Som flere sikkert ved er jeg gået i gang med at skrive et kompendie omkring kernekraft. Ambitionen er både at gøre elever i stand til at lave relevante fysiske beregninger på reaktorer, og at stille faktuelle data til rådighed der er relevante for en diskussion for og imod atomkraft.
Et diagram der viser fordelingen af fissionsprodukter på isotoper efter spaltning af 235U
Jeg er meget stolt af at jeg har skrevet et ret udførligt afsnit omkring hvordan man beregner om en reaktor er i en stabil tilstand, eller om effekten er på vej op eller ned. Med andre ord beregner man værdien af keff, den effektive multiplikationsfaktor. Denne størrelse afhænger både af reaktorens geometri og størrelse, og af forholdet mellem de forskellige isotoper i reaktoren. Afsnittet mangler den sidste finpudsning, men der er rigelig information til at man kan lave sine egne beregninger.
Et diagram der viser aktiviteten over tid (omregnet til biologisk farlighed) af forskellige komponenter i brugt reaktorbrændsel
Jeg håber at undervisere vil benytte materialet til undervisning i reaktorer, og at elever vil benytte det til deres projekter.
You are running a roleplaying campaign, but some players get giddy and start murdering people for little to no reason. What do you do? You don’t want to straight up tell the players that they can’t do that, but at the same time you want the world to feel real and alive, and having no consequences for murder can make the NPCs feel like they are not real people.
So the question is how to play out real consequences for murder. I’m assuming that in your world the players are powerful enough to overcome the average person in combat, but there are people and factions far more powerful than them.
The first thing the a player will get with a murder is reputation. Every person they encounter will potentially recognise them, and react accordingly.
Ideas for reactions when the murder is recognised:
Condemn the murderer verbally “have you no shame?”
Quietly end their buisness “I don’t deal with the likes of you”
Sneak away as quietly as possible and look for aid
Run away as quickly as possible and look for aid
Plead for their lives and offer gift “let me live, take my gold but spare my life!”
Attract attention with shouting “It’s him! He did it! Let’s get him!”
Attempt to covertly take them down (eg. poison or knock out from behind)
Attack the murderer while shouting: “Come on, we can take him!”
Get a weapon and stand-off “stay away from my stuff and my family. I know who you are!”
Offer them work “I know what you are capable of, and I have just the job for you…”
Blackmailing them “Do this thing for me or I call the guard on you…”
So how likely are the players to be recognised? Make up your own rule for the roll, but keep the following modifiers in mind:
Distance to place of murder (more distance less likely)
Player is easy to recognise (scars, weird hairstyle, unusual clothing or equipment)
Player carries visible weapon or armour – smells like danger
Time since murder (longer time less likely)
Observer have seen the player before
Observer knew the murder victim well
Observer is a guard, official or investigator
Total number of murders the player have comited
Importance of murder victims (status or reputation)
Observer hear the name of the murderer
Observer hear that the player have been to the place of the murder
When players walk in places with many people, don’t roll for everyone. Instead, add a modifier for the number of people, and roll to see if any one observer recognise them.
Now who could come to the aid of one who recognize a murderer? Some bystanders might. The guard will usually arrive. But if a small patrol of local guards are not up to the task, some other things will happen.
A large crowd of villagers (+50) gather with pitchforks and torches to capture the murderer
The captain of the guard personally lead the chase – might be powerful
The guard recieve well-trained and equipped reinforcements from other areas
A powerful local character decide to get involved (warrior or mage)
The rich family of a local person send their personal guard to capture the murderer
A bounty is put out, and attract bounty hunters (some of them very powerful)
A powerful character has family in the area and go there to capture the murderer
The local lord or king sees the players as a personal threat, and gather an army to defeat them (including powerful warriors and mages)
If they survive their hunters, the players should eventually figure out one of the following solutions to their problem:
Hide as well as they can, fake names and use disgueses, until people forget
Travel far away where noone know about the murder
Join a powerful force that people will not cross (a powerful band of raiders, the king’s guard, a powerful religious cult or band of mages)
Keep one move ahead of the people that hunt you, always on the move
Clear your name by bribing, manipulating or enchanting the right people
Fake your death
Gather an army, go on conquest and become lords in their own right
Become saviours of the realm, so people overlook the past misdeeds
All of these are great stories to be told, that does not diminish the fact that the players have become lawless outcasts. And the players can still have fun participating in the stories, it’s not just a punishment, just their players having to deal with the situation they caused as part of their adventures.
