students and undermining the development of a learning community. Appendix A Second Session Student generated ideas for topics First Job Issues [] Interviews/hiring practices [] Starting salary [] Interpersonal relationships [] Affirmative action [] Occupation [] Education [] Wage disparity [] Industry [] Hiring issues [] Salary--how to support oneself [] Credentials, skills, education [] Focus or specialization Promotion Issues [] Economy [] Access to resources [] Age/ethnicity [] Location [] Education [] Wage differences [] Glass ceiling [] Sexual harassment [] Opportunities--limitations [] Age [] Wages [] Measurements and promotion Relationships [] Relationships with male teachers/coworkers [] Balancing marriage with career [] Having children: to work or not to work [] Competing for promotions with single people without children [] Dual earners [] Marriage [] Relationships in the workplace [] Family structure [] Choosing a partner [] Relocation/travel [] Bills and finances Family [] Childcare [] Work/life balance [] Family leave [] Divorce [] Child care [] Time--housework [] Part-time [] Government programs [] Having kids [] Married? [] Flexible hours [] Childcare Retirement [] Age occurs [] Benefits received [] Location [] Widowhood [] Age to retire [] SS/investments [] Taking care of aged relatives [] What to do with free time [] Government programs [] Age [] Economy [] Family [] Industry

Appendix B

Third Session To do list

* Define 20-25 spaces on the board.

* Each "major" committee defines a scenario linked to each of the 20-25 spaces. Since each player will likely land on as many as 5 squares, this should give everyone in each "major" committee a chance to participate. (Minimum of 4 people per "major" committee.)

* Each scenario must have a link to women in business or the glass ceiling

* Each scenario must describe to the player a decision, event, or change in their life and its consequences--these should not simply be "you get married, have a child and drop out of the work force...." I expect some research associated. Thus, you might say "40 percent of women delay marriage until they reach 30 years old and you have done so as well. You have decided to start a family right away, consistent with nearly 30 percent of your married cohort. Our research indicates that you will spend an average of 5 years outside the labor force, during which time the teaching standards change, SOL's are adopted and ..." (note: I have made up these figures.)

* Game host(s) must be picked. This individual should be responsible for introducing the game, setting the stage, describing the rules, running the game, etc.

* Game board must be completed--a committee of 4?

* Shopping for supplies

* Physical board

* Each square removable, large enough to include each of three scenarios written on back

* Player pieces to correlate with major

* The die

* Other pieces or props?

* Advertising within the B-school--someone who is not able to attend the game

* Evaluation sheets to evaluate your peers and for the audience to evaluate what they learned from the game--someone who is not able to attend the game, must work with Dr M.

Appendix C

Forth Session Finance Major Committee 25 Suggested Topics (game board spaces) for Women in Business/And the Glass Ceiling

First Job Issues:

1. You interview for first job

2. Your employer practices affirmative action

3. You put the maximum allowable amount in your retirement fund

4. You receive a pay raise

5. You choose to go back to school to pursue an advanced degree

6. You file a sexual harassment suit

7. A male co-worker is given preferential promotion treatment over you

8. You need to deal with office politics

Relationship Issues:

9. You date a co-worker

10. You get married

11. Your image is the workplace is assessed by others based on your relationship status

12. You receive a higher salary than your husband

Family Issues: 13. You have children and choose to stay home for a few years

14. You have children and utilize the FMLA and look into flex-time

15. You enroll your child into day-care

16. You attend an extended conference that conflicts with family needs

17. You hire a housekeeper to help around the house

18. You are offered a great promotion in another state

19. You get divorced

20. You need to take time off from work to take care of an ailing parent

Promotion/Second Job Issues:

21. You are promoted

22. You get sick for an extended period of time and need to leave work

23. You change jobs

Retirement/Later Life Issues:

24. You retire

25. Your husband dies

Appendix D

Forth Session: Instructor's Modified Version of Suggested Topics (game board spaces)

The general nature of the way these topics are written should allow for flexibility. I would suggest that you develop a complete story of the individual's life that includes each of these topics. Thus, you can build in important issues even if the player does not land on one of the previous squares. If the education major first lands on the 5th square, you can fill in some of the background information about their job before discussing pay raise issues. This should be easy to do if you first develop a complete story about your particular major.

