Abstract
A modified version of Monopoly has long been used as a simulation exercise to teach inequality. Versions of Modified Monopoly (MM) have touched on minority status relative to inequality but without an exploration of the complex interaction between minority status and class. This article introduces Gender Stratified Monopoly (GSM), an adaptation that can be added to existing versions of MM as a step toward such a conversation. I draw on written student reflections and observations from five test courses over two years to demonstrate the effectiveness of GSM. Data indicate student recognition of the female status as more economically challenging and less “fair” relative to the male status, with real-world consequences.
On a typical day, the 60-seat classroom holds rows of molded plastic desks filled with students hunched over their cell phones as they wait for class to start. On this day, the room buzzes with activity as a teacher hands out copies of the Parker Brothers board game Monopoly and directs students to form small groups. Some pull desks together to form a tight circle, the writing surfaces creating an uneven, temporary table. Others push chairs out of the way and lounge on the floor; a student in a wheelchair and classmates gather around an accessible desk. The noise level in the room rises to a steady chatter as students set up game boards and select unmarked envelopes stuffed with Monopoly cash and property from the game boxes.
This scene has been common in classrooms for over two decades (Paul, Dodder, and Hart 2004), as teachers address concepts such as social inequality, stratification, and class mobility (hereafter called “inequality”). Students steeped since childhood in the “bootstrap” narrative of meritocracy and individualism are often hostile toward these concepts (Coghlan and Huggins 2004; Fisher 2008; Jessup 2001; McCammon 1999; Waldner and Kinney 2004). Their resistance is not naiveté. College has been touted as the key to economic success, and in some ways it is: In 2014, the unemployment rate among high school graduates (14.7 percent) was twice that of college graduates (7.2 percent) (Institute for College Access & Success n.d.). Most undergraduates (62 percent) work while attending college, primarily in food and other service industries. Slightly less than half (40 percent) work 30+ hours per week, while one-fourth work full-time and attend school full-time. Graduating students battle staggering amounts of debt: In 2014, 69 percent owed nearly $29,000 in student loans (Institute for College Access & Success n.d.). Clearly, students are working hard and gambling time, energy, and wages on the promise of class mobility. The stakes are high, and students are motivated to cling to their belief in the economic power of bootstraps.
Using Monopoly to teach inequality requires modifying the game, and several sociological versions of Modified Monopoly (MM) exist (see Coghlan and Huggins 2004; Fisher 2008; Jessup 2001; Paul et al. 2004; Waldner and Kinney 2004). All versions alter game rules and procedures to more closely mimic real life, making MM a “simulation game”: an activity that illustrates a concept through the alteration of rules and roles to model some aspect of reality (Dorn 1989). Simulation games teach difficult topics through direct experience (Dorn 1989). Although a full discussion of simulation games is beyond the scope of this article (for an excellent analysis, see Dorn 1989), the literature supports the following conclusions: When introduced purposefully, simulation games (1) break up the typical class routine, engaging students (Coghlan and Huggins 2004; Dorn 1989; McCammon 1999); (2) bridge abstract concepts and lived experience, making the abstract accessible (Fisher 2008; Jessup 2001); and (3) have the potential to build student empathy, which is thought to be key in sparking social change (Fischer 2008; Jessup 2001; McCammon 1999; Paul et al. 2004).
Modified Monopoly involves a three-stage process and a considerable commitment of classroom time. In the briefing stage, the teacher sets the stage for game play using any preferred combination of readings, lectures, videos, or activities, explicitly connecting the modified rules to course material (Fisher 2008; Waldner and Kinney 2004). Game play occupies a 50- to 75-minute class, followed by guided, structured debriefing that allows students to “analyze, evaluate and integrate what they have learned” as well as critically evaluate the game, cementing learning (Dorn 1989:11; Fisher 2008). Debriefing can occur through class discussion, in writing, or often through a combination of the two (Coghlan and Huggins 2004; Dorn 1989, Fischer 2008; Jessup 2001). Written reflections allow the teacher to analyze how well the exercise met learning outcomes. Briefing and debriefing are equally as important as game play, and teachers can employ the game in a number of contexts and at varying levels by carefully considering learning outcomes during these stages.