This is the outline of how you deal with murder hobos in a realistic way. Read on for some good advice on how to play this in practice.
Capture or kill
The players have gotten a reputation, and hunters start looking for them. Now, the story should not end here. The players should realise what their options are. They can fight some of the threats, but eventually encounter an overwhelming force.
As long as the players are not reckless, they should be caught alive by their hunters rather than killed. Then the players can make an attempt to escape their captivity one way or the other. If they are not skillful enough to sneak or manipulate their way out, they might be send on a “suicide mission” instead of execution.
Hunters get bored
Don’t overdo the hunters. You probably have a world with a lot of conflict, monsters and bandits lurk, maybe the neighbouring country is looking to invade. Powerful characters and military units have other things to do than chasing the murderer of some pesant.
If the murderers flee from the hunters, they should eventually give up and move on. The hunters might have some resources available to track the murderers like dogs or magic. But again, they have other things to do, and they might not want to call in favours with every mage they know to track the murderers down.
On the other hand, should the murderers ever go completely out of hand – murder several rich or powerful people, murder a whole village – that’s a different story. A lord or king might see the party as an enemy faction, and declare a war on them. In this case, the hunt will continue for months, and no resource will be spared to hunt and defeat them.
If the murder hobos start killing again, they will have to deal with the consequences again. The solution list works for past murders, most solutions do not allow players to murder new people with no consequence.
I’ve made a cardgame for teaching, which has been quite successful among my students.
The main idea is simple: Players ask each other the questions on the cards. If the answer is correct they score points, if it is wrong they take a point of damage instead.
But there are some details which make this game more suitable for teaching than games like Trivial Pursuit.
First off, the game is played in teams with 2-4 players. Every time a team ask a question to the other, they also randomly choose a player on the answering team, using a dice. And the team only get full points (usually 2) if the chosen player answer the question, without help from his team. If the team help, they only get 1 point.
The game is designed to engage every student by randomly giving them the option of earning extra points for the team. This ensures that even students who find the subject difficult will not just give up immediately.
There is a time limit of 1 minute to get the answer correct. So if a team cannot answer within the time limit (or give a wrong answer), they take the point of damage.
You can play with a limited amount of cards, if you either have a hard time coming up with enough questions for the subject, or if you want to give the cards as student rewards during teaching. When all cards have been played, the team with the most points win. A team can also win by gaining total of 8 points, and a team will lose if they take 4 points of damage.
Damage is not “negative points”, they don’t cancel each other out. This is important to remember, becuase the game is designed to end after 20 minutes, since teams will either reach 8 points or 4 damage by that time.
The designer of “Cards of Knowledge” (in Danish “Fagets Mestre”) is Bo Paivinen Ullersted. All rights reserved.
Classcraft er et system med en enorm evne til at engagere de “tunge” elever, der ellers sjældent deltager aktivt. Her er mine slides til præsentation af den gamificerede system.
Selvom jeg tidligere har præsenteret Classcraft både i indlæg her på bloggen, og i mine foredrag, har jeg nu skrevet et nyt overblik. Det er baseret på den online session der fandt sted i maj 2020, hvor jeg samlet alle de mange spørgsmål deltagerne havde om Classcraft – og de andre metoder.
Motivationskrisen i det danske uddannelsessystem er ret godt dokumenteret i form af en bog med bidrag fra flere pædagogiske forskere (“Unges motivation og læring”). Det er et helt reelt problem, at det står skidt til med elevernes motivation – og til tider også med deres trivsel.
Desværre kan vi ikke regne med nogen løsning til gymnasierne fra forskernes side, hverken i kraft af deres samarbejde med pædagogikum (kursus-året for nye undervisere), med ministerierne eller gennem deres oplæg på “pædagogiske dage”.
Problemet er, at pædagogik (i hvert fald som den formidles af de danske pædagogiske forskere) har et overvældende funktions-orienteret fokus. Det hele handler hvordan elever lærer bedst, forudsat at de villigt og entusiastisk gør præcis hvad de bliver bedt om.