First Job Issues:

1. Interviewing for your first job (application process, actual interview, aftermath, occupation, education)

2. Employment practices affect whether you are hired (qualifications, affirmative action)

3. Enrollment in your company's retirement fund (kinds of plans, how much $ to put in, supplemental retirement plans)

4. Office politics (male/female relationships, power politics)

5. Pay raise (performance evaluations, skills valued)

6. Additional education (training, degree, cost-benefit analysis)

7. Prejudices in the workplace (expectations of your future with respect to marriage and children)

8. First promotion opportunity (glass ceiling, sticky floor, travel, overtime, etc)

Relationship Issues:

9. Finding a partner (co-worker, same-sex)

10. Establishing a committed relationship (co-worker, commuting, decision to move, financial decisions, dual career family)

11. Conflicts of workplace and personal relationships (overtime, travel, expectations)

12. Salary differentials between you and your partner (personal conflicts, financial decisions)

Family Issues:

13. Having children and the decision of who (if either) should stay home (cost-benefit analysis)

14. Having children, the FMLA and alternative work arrangements (both parents using FMLA, alternative work arrangements (flex-time) and their consequences for career)

15. Having children and the day-care decision (costs, trade-offs)

16. Work and family need conflicts (kids events, sick child)

17. The double work day (allocation of time between partners)

18. Promotions that affect the family (decision to move or commute)

19. The end of a relationship ("divorce" settlement, reassessing assets, affecting your career?)

20. Ailing parents (limits on personal time, work, and finances)

Promotion/Second Job Issues:

21. Salary issues as career progresses (wage disparities)

22. Additional promotion opportunities (career goals, sacrifices, wage disparity)

23. Personal health affects your ability to work (options, disability pay)

24. Changing jobs (reasons for change, career versus free time)

Retirement/Later Life Issues:

25. Retirement and reassessing your financial security (do I have enough $, looking back on my financial decisions, at what age can I retire?

26. Your partner passes away (financial information, security)

Appendix F

Group Project Student Evaluation

1. Please list the name of your group and all its members. Please signify who was the group leader.

2. Please provide a bullet point listing of the activities you were responsible for. For each, also provide a description of how you went about satisfying these responsibilities.

3. What activities was each other member of your group responsible for? (Again please provide a bullet point listing.)

4. Do you think the workload in the group was equally divided? Please explain.

5. Did everyone live up to his or her responsibilities?

6. Was there any member in your group that did an outstanding job with their assigned responsibilities? Explain.

7. Please rate the contributions of your fellow group members. Use a 1 to 5 scale, 5 being the best. You may not give more than one 5 rating. You must also rate your own contribution. Provide a brief explanation of your rating.

8. Please write any additional comments about the group project here! This can be directed towards the project as a whole, other groups contributions, or any other aspect of the project.

Appendix G

"The Game of Life ... It's not Just a Game Anymore" Evaluation

Thank you for participating in tonight's program. We hope you enjoyed the presentation and learned something about the glass ceiling and women's issues in the job market. Please take a few minutes to complete the following survey. Your feedback is important to the development of future programs and in the evaluation of presentation overall.