Although some versions do give a nod to minority status (see Fisher 2008; Jessup 2001 in the following), MM has taken a largely one-dimensional approach to inequality by focusing primarily on wealth and income. An intersectional approach, in contrast, would demonstrate the effects of belonging to a particular economic class while also being female, Latin, and so on. A fully intersectional version of MM would, unfortunately, likely become too complex for classroom use; therefore, this article details how teachers can take a first step toward an intersectional model of MM by explicitly gendering the game.
Common Versions of Modified Monopoly
Several versions of MM have been used in sociology classrooms. In “Sociopoly,” Jessup (2001:105) sought to teach social inequality by randomly assigning unequal wealth, status, and privilege to student teams representing “whites, Hispanics, African Americans, and female-householders with no husband present.” Once bankrupt, students “must stand in the corner [of the classroom] until the game is over” (Jessup 2001:105), shaming the failed player. Students are debriefed during class discussion and asked to answer a series of open-ended questions about class inequality. Jessup (2001) reported a range of emotional responses from students: surprise about the level of inequality, anger, and relief from being provided an explanation for the students’ own struggles. A small number felt that the game itself was unfair. Jessup concluded that Sociopoly successfully taught inequality, engaged students, and encouraged empathy.
Coghlan and Huggins (2004) modified Monopoly to teach class inequality and stratification. Students receive a packet containing a game token, decreasing amounts of money based on U.S. census income quintiles, and property for the top two quintiles. Following game play, students record starting and ending assets and complete a set of written reflection questions. Students map their beginning and ending assets in class, illustrating upward and downward class mobility, finding that upward class mobility is rare. Lower quintile players reported negative feelings (frustration, anger), and middle-class or higher players reported positive feelings (happiness, hope). Students wrote that social position had a great deal to do with their chances in the game, showing that the exercise was successful in teaching students about the influences of social structure on individual success (Coghlan and Huggins 2004).
Waldner and Kinney (2004) involved students in applying sociological theory to deconstruct traditional, taken-for-granted game rules such as wealth-dependent “winning” to arrive at a revised rule set. In practice, student-generated rules align with other MM games: Players represent different social classes with decreasing amounts of income, wealth, and privilege (Waldner and Kinney 2004). Following the game, students complete a worksheet that includes beginning and ending class and assets, which is then used during debriefing to demonstrate the limitations of class mobility. Students also critique the game, and the authors note that the game does not account for race and gender. Waldner and Kinney (2004) assessed MM through quantitative analysis of a pre- and posttest administered in one MM class and one lecture class. The MM group showed greater understanding of the social-structural influences on inequality and lowered adherence to the doctrine of individualism (Waldner and Kinney 2004).
Paul et al. (2004) created Sociological Monopoly to teach inequality through an unequal distribution of wealth, property, and power. This version of MM has the advantage of using one game set: Students form four groups, each representing a player in a hierarchical system. The authors replaced Chance and Community Chest cards with “Moving Up” and “Moving Down” cards: Each student rolls the dice in turn and changes groups depending on life events such as a dip in the stock market (move down) or starting a small business (move up). To illustrate power inequality, the elite class can change game rules with the support of the upper class; lower classes can change rules as well but must achieve buy-in from all classes above them. Written reflections showed that elite and upper-class players experienced positive emotions whereas the middle and poor classes experienced anger and frustration (Paul et al. 2004). The authors concluded that the game successfully taught social stratification.
Fisher (2008) created “USA Stratified Monopoly” to demonstrate social class stratification. Students roll dice for social class positions and are given rules that favor the upper classes and penalize the lower classes. Fisher (2008:276) inserts gender into the game by telling students about the “gendered nature of social class stratification,” seating male surplus students with a working-class player and female surplus students with a lower-class player. To emphasize the influence of social change, Fisher (2008:277) interrupts game play to change rules at certain points: first, to announce that upper-class players may now alter rules as they please; second, to announce a revolution and direct the upper-class and lower-class players to switch places; and third, to announce “that the world has just ended and so has the game.” “Poor” players are tasked with game clean-up (Fisher 2008:277). Students debrief in groups that discuss game play and emotional responses and submit a written assignment linking game play to theory. Fisher (2008) reports that students question their perceptions and values, empathize with others, and generalize what they experienced to everyday life.
