Game Theory – possible model to gain “Cloud Wisdom”

“Students with Questions” interact with the MATERIALS and with the COMMUNITY CLOUD to develop and demonstrate COMPETENCIES displayed through AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT.

Advisors and alumni populate the CLOUD – online faculty assess alumni contribution and award “SNHU Creds”.
Alumni / other community members get – 5 “SNHU Creds” per “helpful” comment

Students are “granted” 60 questions per course – if they come in below that, they get SNHU question credit (see below)

Students who graduate (course or program) with questions remaining (think: Lives left) get SNHU question Credit
– $10 per question or partial credit towards subsequent courses – (think: retention element)
Students who clear competencies in ANY time frame get full academic credits (think: cleared Level x – Go to Next level)

Alumni responding to student issues get 5 SNHU Creds per response
Alumni who act as Graders get 20 SNHU Creds per assignment that they grade.

  • When an Alum accumulates 100 SNHU Creds (s)he can cash them in for $50 or 0.1 “retrain credits” – towards a future (free) course that will keep them current in their field. 0.1 x 30 (or 3000 Creds) = FREE 3-credit course.
  • When an Alum accumulates 10,000 Creds = guaranteed teaching appointment*.
    They have at this stage at least proven they are very responsive and can help students in the course(s).
    * If they meet department hiring guidelines 

  • Builds alumni community, allows them to give back, helps build faculty pool

3 thoughts on “Game Theory – possible model to gain “Cloud Wisdom”

  1. The “game” element here is great, but you need to consider the possible perverse incentives–such as money that might discourage students from asking enough questions, or rewards for alumnus to “grade” which might make them be too nice (or too nasty I suppose depending on who they were!).

    • Thanks for the feedback This model assumes that *one* motivation is teaching students to be self-sufficient – we will develop a comprehensive FAQ and will encourage students to try at least a few options (think “Millionaire” – phone a friend, poll the (wisdom of the) crowd…) before they ask the expert. No-one would be penalized for asking extra questions but I thought just the teeny dis-incentive to asking the more perfunctory questions if/when the answers may be right there, might be a good idea.

      The Graders in this kind of system are piece work and have less incentive to grade inflate than, say, traditional (bundled) faculty whose student evals may be affected by strict grading.

      This does need work but I am encouraged to keep trying cross-over theories to get students who can concentrate for HOURS at a time on gaming to extend their attention span in an educational context. How people will “game” the system is certainly something we need to think carefully of – perverse incentives – great terminology BTW

  2. Love the idea. This is what we are observing on OpenStudy. There are no “faculty” or “alums” and no $ or Credits other than peer credits. It is amazing how peer credits, or the reputation you build through interactions in your peer community drives our young gamers to help, answer questions and ask questions. RIght motives. Right actions and great end results! Game on!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s