In this third week, we (literally) ran the Planet Distance lesson for our in-school PE classes, and even though it is a very simple lesson with virtually no equipment needed, the students still really enjoy the lesson. However, what was possibly more impressive was the lesson that we did with our at-home students learning virtually. The lesson that I always use to start the year is based on understanding sportsmanship, and it is a team-based activity. However, with all the students being home, that lesson does not work, but I still wanted to encourage some type of sportsmanship or teamwork style game to start the year. I was able to reuse an older lesson and apply it to video conferencing, and it worked very well! Here is the lesson plan for Teamwork with the Public Goods Game (At-Home Edition), which can also be found on our free resources section of the website.

Teamwork with Public Goods Game

Teaching At-Home Edition

 

 Introduction:

 A question many teachers may be having is “how can I teach teamwork to my students over Zoom?”

With our students not being in the same room, same gym, not even close to the same location, how are students supposed to interact in an authentic way when they are not getting all the non-verbal feedback? It is hard enough to teach sportsmanship and teamwork, (which is actually a type of Grace and Courtesy) but now it has to be done virtually. I believe a major reason that sportsmanship is so hard to teach to students is because the concept is actually very hard to understand. Most students know how to show good sportsmanship, or know what poor sportsmanship looks like, but few students can articulate what is sportsmanship? A core component of sportsmanship is being able to play on a team.

To teach teamwork virtually, we need to emphasize the idea of the “public good,” which I believe has enough similarities with sportsmanship that we can make comparisons between the two concepts. This is a game based off the “Public Goods Game.” In the traditional setting, each team gets an equitable amount of points to hoard or donate to a “community pot.” The points in the community pot are multiplied and distributed equally among the teams. If a team does not donate to the community pot, they will probably “win” the round because they still receive the payout from the community pot. However, by not contributing, they are a drain on all the other teams. If every team contributes all their points every time, the potential points every team would receive is truly maximized (because all the points would be subject to getting multiplied).

The version of the Public Goods Game that we play does not have an initial equitable point distribution because the individual will earn their points through an athletic endeavor or skill. At the end, it is revealed to the students that they were not competing against each other, but the actual goal is to score the most points possible. If someone takes this to mean the most points for themselves individually instead of the most points for the team, the individual may flourish, but the team suffers. This idea is for how teamwork and sportsmanship go hand in hand.

 

 

Materials: 

·      A large open space (such as a gym or field)

·      Something that can be used for juggling. It can either be handkerchiefs or tennis balls if they are using their hands, or it can soccer balls or hacky sacks if done with the feet.

                  

 

Prior Knowledge: This can be an introductory lesson done in the beginning of the year, or it can be used at any time when it seems appropriate to talk about sportsmanship or teamwork.

 

 

Presentation 

1.     Decide whether this game will be played by juggling with the hands, or done by keeping a ball in the air with the feet. This could be pre-decided or voted on before the lesson starts.

2.     Tell the students that the objective of the game is to create the most points possible. Many students will take this to mean that the player with the highest score wins, but that is not the actual objective. Creating the most points possible requires maximum donation from every player so all the points are subject to the multiplier, thereby creating the highest score. We will see if the students realize this during the game.

3.     The goal of each round is to get as many juggles in a row as possible. The students will have five minutes to get the highest number of juggles they can. The attempts are not summed together; the best number of juggles is the score at the end of the round.

4.     Once the round is over, the instructor will ask each player their best score, and this should be done privately through the chat function of Zoom or Skype. The instructor will then ask each player how many of those points they would like to donate to the “public good.” This is also done quietly through the private chat function; players should not converse and find out what the others are doing.

a.     The “public good” pot is the donated points from every player. The public pot is multiplied, and then the product is distributed evenly amongst all the players regardless of whether a player donated or not.

5.     The player tells the instructor their best score. Then they tell the instructor how many points they want to donate. The instructor subtracts that from the player total. This is repeated with each player. Then the sum of the points in the community pot are multiplied, and then distributed equally amongst all the players. Finally, the instructor will announce each person’s points earned, the number of points donated, and the final score. Make sure not to say that any player won the round! The students may believe that a player won the round, but as the instructor, you can echo that a player earned the most points, but that is not a condition of victory.