Desværre er den største udfordring som underviser netop at få eleverne til at deltage villigt og entusiastisk.
Dette er helt ukontroversielt blandt undervisere. Det er også almen kendt at elevernes karakterer og udbytte af undervisningen i meget høj grad afgøres af deres arbejdsindsats, endda mere end af deres intellektuelle potentiale. Flere elever har et “talent” for at tænke på den måde et fag kræver, men får alligevel et middelmådigt udbytte af faget pga. dårlig indsats. Og tydeligst ser man det på de svageste elever – de dårligste resultater opnås næsten udelukkende på baggrund af manglende indsats i undervisningen.
Et andet ord for at deltage entusiastisk er at være motiveret. Og når vi nu står netop i en motivationskrise, så burde alle danske pædagogiske forskere være optaget af at tilegne sig og anvende al eksisterende viden om netop motivation.
Desværre er de danske pædagogiske forskere helt uinteresserede i motivation. Deres forskning ender altid med at have motivations-delen som et rent postulat. I hvert falde når den bliver præsenteret for os undervisere.
Det antages, at det er motiverende for eleverne at arbejde projektorienteret. Det antages, at tværfagligt samarbejde er motiverende. Det antages, at klare mål for modulet og detaljeret feedback er motiverende.
Men modsat “læringsudbyttet” ses motivationen ikke som vigtig nok til at måle på, eller bare analysere ud fra eksisterende forskning – forskerens eller teoretikernes egne fordomme om elevernes motivation menes at være tilstrækkelige.
I protest mod denne ubrugelige mentalitet, har jeg gennem flere år sat motivation i centrum for min undervisning. Gennem konceptet “Gamification i Undervisningen” har jeg udviklet flere undervisningsmetoder ud fra et menneske-orienteret fokus. Hvor det er helt OK at tingene bliver en smule mere komplicerede eller langsomme, hvis eleverne til gengæld er entusiastiske.
Hele denne metode er forskningsbaseret. Ikke baseret på pædagogiske forskere uden respekt for motivation, men derimod på forskningsbaserede psykologiske teorier om motivation: BJ Fogg “B=MAP”, Nir Eyal “Hook model”, Mihaly Csíkszentmihályi “Flow Theory”, Daniel Kahneman “Thinking: Fast and Slow”, Deci og Ryan “Self Determination Theory”, Jane McGonigal med flere. Med stor brug af et overordnet teoretisk framework for motivation: Yu-kai Chou “Octalysis”.
Til sidst vil jeg gentage, at mit udgangspunkt for kritikken af den danske pædagogiske forskning handler om hvad der bliver formidlet videre af denne forskning til gymnasiets undervisere. Måske vil enkelte pædagogiske forskere føle sig urimeligt angrebet, og pege på referencer til motivationsforskning i deres egne værker. Men kritikken handler netop om, at motivationsforskning aldrig anses for vigtigt nok til at kommunikere videre til underviserne. Hvilket er et fundamentalt problem for undervisningen i de danske gymnasier, idet underviserne ikke får viden om motivation fra de eneste forskere der inviteres til at tale om undervisning.
Det viser sig også, at det danske pædagogiske landskab ikke er fuldstændig tørlagt for motivationsteori. Nogle heldige undervisere er stødt på selvdetermineringsteori, på Noemi Katznelson, Dorte Ågård eller Skaalvik i deres pædagogikum. Så det er skam muligt at kombinere pædagogik og motivationsteori. Det skal bare prioriteres i pædagogikum, således at hver eneste kandidat støder på teorier om motivation. I flertal. For man kunne jo heller ikke forestille sig at pædagogikum kandidater kun blev serveret for en enkelt teori om pædagogik og læring.
Og det selvom pædagogik ikke er svaret på gymnasiets krise.
Jeg er super glad for at kunne samarbejde med Theo Thy, som har designet et læringsspil til engelsk undervisningen i gymnasiet.
Spillet Team Time Travel bygger på korte øvelser fra undervisningen, hvor elever skal svare på ret “skæve” spørgsmål. Ideen er naturligvis at de bliver presset ud i nogle uvante situationer, og måske også bliver nødt til at anvende nogle engelske ord og begreber de sjældent bruger.
