It’s been a number of years since I was indoctrinated by Professor Hans Rosling to no longer refer to LEDCs and MEDCs when referring to the development status of a country. Here’s why…
The AQA GCSE syllabus A requires that students are familiar with the correlation and analysis of development indicators and of course the Gapminder website is a crucial teaching aid. Students have to be mindful of the dangers of using a single statistical measure of development and aware that countries have different development priorities and perceptions of quality of life. I devised the following activity as a group work task to sum up this aspect of the syllabus.
Five groups were established and the activity introduced via the first slide of the presentation embedded below. (Needs to be downloaded from Slideshare to work as intended)
Each individual was given a table of 2012 development statistics and a commentary. The examples were carefully chosen to represent nations with very different development priorities. Each group was tasked with creating a rank order of the countries based on the statistics, the commentary and their own opinions.
Once the initial task was complete, the groups passed their rankings clockwise around the room, spending a couple of minutes perusing and commenting on each others thoughts. Once the circuit had been completed, each group had to construct a final ranking, taking into account the all the information and their newly acquired understanding of development priorities.
As part of ensuring that everyone was fully involved, certain students were randomly selected to describe and justify their final rank order. Much debate took place, though there was 100% agreement in terms of the top and bottom placed countries. Conveniently, since they all chose Norway as the most developed nation, I was able to introduce the Human Development Index data for 2013 which confirms their finding and illustrates the usefulness of this measure of development.
This is a nice little activity which requires very little planning and develops really interesting interaction between group members. Groups become accountable to each other and nobody can opt out of the final task. Originally it was intended as an “expert groups” activity and the passing on of their work was actually suggested by the students themselves. To my mind it fits nicely with Dylan William’s assertion that group goals and individual accountability can double the speed of learning.