Please rate (by circling the appropriate choice) the following comments on the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statement. 1. I enjoyed tonight's presentation Strongly Agree Agree 7. The information was clearly presented and Strongly Agree understandable Agree 8. The design of the program kept me inter- Strongly Agree ested in the material Agree 9. I learned something tonight that I didn't Strongly Agree know before the presentation Agree 10. The program was consistent with my Strongly Agree expectations (either from advertisements Agree or word-of-mouth) 11. I would recommend this program to Strongly Agree others Agree 1. I enjoyed tonight's presentation Neither Disagree Agree or Disagree 7. The information was clearly presented and Neither Disagree understandable Agree or Disagree 8. The design of the program kept me inter- Neither Disagree ested in the material Agree or Disagree 9. I learned something tonight that I didn't Neither Disagree know before the presentation Agree or Disagree 10. The program was consistent with my Neither Disagree expectations (either from advertisements Agree or or word-of-mouth) Disagree 11. I would recommend this program to Neither Disagree others Agree or Disagree 1. I enjoyed tonight's presentation Strongly Disagree 7. The information was clearly presented and Strongly understandable Disagree 8. The design of the program kept me inter- Strongly ested in the material Disagree 9. I learned something tonight that I didn't Strongly know before the presentation Disagree 10. The program was consistent with my Strongly expectations (either from advertisements Disagree or word-of-mouth) 11. I would recommend this program to Strongly others Disagree

12. What did you like best about the program?

13. What did you like least about the program?

14. What issue would you have liked to have heard about (if not included) or heard more about (if included)?

15. Where did you hear about the presentation? TABLE 1 Audience Evaluation Results N=11 Neither Strongly Agree or Agree Agree Disagree 1. I enjoyed tonight's presentation 64% 27% 9% 2. The information was clearly 45% 45% 9% presented and understandable 3. The design of the program kept 82% 18% 0% me interested in the material 4. I learned something tonight that 36% 55% 9% I didn't know before the presentation 5. The program was consistent 36% 36% 18% with my expectations (either from advertisements or word- of-mouth) 6. I would recommend this 45% 45% 9% program to others Strongly Disagree Disagree 1. I enjoyed tonight's presentation 0% 0% 2. The information was clearly 0% 0% presented and understandable 3. The design of the program kept 0% 0% me interested in the material 4. I learned something tonight that 0% 0% I didn't know before the presentation 5. The program was consistent 0% 0% with my expectations (either from advertisements or word- of-mouth) 6. I would recommend this 0% 0% program to others

The author would like to thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments and the Fall 2000 Women and Gender Issues class for their participation in this adventure.

Note

(1.) Students found this aspect of the program to be especially challenging since statistics are rarely presented in the form that is conducive to such a presentation. Lucretia McCulley, who also acts as Women's Studies liaison on campus, provided significant assistance to many students in finding and interpreting such necessary statistics.

References

Aerni, April, Robin Bartlett, Meg Lewis, KimMarie McGoldrick, and Jean Shackelford. "Exploring the Intersections of More Inclusive Course Contents and Learning Environments: Toward a Feminist Pedagogy in Economics." Reprinted article (Feminist Economics, Volume 5 No. 1, March 1999, pp. 29-45.) in Aerni, April and KimMarie McGoldrick, eds. Valuing Us All: Feminist Pedagogy and Economics. The University of Michigan Press, 1999.

Blau, Francine D., Marianne A. Ferber and Anne E. Winkler. The Economics of Women, Men and Work. Third Edition. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1998.

"Companies Rated as Friendliest to Working Moms." Christian Science Monitor. April 5, 2000: 1+. Contemporary Women's Issues Online Database 2000. University of Richmond Libraries, Richmond, Virginia. 4 November 6 2000. http:// rbsweb2.rdinc.com/texis/rds.

University of Richmond Web site: www. Richmond.edu

"Women Employed Fact Sheet--Rhetoric and Reality---The Debate About Affirmative Action." Women Employed Fact Sheet--Rhetoric and Reality--The Debate About Affirmative Action. (1998): 1-3. Contemporary Women's Issues Online Database 2000. University of Richmond Libraries, Richmond, Virginia. 4 November 2000. http:// rbsweb2.rdinc.com/texis/rds

KimMarie McGoldrick, Department of Economics, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA 23173. Phone: (804) 289-8575, Fax: (804) 289-8878, E-mail: kmcgoldr@richmond.edu