Disse udfordringer bliver så grundstenen i et spil, hvor elever dyster imod hinanden i klumper af tre hold. Hver udfordring stilles til to af holdene, hvor det tredje hold så agere dommere, og skal vælge den bedste løsning.
Reglerne er så designet på en genial måde, hvor man for at vinde spillet skal spille på både den sjoveste og fagligt mest givende måde. Bedømmelseskriterierne er nemlig at spillerne taler engelsk, har en kreativ løsning, og inddrager flest muligt af deres holdkammerater.
Hvis jeg skal tage analyse-brillerne på, scorer spillet højt på en lang række motivationstyper – her bruger jeg navngivningen fra Octalysis. Der er konkurrencen imod de andre, og samarbejdet på holdet (CD5 social indflydelse og relationer). Kreativitet (CD3) er et krav for at vinde, og der er nysgerrighed (CD7) omkring hvad den næste udfordring bliver – både fordi det er ukendt, men især fordi udfordringerne er så skæve og varierede. Desuden er det altid en success-oplevelse (CD2) at få points, fordi det per definition er udfordrende. Man skal jo gøre det bedre end sine modstandere, så hvert point er en sejr.
Jeg er også ret begejstret for fleksibiliteten i spillet, idet man kan vælge en varighed på 20-30 min. eller et helt modul. Eller også kan man inddrage spillet i et forløb om en tidsperiode, hvor det så spilles i slutningen af op til 5 moduler i forløbet.
Spillet er stadig nyt, da Theo pga. perioden med virtuel undervisning endnu ikke har kunnet afprøve det på eleverne. Men han har god erfaring med flere af udfordringerne, så det bliver nok kun bedre af at udvide det til et spil.
“Joining the Yang Gang literally ended my depression”.
There are many similar stories of people who become much happier when they join the Yang Gang. But why is it that simply becoming part of a presidential campaign can affect your mental state?
The answer is that the Yang Gang is using “White Hat” motivation which makes you happier. Many other things in your daily life use “Black Hat” motivation instead, making you dissatisfied.
Knowing this, we can also figure out which mental health effects that the Freedom Dividend (UBI) will have.
Agents of depression – Black Hat motivation
We get the answer from the Octalysis Framework of human motivation. More specifically the Octagon, a model of the 8 Core Drives which are the sources of all motivation.
This model states that not all sources of motivation are healthy, in fact an overexposure to Black Hat Core Drives will first cause stress, then eventually burnout (which can result in mild or severe depression).
There are many things in our everyday lives which motivate us by Black Hat Core Drives – those in the bottom of the octagon shape.
The Core Drive (CD) called Scarcity and Impatience is used by shops to make you buy their products. If there are only a few items for sale (often the case for hotel rooms, airplane tickets), then there is a scarcity of items, and you think twice before rejection the offer.
In the same way, every time limited offer trigger your impatience. You don’t want to wait until the offer come around next time (especially if it’s a once in a year offer).
Another Black Hat CD called Unpredictability and Curiosity. Curiosity is constantly driving us to use social media, or watch TV series, or even check news sites compulsively.
It’s unpredictability that makes gambling fun – and addictive.
Finally, the “blackest” of the CD’s is Fear of Loss and Avoidance. Got a deadline at work? That’s fear of loss. Not speaking up in class because of potential humiliation? Also fear of loss. Spending several minutes waiting in line to the elevator instead of taking the stairs a few floors up? That’s probably avoidance.
Remember that it isn’t the things we DO that are black hat. We get stress and burnout because of WHY we do those things.
White Hat – the Power of Games
Fortunately, not all motivation is Black Hat. The other kind is White Hat Core drives. And they REDUCE our stress and anxiety levels.
You can think of this as eating, white hat CD’s are the healthy fruits and vegetables, while black hat is overly processed food, poor in nutrients and full of fat and sugar.
There healthy CD’s has been discovered through gamification – looking at the power games has to make us motivated, engaged and happy. And sometimes reality is as good as a game.
Epic Meaning of the Yang Gang
The first White Hat CD is called Epic Meaning and Calling. So the point about Epic Meaning is that you contribute to something that is greater than yourself.
So let me explain why joining the Yang Gang has proved such a healing experience for some.