Gendering The Game
I created “Gender Stratified Monopoly” (GSM) in response to a practical problem: how to use MM across diverse courses, with different learning objectives, without overly complicating teaching preparation. The link between courses and objectives was gender. Consequences from master statuses often cut across social class, with profound effects on life chances. Women earn less income on average than male peers, are more likely than men to become single heads of households, and are more likely to fall into poverty as a result of divorce (Laughlin 2014; U.S. Bureau of the Census 2016; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015b). Causes of gender-based economic disparity are more complex than the gender category alone; therefore, GSM also adds children, marital status, and life events to the game. I designed GSM to integrate with Fisher’s (2008) model, which does not directly address gender; however, with some alterations, it could be integrated into other versions of MM as well.
Limitations of Gender Stratified Monopoly
Simulation games are a compromise between complex reality (Dorn 1989), limited classroom time, and student tolerance. Gendering the game addresses the reality-simulation issue by tying the classroom experience closely to everyday life. To do so, GSM provides a detailed “model of reality” (Dorn 1989:9) for each rule added to MM. Game play may also be limited by the teacher’s ability to handle the strong emotions common to simulation games (Fisher 2008; Jessup 2001; McCammon 1999). GSM pushes students hard, and the teacher must be prepared to manage student emotions during game play by walking among groups, answering questions, solving disputes, encouraging students, and tying student experiences to material covered in the briefing. Teachers who are uncertain of their ability to manage student emotions may want to consider another exercise, seek a mentor, or ask a colleague to lead the exercise.
Although overlapping minority statuses regularly result in frustrating situations in real life, in the classroom, too much frustration impedes learning. For these reasons, GSM has been limited to cisgender, monogamous relationships. These limitations should be addressed during both the briefing and debriefing. Depending on course learning objectives, the teacher may want to encourage students to consider how the game might have progressed differently with the added complexity of gender identity, sexual orientation, romantic attraction, and partnership style. How, for example, does transitioning from male to female affect one’s earning potential? How does the motherhood penalty affect two partnered women?
Gender Stratified Monopoly Game Play
All MM versions require preparation of game materials prior to game play: At minimum, unmarked envelopes stuffed with varying amounts of cash, property, and tokens save time in the classroom. Random selection determines envelope distribution. When adding GSM, these envelopes also contain randomly assigned cards designating gender, number of children, and marital status. Random selection should be emphasized in the classroom, as it accomplishes the following: (1) Students are “born” into a class and gender by the “luck of the draw”; (2) it reduces the implicit and explicit perpetuation of stereotypes by game preparers, eliminating deliberate combinations; and most importantly, (3) it illustrates the effect of being female at all levels of game play. A divorcing upper-class female may be insulated from economic hardship but will still earn less than her male counterpart. The following materials detail specific additions to GSM. Although I briefed students on this information during a lecture, others may want to assign readings, videos, or class activities in keeping with their teaching style.
Gender binary: male/female
Each student receives a card printed with “Male” or “Female.” Because male-ness is considered normative, the female card adds:
Collect 20 percent less when passing “GO!” or earning other income.
Pay 10 percent more for purchases.
Discussion
The ratio of earnings between women and men ranges from 79 percent (U.S. Bureau of the Census 2016) to 82.5 percent (U.S. Bureau of Labor 2015c) depending on the reporting agency, with little change over decades. To ease calculation, women collect 80 percent of the “normal” income. During briefing/debriefing, the teacher may wish to include data from the census and Bureau of Labor Statistics on the widening gender wage gap for older full-time workers, providing an opportunity to discuss social conditions that may be responsible for such changes.
Women also pay more than men for identical goods and services such as used cars, haircuts, and dry cleaning, resulting in a “gender tax” in excess of $1,000 annually, and pay 7 percent more than men for needlessly gendered everyday products such as toys, clothing, and personal care items. Several states have subsequently enacted price discrimination legislation (NYC Department of Consumer Affairs 2015:6). Quite simply, women spend more money for being female before accounting for necessary goods such as feminine hygiene products. A 10 percent penalty on purchases is reasonable and easy for students to calculate.
During game play, students with the “Female” card experience another inequality: Because “male” is the normative experience, “female” players are forced to make calculations that complicate interactions and consume time. Female players often use calculators or rely on (potentially erroneous) mental calculations made by the group. Thus, the experience of playing the game itself is simply not the same for those randomly dealt a female card.
Number of children: 0, 1, 2, 7
Each student receives a card printed with “Children: X,” where X is either 0, 1, 2, or 7. Cards with one or more children add: Congratulations on your bounding bundle(s) of joy! For each child, pay $10 per round to the bank.