6.     This game should have at least six rounds:

a.     Community pot with a 1.5x multiplier

b.    Community pot with a 1.5x multiplier (repeat from last one so that they now are familiar with the game)

c.     Community pot with a 2x multiplier

d.    Community pot with a 3x multiplier

e.     Community Pot and a Punishment with a 3x multiplier

f.      Community Pot and a Punishment with a 3x multiplier (repeat again)

                                              i.     A punishment is a point that is paid to reduce the score of another player. The multiplier multiplies the point(s) used as punishment.

7.     Now that the whole game is over, have a discussion of the game theory. If you are only watching out for yourself, the best way to play is to never contribute to the community pot. If everyone contributes all their points, everyone would reap the maximum total benefit because every point would be multiplied. If someone uses points to punish someone, they are taking potential away from the team to encourage (or force) someone to contribute. However, this is rarely a good option in the long run, as it generates animosity and may cause future punishments back and forth between players. Hopefully we can see the parallel of how some players will criticize others with the intention of getting them to play better, but often times this backfires and causes people to withdraw and become angry.

8.      Remind the students that the objective of the game is to create the most points possible, not the individual getting the highest total. Winning a round was never the objective of the game; getting the most points possible as a whole was the winning condition of the game, which can only be done by all teams donating all of their points.

9.     There are many ways that we can use this as a launching point for rich discussion. We should talk about how this relates to sportsmanship, especially teamwork. When everyone, regardless of ability, contributes their maximum potential to the group (or the team), this is the way to summon the best outcome for the entire group. When individual players are more concerned about their individual performance instead of the performance of the team, this hurts the whole team’s overall performance. This can be hidden when an individual is so exceptional that they can “single-handedly” beat another team, but if that exceptional individual and their team runs into another team with an exceptional player, but they have better teamwork, the team with better teamwork will win.

10.  This game can be used as a comparison to a human body where the individual player is a cell or tissue. A group of players is like an organ or the full organism. When all cells, tissues, and organs maximally contribute to the public good, the whole organism is at it’s healthiest. When there is a tissue or even organ that will not contribute, the whole organism will suffer. This can be compared to a parasitic invader or cancer that is taking resources without providing any. When compared to financial markets, this can be compared to those who collapsed the financial market in 2008 for their own gain, and hurt everyone else in the process. When discussing government styles, this could be used to talk about the differences between communism and capitalism. A perfect communistic society would share all resources equally amongst every individual, but this has never happened in reality, and usually devolves into a defacto dictatorship. People would also argue that exceptional people have their resources taken from them and given to others, which inherently is not fair. With capitalism, we will have players who will do better than others, which could be compared to wealth. Questions arise like: What will “wealthier” players do with their “money?” Will they not contribute any of it, and still take from the community pot, which would represent the worst aspects of capitalism (like people and mega corporations that pay no taxes)? Will a wealthy person contribute a large portion to the community, but keep enough points that they feel comfortable with their score, thereby helping others while still being satisfied with what they have? Will they give it all away and be maximally altruistic? Is it reasonable for people to expect the very rich to give away all their money, and is it reasonable for someone who has incredible wealth not to share it? All these questions (and more) could arise in very rich conversation based on how the game is played.

 

Aims:

Direct:    For the students to understand how valuing the individual over the group does not lead to team success.

Indirect:  

     Listening to directions

                Teamwork and team building

                 Critical Thinking

                 Character building

 

 Physical skills practiced: 

·      Juggling a sports ball or juggling something with the hands

 

Control Of Error: 

How many juggles successfully happen until the ball hits the ground is one of the controls of error. The instructor will act as the other by recording the scores so the students will not have to remember every game.

 

Points of Interest: The students will be in a dilemma every game on how they choose to share points into the “public good.” The students cannot help but consider the actions of the other teams, and as soon as one team does not contribute, this has a cascading effect. As the multipliers increase and punishments and rewards are added, the teams have new incentives to work together. But the big question is, “Will they?”

 

Age: All Ages