The vision of making the United States a better place is a meaningful cause – beyond the individual.
Ambitious goals like eliminating poverty makes the vision more epic.
As Andrew Yang trusts the Yang Gang to win the presidency – you don’t just cheer for a campaign, you ARE the campaign.
Being in a place where your actions contribute to an epic goal, that would transform the lives of ordinary people for the better – that’s the experience that every game tries to create. Because it ensure people that their lives and actions matter – and gives them a purpose.
While Epic Meaning is by far the most powerful White Hat motivation of the Yang Gang, it’s not the only one.
Empowerment of Creativity and Feedback has the same power to provide happiness.
You get a small dose of creativity each time you write a Twitter message. And you get a small dose of Feedback when watching the the likes, retweets and replies to the message.
However, to unlock the true power of Creativity, you have to be a content creator. Make memes, record YouTube videos, do infographics or write blogs.
Take a great effort in creating something, and you will be rewarded with happiness.
Especially if people engage with your creations, and provide positive feedback for your next project.
Take care of yourself
In conclusion, being Yang Gang is a positive thing. However, the Black Hat motivations are still present.
Obsessively monitoring Twitter and other social media sites from Curiosity can bring you down. Especially if you keep engaging in unwinnable discussions with stubborn users (there are a lot of those on the internet…)
The most dangerous thing is fear of loosing. If you ever find yourself acting out of fear that Yang would lose – take a step back and relax. Then think of all the positive effects that the policies of Yang will have.
Finally, if anyone post on social media about “how Yang will lose” if you don’t act right now – you have to tell them off!
Humanity first of cause. They probably mean well, they just have zero knowledge of how motivation works. You give them the data.
In many ways, the Yang2020 political campaign aka the Yang Gang is extremely different from other campaigns. For one, it doesn’t run on name recognition, political alliances or big donors at all, it is a grassroots campaign. But it’s not just any grassroots campaign, it is an extremely powerful movement, which has only reached a fraction of it’s potential numbers.
Being part of the Yang Gang as a European for Yang has taught me a lot of lessons about my subject of interest: motivation. And I believe I got some golden insights into the nature of powerful once-in-a-generation movements.
What does success look like?
I’m sure you want to know why Yang Gang has the power to be comparable with the great civil rights movements and other once in a generation movements. And why it greatly surpasses both the Sanders2016 and MAGA campaigns.
Here is 9 power indicators of the Yang Gang, of which only a few are true of Sanders or Trump followers.
From zero to hero:
Andrew Yang went from zero name recognition and no elected office to consistently polling at 5th or 6th in the democratic primaries of around 20 candidates (all of which have had a top political career). Fundraising is also at 5th or 6th, and Yang has qualified for every democratic debate (all data as of late November 2019).
Many conversions of “enemies”:
Imagine that someone say that they have only ever voted Republican, but they will vote for Yang over Trump, and even register democrat to vote in the primary.
Well, this happens almost daily on Twitter with new people.
Polls also consistently show that Yang would be the best or second best candidate for turning Trump followers in a general election.
Most other candidates choose one core ideological group that they engage, either democratic moderates or progressives.
Yang is unique in that the Yang Gang consist of both moderates, progressives, libertarians, conservatives and ex-MAGA.
Energy of followers:
The Yang Gang is extremely energetic. They produce huge amounts of memes, infographics and other stuff to share on social media.
Or watch a Yang rally on YouTube – contrast with any other political rally, and observe the difference in enthusiasm and energy.
Discipline of followers:
From trending hashtags on Twitter, winning online polls and app competitions, to reaching fundraising goals, the Yang Gang self-organise to do what is needed.
Or take the TV clips with Yang interviewed with Yang Gang around him – who stay completely silent until he is done speaking, then break out in cheers.
Smaller actions on the ground are also self-organised along with accommodation for the people who want to come to an early voting state, and stay for canvassing.
From what I have read from canvassers, phone and text bankers, it seems like the reactions they get from contacting people are a lot more positive than what other political campaigns get. People are genuinely interested in Yang Gang.
Huge conversion rate:
I only have indirect evidence for this, but my impression is that whenever a person hears about Yang and his policies, he or she is very likely to join the Yang Gang soon after. This is in contrast to every other candidate in the primary.
