Applying game theory to teaching practices
A while ago, I attended an economics seminar in the area of game theory where a very interesting gentleman presented his research on simple design mechanisms. The presentation centered on how people make strategic decisions with the central idea being that in a two-person game, person one’s optimal decision is based on his beliefs about person two. Simultaneously, person two’s decision is based on their beliefs about person one. If this is true, then to truly be strategic, person one should make decisions based on their beliefs about person two and their beliefs regarding person two’s belief about them. Admittedly, it gets rather complicated very quickly (hence the need for a simple mechanism), but the idea of making a decision based on other people’s beliefs of my beliefs stuck with me.
Instructors engage in a two-person game every day: the student-teacher dynamic, but to what degree do the instructor’s decisions take into account student’s belief about the instructor’s actions? I find myself asking this question more and more when designing course material.
I know what I would like my students to learn, so I design my course to ensure they learn these things (this is my belief). Students, in turn, decide whether or not to do the work and learn from these course materials, and they do so by asking if the materials are of benefit to them either in the short run (here in the course and as such limited to a grade effect) or in the long run (in future classes or after graduation when trying to get or are already at a future job) — this is their belief. If the game theory approach is indeed a strategically optimal outcome (which I and the speaker from earlier believe it is), then my decisions on course design cannot rely on my beliefs only but should take into account the beliefs of my students, and most importantly, their beliefs about my beliefs. This last part has to do with whether or not students believe that the class delivery (including but not limited to course design, teaching approach, course workload, assignments, exams, discussions, projects, etc.) is structured to benefit them, and the answer may not be as obvious. It is surprising (to me at least) how often students’ opinion of the instructor affects their motivation, effort, interest, and performance in any given class, and how a comment here or a gesture there could prove to leave a lasting impression (for good or bad). So the instructor’s ability to communicate how important they take the preparation of class is an incredibly useful tool to communicate their beliefs to students.
In order to incorporate this game theory approach in course prep, the following questions have to be asked (and answered):
1. What are my goals for a particular assignment? Is it to elicit a short run grade effect (perhaps as a precursor to an upcoming topic) or a long run effect (retention)?
2. How can I create an assignment that guarantees my goal above?
3. What approach is best to incentivize students to make a strategic decision to take the assignment seriously and then learn from it?
In my bid to adopt this way of thinking, the most important change I have made is walking through each activity with students, letting them know why I think its relevant (updating their beliefs about my beliefs by showing how much thought and effort goes into the creation of the assignment) and highlighting how principles learned from the exercise can be transferred to other classes, future careers, or used in their everyday lives (updating their beliefs). Knowing that this is part of my approach to assigning exercises has led to the creation of some interesting assignments that still address the material, but does so in a way that increases student engagement and retention. Finally, this approach has had quite a fortunate side effects, with feedback from students that is much more constructive, given that they now have a better understanding of the way the class is structured.
