Today in class, we were exposed to a new (and very interesting) classroom activity.   The game was quite a lot of fun for everyone in the class, and gave all the participants an equal chance to participate.

The game was fairly simple.  The students are placed in two rows, standing (or sitting) opposite to each other.  The students are paired with the person in front of them.  One row is given a question prompt by the instructor.  The other row must predict the answer which their partner would provide.  The questions can be scaled in difficulty as the game progresses, moving from dichotomous responses to multiple choice.

We were given the following prompts as questions-

• Would you take a billion dollars if you were not allowed to leave California for the rest of your life? (Y/N response)
• If you won a competition, what would you want as a prize? (M/C question- A. 2 months paid holiday in Europe, B. Free Tesla & Lifetime Charging, C. New Wardrobe, D. Lifetime Supply of Chocolate)
• Given the chance to have dinner and conversation with any person (alive or dead), who would you choose(M/C question A. Politician, B. Musician, C. Writer, D. Actor).  Respondents were then asked to expand their answers and justify them conversationally.

This activity was really interesting to take part in and provided a number of chances for natural, authentic conversation.  We all found the activity to be quite engaging, and lots of fun to participate in.  However, it might not work well for groups which are not already somewhat familiar with each other.  Students who are unfamiliar with each other might be made to feel uncomfortable by being asked to judge the preferences of others without any background information.

It might also be possible to extend the activity by asking questions that use a freer response model.  This could elicit more conversation from students, and prompt them to engage more.

There seems to be a distinct motivation behind restraining Q&As to yes/no or M/C questions during the initial question period.  Both rows of students should be asked to provide more explanation as the activity continues.  It would be possible to structure the activity so that both rows explain their choices and justify them.  Asking each row the same question might be possible and add more interaction in the class.  Expanding the scope of the questions asked might lead to more engagement by the learners- some of the questions from the previous 4-square activity might work well here.

Appropriateness for student levels is always a consideration- this activity is especially valuable since can be easily adapted to any learner level and remain engaging in fun.

Andrew Sansone, Kim Liao, Jerry Kim, Amy Liu