Out of all candidates, the followers of Yang are least likely to change their vote to any other candidate. This has been confirmed by several polls.
Yang was just confirmed as the most likeable (or “least unlikeable”) of all democratic candidates, meaning that supporters of other candidates view him with respect and not hostility.
Success despite the media:
The Yang Gang has not gotten anything for free. Yang got the least amount of speaking time at the debates of all qualified candidates. He also had the worst ratio of TV coverage to polling result (times mentioned per polling percent point) of any candidate. With such a low level of interest/support from the TV stations, it is a show of strength to stay at 5th to 6th place in the 20 candidate race.
The reason for greatness
So what are the secrets of the Yang Gang? Using my knowledge of the Octalysis framework for motivation, I got a pretty good idea about which characteristics are key to the success of the movement.
You need to keep in mind that Yang got 150 policies fleshed out, so he has had to prioritise what his message would be. Which is true for a lot of campaigns or organisations: they have a lot of positions and messages, and have to decide what they will put at center stage.
If you are unfamiliar with the framework, here is a key to interpret the Core Drive abbrevations:
CD1: Epic meaning/calling, CD2: Development/accomplishment, CD3: Creativity/feedback. CD4: Ownership/possession, CD5: Social relatedness, CD6: Scarcity/impatience, CD7: Unpredictability/curiosity, CD8: Loss/avoidance.
The first part is about the central message of the Yang2020 campaign – why is it so powerful?
It is hard to create a movement about something that has been seen and tried before. Automation as threat, and Universal Basic Income as solution are surprising messages for a political campaign. There is curiosity, but there is also the unpredictability – anything new might have potential to change everything.
Dystopian now, utopian future:
Any movement need to engage supporters urgently by communicating how bad the current situation is, and that it’s spiralling out of control. But to avoid burn-out, there need to be a positive vision that the movement can prevent the catastrophe, and bring about a bright and wonderful future. This is a CD8/CD1 combo.
A hidden but obvious threat.
In Andrew Yang’s case the threat is “job loss to automation”. I think every movement need to go against a threat that is being under-reported in the news and under-discussed by politicians. But at the same time so obvious that most people will agree when you point it out – it is in agreement with their everyday experience.
Condemn structures, not people
Some campaigns (Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump) manage to do well by being “them vs. us”, identifying their enemies as “capitalists”, “billionaires” or “the swamp”. But a truly engaging movement tone down the idea of competition, partisanship or violent strife (which is black-hat CD5).
This open the movement up to many people who would be put off by a very confrontational “you are with us or you are against us” message. Example in point: political movements for change (like democratic reform) perform better (higher chance of success) when they stay non-violent rather than take up arms. It is easier to attract people to your movement when you hold the moral high ground.
Truth and facts on our side.
The campaign message is always being presented with data, which is a great way of making it more believable. Yang knows the data by heart. When he is unafraid to enter honestly into debates, and talk data rather than opinion, it cements the impression that you are fighting for Truth on top of the other fights. Very CD1.
This part is dedicated to the things that Yang does as leader, candidate and public face of the Yang Gang. I do not include more traditional leadership qualities like “well-structured”, only those that directly help him communicate the message of the movement in an effective way.
People have filters that rapidly makes them embrace or reject messages or people. If people can put someone in a category quickly because they fit a stereotype “typical democratic politician”, then they are not likely to actually listen to the message.
Not fitting in to a stereotype makes people curious and willing to listen to Yang.
From not wearing a tie to crowdsurfing, to dancing, Yang break the stereotype of politicians in many ways.
Although Yang has an Ivy League education and sky high IQ, he makes a point of speaking like an average person, leaving out academical and political lingo, and avoiding cliches. One reporter also joked that Yang “needs money for his swear jar” because he is not afraid of swearing on air.
A point Yang often mentions is that he didn’t decide to run for president because he had a dream of becoming president. He is running because he is concerned about the issues, and convinced about the solutions of his campaign.
While other candidates also pick a primary issue and solution, it often seems like the other way around – “I should be president – and these are the issues I am running to fix”.
Yang just always seem honest, and I believe it is because he is exactly that.