Discussion
Small families of two children predominate in the United States, largely due to the cost of raising a child (Gao 2015) (with five players, add another “2” card). Although families with seven children are rare, the “welfare queen” is a common stereotype; a player struggling with seven children is an effective way to show that large families are difficult to support. One child costs a two-parent household $4,500 to $12,700 per year, most of which is spent on housing and food. Multiple-child households and single parents spend less per child (Lino 2014). The $10 per round per child cost emphasizes the disproportionate effect of children on income, particularly when children require medical care. Students with little income routinely report being economically devastated as a result of paying for children: Some go bankrupt as a result.
Marital binary: married/unmarried
Each student receives a card printed with “Married” or “Unmarried,” which adds: Congratulations! You are now a dual income household! Collect an extra $100 when you pass “GO!”
Discussion
“Married” players receive increased income to simulate the economic benefits of a two-adult household. Although not every marital partner earns an income by working outside the home, nonemployed partners (usually women) perform household labor that allows employed spouses the time and flexibility to advance a career and increase earnings. If we adjust household income for unpaid labor, based on market rates for similar hired workers, that income increases by nearly one-third (30 percent). Such is the unrealized value of household labor (Bridgman et al. 2012). During game play, the additional $100 allows married players to accumulate wealth more quickly than their single opponents and mitigates the cost of having children. Married players thus experience more resilience in the face of economic crisis.
During the briefing or debriefing, the teacher may acknowledge that marriage does not benefit men and women equally. Regardless of employment status, women consistently perform more hours of household labor and child care (more than eight hours per week in 2014) (Bridgman et al. 2012; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2015a). Women thus have measurably less time for work, school, or leisure, potentially contributing to the cultural perception that women are less driven and career-oriented than men. Cultural attitudes also affect women’s earning potential: Called the “motherhood penalty,” mothers are perceived to be less competent, receive lower starting salaries, and experience a wage gap of approximately 5 percent per child less than non-mothers (Budig and England 2001; Correll, Benard, and Paik 2007; Staff and Mortimer 2012). Research suggests that gaps in employment and schooling due to raising children do not fully account for the motherhood penalty (Budig and England 2001). Women with children are at a disadvantage regardless of marital status; however, a dual income mitigates that effect.
Life events
Two announcements and a “Divorce” card complicate game play. The effectiveness of each life event depends on interrupting students once they have begun to fully experience their reality (approximately 15–20 minutes). Depending on the length of class, allow 5 to 10 minutes between life events so that students can grasp the results.
Announcement 1: “For players with children: one of your children climbed a tree and fell out, breaking an arm and resulting in an emergency room visit. Pay $200 to the Community Chest.”
Discussion
Health care costs disproportionately affect lower income players. Approximately 20 percent of the population—generally the impoverished, the elderly, and young children—visits the emergency room at least once per year: Some use the emergency room for primary care. In 2013, over one-fourth of the U.S. population had trouble paying for medical care, and nearly one-fourth had been paying off medical debt over time (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2013). Households with children up to age 17 and families living at less than 250 percent of the federal poverty line are at higher risk of economic distress from medical bills. Nearly 17 percent of those surveyed were unable to pay their medical bills at all (Cohen and Kirzinger 2014). When a family struggles to pay medical bills for even one person, “the entire family may be at risk for financial burden” (Cohen and Kirzinger 2014:5). Paying $200 to the bank for a broken arm represents an unexpected event that illustrates the damaging effects of inadequate health care coverage for the less wealthy. The lowest income players may have to borrow or lose the game. During the briefing/debriefing, the teacher may want to discuss other significant challenges poor health care creates, such as lifelong problems with learning and life expectancy.
Announcement 2: “All players: last night, you went out to a party and had a great time. Unfortunately, you were tipsy when you left the party and you totaled your car. You owe $100 to the bank for a new car. If you have more than two children, you must buy a bigger, more expensive car: you owe $150 to the bank.”
Discussion
Students usually cheer and laugh at the first sentence. They quickly sober up when they realize that the expense of having children cuts across all social statuses but again disproportionately affects the less wealthy.
Divorce card
Approximately 10 to 15 minutes prior to ending the game, the teacher distributes a “Divorce” card to one or two, but not all, married players at each game board. The “Divorce” card adds a new set of rules for the recipient player(s): Sadly, you are no longer a dual income household.
Divide all of your assets and debt (money, property, houses) in half and return half to the bank. Sell property or cards as needed to accomplish this task.
Lose the marital benefit. No longer collect $100 when you pass “GO!”
If “Male” with children, pay $10 per child per round to the “Female” player to your right.
If “Female” with children, your per child tax increases by $5 per round.
Discussion
Dividing game assets and debt mimics the division of property in divorce, to which students often react with disbelief. Divorce does not affect men and women equally: Women are far more likely to become single heads of households with primary custody of children (Laughlin 2014). Single-parent households are more likely to suffer economically, with nearly half of children living below the poverty line compared to just 14 percent of children with married parents (Laughlin 2014). The $10 per round paid to a nearby female player but not all female players reflects the fact that some female heads of households do not receive child support.
Gender Stratified Monopoly emphasizes gender as a complex real-world status that cuts across other statuses. Students experience reduced income and increased expenses simply from placement into one binary gender category. They also experience the benefits and detriments of marriage and children and the disproportionate effects of divorce on women and children.
Assessment
Undergraduates at a small public university in the Great Plains played GSM in several sections of Intimate Relationships, Victimology, and the Sociology of Divorce during the 2014 and 2015 academic years, with assessments gathered under Institutional Review Board protocol during the 2015–2016 academic year. The game was also successfully used in a three-hour summer workshop of high school students at a large state university in 2016. Students in the assessed courses were statistically similar to the undergraduate population of the university: predominantly white (68.6 percent), female (60.5 percent), and with a median age of 20; just over one-third are undergraduates (Emporia State University n.d.). These students represented more than 27 majors, with sociology, crime and delinquency studies, elementary education, and pre-nursing occurring at the highest frequencies. Of 231 enrolled students, 151 completed informed consent forms; 4 forms were discarded for unreadable signatures. Some students did not respond to the debriefing questions, resulting in a sample size of n = 115.
Assessment of simulation games focuses on student participation and analysis of the effectiveness of the game (Dorn 1989), which can be accomplished through any combination of pre- and posttesting (Waldner and Kinney 2004), interviews, questionnaires (Jessup 2001), or writing assignments (Coghlan and Huggins 2004; Fisher 2008; Paul et al. 2004). In addition to classroom discussion, the debriefing process for this study included written reflection questions specific to learning outcomes for each course, posted on an online discussion board. Students were asked (1) what happened during the game, (2) what they found interesting, (3) whether game play was realistic, and (4) to reflect on the influence of class and gender on decision making for leaving unsatisfactory or abusive relationships. Divorce and/or intimate partner violence provided a vehicle for tying game play to reality, as Dorn (1989) suggests. I coded stringently, only noting comments that clearly addressed particular categories and applying a single code once per response to avoid oversampling. Open coding revealed positive responses: Students wrote about both class and gender inequality, the effect of children on economic well-being, and the interplay of class, income and wealth, parenthood, and divorce.
Results
I was concerned that complicating game play with GSM would overwhelm students and dilute the lesson, but this concern was not borne out. Over half (56 percent) of responses explicitly discussed class inequality, noting differences in wealth, income, and privilege associated with varying social classes. The working class, one student wrote, afforded “very few opportunities for advancement,” and “money seemed to just be spent for the means of survival.” An upper-class student who had never played Monopoly wrote: “I didn’t understand why others weren’t buying [property]. I think . . . some people take money for granted, especially when it is right in front of them to use and others don’t have the same means.”
Gender inequality also figured heavily in student responses: 57 percent explicitly commented on the wage gap, the gender tax, and the ways in which children complicate women’s lives more profoundly than they do men’s. “There are many factors that separate men from women,” a student wrote, “and it shows in this game.” A female student playing as male wrote that it was a “nice change” to play a male character and have fewer money woes; however, some students playing as females responded with anger: When I first read . . . that . . . I would pay more and earn less I was mad but soon . . . realized that its [sic] reality. We live in a world where women are not equal to men and a society that has simply accepted it.
The cost of parenthood made an impression on students even though they were not asked to reflect on the topic. Thirty-six percent commented on the economic drain of children for all but the wealthiest. A married male called his two children a “burden”; another wrote: I didn’t even have enough money to cover the cost [of the child’s broken arm] because at every turn I was paying support for my child. . . . Although it was just a game I envisioned on what could have happened in real life. . . . I would end up having to borrow so much money that I would be so deep in debt that I wouldn’t be able to provide [for my child] at some point and maybe even have my child taken from me.