Connected to the point of greater purpose, other candidates often seem to dishonestly take any position they believe will win them votes. And downplay any previous positions they held, when those positions are unpopular.
Yang is true to the issues and solutions he believe in, and will not downplay them.
Yang does not avoid hard questions – which is really unusual in politics. People are so used to politicians avoiding to answer questions directly, that a direct answer seems surprising.
The adult in the room:
What Yang manages to do in debates is to come across as the most rational, self-controlled, responsible and constructive participant. And no, he keeps the swearing out of the debates.
While he has criticised Elisabeth Warrens’ billionaire tax, he did that without turning it into a personal attack. In the same way, Yang has often criticised the way other candidates attack Donald Trump or each other. “This does not solve any of the problems on the ground that got Donald Trump elected.”.
He even defended candidate Tom Steyer against attacks at a debate, proving his honesty on this point.
By being the adult, Yang makes the other candidates look like children.
If there is one thing Yang absolutely loves, it is data. For every argument he makes, he cites data to prove his point. He is also not afraid of discussing the data.
This reinforce his honesty – he believes he is right because he got the data to prove it, and he trust that the data will always prove his positions right.
Being open to change policies if proven wrong by data is part of this.
Whenever Yang speaks, it is with a “we’re in this together”, “we need to fix the system” tone. He avoid to respond with a combative tone when getting critical or even unfair questions, and he especially avoids an “us vs. them” narrative.
Even though he often singles out Jeff Bezos (because Amazon paid zero federal taxes last year), he doesn’t demonize him. An example of this is when he mentions that Jeff will also receive the 1000$ Freedom Dividend “just to remind him that he is an American”.
With the strong points of the message and Andrew Yang himself covered, here are finally the strong points that relates to the structure of the campaign.
Social connectedness, social proof.
I think this is the most addictive movement I have been part of, mainly due to it’s huge social presence on Twitter. When you read many messages in support of the movement every day, it galvanise you, and encourage you to make your own contribution.
Yang Gang is very good at promoting “remember to follow other blue hats (Yang Gang)” – this leads to many messages about Yang Gang stuff every day.
Also, Yang Gang can ratio (out-number) any tweet critical of Yang, which is very encouraging and great social proof every time.
The followers are the campaign
In Andrew Yang’s words: “The Yang Gang has the job of winning me the presidency. My job is to make your job easier – by being the best candidate I can be.” It could not be communicated any more clearly that being Yang Gang is not a spectator sport. Being engaged in something happens mostly when you take action, not when you simply watch passively.
And there is always something to do on Twitter: hashtags to trend, news to share, attacks to defend against.
Decentralized There are very few commands given from Yang or the campaign manager. The main campaign (paid staff) also seem to have more of a supporting role (opening offices, making and buying adds, booking events), leaving much of the organizing to the volunteer Yang Gang.
If people in the movement engage in creative acts, it will inspire others engage in the movement – and to do their own creative acts.
A clear goal and obvious sub-goals.
Winning the presidency for Andrew Yang is very well-defined, and has a limited time-frame. It leans to well-defined sub-goals (fundraising, poll results, qualifying for debates, winning early states). This is of cause true of any political campaign, but these kinds of goals would be missing for many social, environmental or religious movements.
So I believe that these insights will be very valueable in my own project: the Teachers National Network for Gamification of Teaching. I hope they will also be useful to you.
Kan de nationale tests overhovedet blive en succes?
Den nye regering har på baggrund af massiv kritik afskaffet de nationale tests – for de mindre skolebørn. Men eleverne i de store klasser i folkeskolen skal stadig afholde en ændret version af testene.
At de nationale tests i deres nuværende form er en katastrofe for elevernes motivation, kan du læse i mit tidligere indlæg Testregimets sabotage af motivationen. Så hvad skal der ændres for at det kan blive godt nok?
Lad os starte med formålet med de nationale tests. Tests er ikke en måde at undervise eleverne på, for formålet med at afvikle en test er ikke at give eleverne ny viden. De er en evalueringsform, deres formål er at give information til underviserne, til skolen, til staten og til eleverne selv om deres faglige niveau. Denne information skal helst være så specifik så mulig, så man kan finde tilbage til hvor de store huller i viden er, både på landsplan, skole-, klasse- og individplan.