Several low-income parents were driven to bankruptcy. An impoverished single female with two children “started the game with . . . $300 and pretty much lost it all within four rolls. I had to pay rent two-three times and was sent to jail”; her story was common. At the lower class levels, gender was no protection: A lower-class male player with two children “spent the majority of . . . turns sitting in jail because [I] couldn’t afford to get out.” One group of players went so far as to change the rules so that others could remain in the game; a few impoverished players “sold” their children to a wealthy player, and another guarded the bank to prevent theft. It is clear that pairing parenthood and economic difficulties created strain that many players were not able to overcome.
Students pointed to the unequal effects of class (71 percent) and gender (25 percent) when assessing a partner’s ability to leave an unsatisfactory relationship. Most stated that wealthier players could more easily divorce because a higher income more easily absorbs the lost wealth and income but that “the fear of great loss . . . would keep a member of [even the] upper class or . . . middle class quiet.” Many students wrote that divorce would be impossible for impoverished players who need both incomes for survival. “My set of problems differed completely from that of the lower classes,” wrote a wealthy player. “While I was upset about relinquishing half my assets to my ex-husband, they were putting their only property up for collateral just to survive.” Although male players did feel the economic sting of divorce, responses focused overwhelmingly on the vulnerability of female players, who usually have a smaller income, larger expenses, and are more likely than men to become a single parent. A wealthy male student wrote: If I were being abused I would have no issues leaving and keeping my children. . . . Another person in the game . . . had no money and 7 children. If she was in an abusive marriage, I cannot see a way for her to leave her partner and take her children. . . . She could save herself, but most women take the abuse because they can’t fathom leaving their children in a situation like that.
Students explored the hierarchical effects of class and gender when reflecting on divorce: Wealthy players of either gender can handle divorce easily, but the effects of gender and downward class mobility increase as one becomes less wealthy. “When you add gender into the mix,” explained a student, divorce “becomes more difficult. If you were male, it was fine. If you were female, you’d lose a social class and still be charged 10% more and get paid 20% less.”
Game play elicited strong emotions: Roughly 5 percent of respondents felt “angry,” 20 percent felt “stress,” and nearly 21 percent were distressed that the rules were “unfair,” if realistic. Emotional response to GSM appears to have varied by social class in some cases. A keenly observant student reported: “I noticed how those who were [wealthy would] roll with no worry in the world, while myself and those in the working [and] lower class rolled cautiously, hoping for the best.” A very few reacted with denial, mistakenly claiming that the wage gap is less than the game represents and that “some people have savings and other things [so] . . . they wouldn’t just become bankrupt or have nothing.” Another claimed that an impoverished single female player that went bankrupt would, in the real world, “have found a way to keep going and provide for her kids; she wouldn’t have just stopped like [in] the game.” These comments reflect the bootstrap narrative of individualism that students cling to so persistently.
Students overwhelmingly (89 percent) found the game to be realistic. “I thought this game showed the dominance of the upper class, the difficulties of raising children alone, and the difficulty of being a woman,” one student reflected. A few students rightly pointed out valid deficiencies: It does not account for social welfare programs or safety nets like extended families; however, students tend to overestimate the funds available from these sources. The majority of students criticizing the realism of the game stated that the game was not unequal enough: The game was “by no means a valid representation of the true inequality in the United States. The U.S. has much more of a gap between the upper class and the poor.”
Gender Stratified Monopoly takes a first step toward complicating MM to represent a complex reality and can serve as a template for further modification. As a simulation game, GSM achieves its objective: addressing gender and class in diverse courses without unduly burdening the teacher. Modified Monopoly and GSM can also wake a need for change in students. One student wrote: “The game was a sort of a slap in the face. It made me open my eyes and wonder why it’s like this.” Students are capable of great change if they are properly motivated and educated, and used well, GSM can be a powerful tool. “I feel that the way different social classes were treated is unfair,” a student reflected, “and it made me think deeper on the fact that this happens in real life and that [it] needs to change.”
Footnotes
Editor’S Note
Reviewers of this manuscript were, in alphabetical order, Joseph Ewoodsie, Cherise Harris, and Mary Nell Trautner.