Problemet er så at en test kan enten hæmme eller styrke elevernes faglige selvtillid og motivation til at deltage i undervisningen i de efterfølgende år – et faktum der fuldstændigt er ignoreret i de nuværende tests. Da elevernes evne til at løse faglige opgaver er direkte afhængig af deres faglige selvtillid (ifølge Skaalvik), er det et betydelig selvmål.
Idet tests ikke er en undervisningsform, skal de ikke vurderes ud fra teorier om læring. Derimod er det oplagt at vurdere testen på dens evne til at synliggøre og fremhæve elevernes fremskridt, et væsentligt element i motivation ifølge både Octalysis og Skaalvik.
Som jeg før har nævnt i Vi skal ikke have 13-skalaen tilbage vil den gennemsnitlige elev gøre store fremskridt fra 3. til 9. klasse, men ikke kunne se det på sine karakterer. De bliver normalt på samme niveau, og nogen gange vil de endda falde.
I stedet for at opleve motivationen i at sammenligne sin præstation med sit eget tidligere niveau, er eleven tvunget til at sammenligne sig med andre, hvilket kun er motiverende for de bedste.
Af den grund skal testen ikke give eleverne et resultat som en karakter. Det er ikke bedre at give eleverne resultatet som en procentsats af antal rigtige, hvis prøvens sværhedsgrad stiger i takt med elevens niveau, og fremskridtet på den måde usynliggøres.
Nej, den korrekte metode er for det første at vise eleven pointtallet, og for det andet at sikre sig at det stiger i takt med elevens fremskridt – gerne endnu hurtigere. Så kan eleverne blive motiveret af at sammenligne deres nye resultater med deres tidligere – hvilket skal være nemt at gøre når de får vist resultatet.
En bedre test i praksis
En måde at få pointtallet til at vokse på er at give opgaverne points efter absolut sværhedsgrad. Lad os for eksempel sige at den samme opgave stilles i testen til både 6., 7., og 8. klasse. Forventningen er at opgaven kun kan løses af de bedste elever i 6. klasse (svær opgave), af middel-eleverne i 7. klasse (middel opgave) og af næsten alle elever i 8. klasse (let opgave). Men i alle tilfælde giver opgaven 10 points, uanset om eleven tager testen i 6., 7., eller 8. klasse. Derfor giver det sig selv at eleven opnår større og større pointtal over tid.
Hvis det er teknisk svært at gennemføre, findes der en mere simpel metode. Elevens besvarelse opgøres først som en procentsats af maksimalt antal points. Denne procentsats bliver så ganget med en sværhedsgrad, der stiger for hver test. En passende stigning kunne være +20% for en kvartal-test, eller mellem +50% og +100% for en årlig test.
Jeg har selv anvendt metoden til at give elever evalueringer af deres skriftlige opgaver, se Når eleverne bliver eksperter i fysikrapporter. Her blev pointtallet præsenteret på følgende måde, så det var oplagt at sammenligne med tidligere resultater:
At eleverne kan se fremskridt, vil i sig selv gøre testene mere motiverende, måske nok til at de ikke længere er demotiverende for flertallet af elever.
Men det kan gøres endnu bedre ved at tillade eleven at gentage testen. En af de store årsager til at tests og eksaminer er angstprovokerende, er at de ikke kan tages om.
At testen tages om betyder ikke at de tidligere data slettes, så det modarbejder ikke formålet om at måle elevernes niveau.
Men når testen tages om kan det have indflydelse på den præsentation, der vises til eleven. “Højeste pointtal” og “Seneste pointtal” bør fremhæves for eleven, da de giver største fornemmelse af succes og dermed motivation.
Når testen gøres åben for gentagelse kan det ligefrem give anledning til at eleven lærer noget, idet mange vil ønske at slå deres “high-score”, og derfor være interesserede i at rette deres tidligere fejl og misforståelser.
På den måde bør underviseren også lade det komme eleven til gode i karaktervurderingen at vedkommende er gået tilbage og har rettet sine fejl. Hvis underviseren i det hele taget ønsker at anvende testen i sin vurdering.
Med disse simple ændringer vil de nationale tests kunne ændres fra et meningsløst og demotiverende element, til noget der måske endda kan hjælpe med elevernes motivation.