It can be a challenge to break down the barriers to student creativity. Young people don't want to risk failure or ridicule, so they are reluctant to experiment with anything out of the ordinary. Students and teachers alike sometimes find the words "I'm just not creative," running on repeat in their heads. This mindset is often reinforced by a general culture that discourages straying outside the norms.
I was teaching an advanced level class with a unit on innovation last semester during May, which happens to be National Inventors Month in the United States. It only seemed fitting that I include a maker activity. The focus of the speaking lesson was to give an "elevator pitch" to quickly sell a product, so I decided that, instead of selling the example product in the book, they would sell their own. I had also been teaching a very fun "game night" conversation class (will share ideas from that in future posts), and I guess I had games on my mind.
My students have always known me as someone who brings games into class to review or practice target language. I love introducing an element of play into class. It motivates everyone and generates some wonderful focused energy. This group, however, didn't expect to be asked to invent their own game!
I started by showing the class a video about the history of the game Monopoly. The game was actually invented by a woman, who received little pay and no credit, for a game that was intended to be a critique of the ugly side of capitalism. It generated a buzz of interest, and we had a brief discussion about this before I gave them the challenge--to make their own game.
I put out a bunch of different things in the middle of the classroom. Being a game-lover, I have a decent collection of gimmicks and gadgets, such as number, letter, and picture dice (Story Cubes®), minute timers, a ball, play money, inflatable hammers, sword, and globe, octopus fingers, a few toys, and, of course, a good, old-fashioned deck of cards. I also had some recyclable material, string, tape, a bell, paper, and markers. I basically grabbed anything that looked somewhat interesting in my drawers or at home.
The instructions were, in groups of three or four, to invent a game using any materials available, and to be able to teach it to the class. It could be based on a classic game, but it had to be a completely new way of playing.
I had to give them plenty of time to mess around with the materials and decide what they wanted to do. It's never enough to just say "make something;" students need a bit of guidance. The culture of games that I had already created in my classroom helped, as did the video, but the biggest catalyst for creativity this time was collaboration.
I believe this activity is a prime example of the final two P's in the Learning Creative Learning Course I've been taking: Peers and Play (the first two are Passion and Projects). Students started with little to no idea of what to do, and had to play around, tinkering with the materials to see what sparked their imaginations, as well as to find out what worked and what didn't. Some students were immediately doubtful of their abilities, and I could see the "I'm not creative" reel beginning to play. But that's where the power of peers stepped in. Inevitably, one member of the group would get an idea, another would build on it, and, eventually, together, they came up with a game.
I did this activity in three different classes of the same book, and only one group in one class was not able to come up with a game. This particular group surprised me, because two members were avid fans of the "game night" conversation class. But I saw them working extremely well as a team, going in one direction with an idea, then trying something else, working together with focus as well as laughter. And they expertly used previously-learned vocabulary to tell me how they hit a wall and couldn't come up with a solution.
Looking back at this from the perspective of the Learning Creative Learning course, I could have done a few more things to nudge this group forward. I could have asked some more reflection-generating questions, such as, "What first inspired you?" or "How did you want the game to work?" I might have taken the opportunity to be a "matchmaker," and invited the students to collaborate with someone else who had already solved a similar problem. In the end, however, the product isn't as important as the process. Given time limitations, I was impressed with this particular group's approach and teamwork. And I was super-impressed with their use of previously-learned language. Even if they didn't end up with a finished product this time, they were able to collaborate and talk about the process.
All the other groups of students came up with something unique and were successfully able to teach the game to the class. Even a student who always insists on working alone, who started a sentence with "I can't..." when I introduced the challenge, worked with his team and succeeded in teaching the class their game. Some games involved finding the right number, others involved clapping hands around a circle, and others brought a challenge involving geography, vocabulary, and/or speed.
I had given the class a minimum of 15 minutes to develop their game, allowing more time as needed, and then gave another 15-20 minutes total for groups to teach their game for the others to play. After this, I put the grammar I had already taught them on the board--language of probability (It's unlikely that...The chances are...etc.)--and asked them to speculate on the potential marketability of their game.
Finally, we worked through the speaking lesson on how to give a quick sales pitch, and, as freer practice, students were invited to "sell" their game in one minute. These kind of conversations work best while standing, so I had students mingle and give their elevator pitch a few times until the bell rang.
Games are not only fun, but they require teamwork. The collaboration in this activity is what made it work. I've had students design their own games in the past using other target language. It works really well with modal verbs (You must...Players can't...etc.), and even better with passive modals (The game must be played with...), because students learning that structure are at a higher level of English and have more vocabulary to work with.
The other key component of game creation is play. Students have to mess around with a variety of objects in order to decide how their game is going to work. In doing so, they find unexpected elements that direct the development of the game. This doesn't mean that teachers need to invest in lots of gimmicky objects like I have, however. I had a student, using simple modal verbs, develop a game out of toilet paper tubes (which you can't knock over) and water cups (which you have to try to knock over), with a ball.
Yes, it's a challenge, but it is possible to kindle creativity in students while getting them to use target language, and the results are well-worth the effort. What is your experience with games? Have you ever developed your own? How do aspects of peer collaboration and play work for you when developing something new?
I was teaching an advanced level class with a unit on innovation last semester during May, which happens to be National Inventors Month in the United States. It only seemed fitting that I include a maker activity. The focus of the speaking lesson was to give an "elevator pitch" to quickly sell a product, so I decided that, instead of selling the example product in the book, they would sell their own. I had also been teaching a very fun "game night" conversation class (will share ideas from that in future posts), and I guess I had games on my mind.
My students have always known me as someone who brings games into class to review or practice target language. I love introducing an element of play into class. It motivates everyone and generates some wonderful focused energy. This group, however, didn't expect to be asked to invent their own game!
I started by showing the class a video about the history of the game Monopoly. The game was actually invented by a woman, who received little pay and no credit, for a game that was intended to be a critique of the ugly side of capitalism. It generated a buzz of interest, and we had a brief discussion about this before I gave them the challenge--to make their own game.
I put out a bunch of different things in the middle of the classroom. Being a game-lover, I have a decent collection of gimmicks and gadgets, such as number, letter, and picture dice (Story Cubes®), minute timers, a ball, play money, inflatable hammers, sword, and globe, octopus fingers, a few toys, and, of course, a good, old-fashioned deck of cards. I also had some recyclable material, string, tape, a bell, paper, and markers. I basically grabbed anything that looked somewhat interesting in my drawers or at home.
The instructions were, in groups of three or four, to invent a game using any materials available, and to be able to teach it to the class. It could be based on a classic game, but it had to be a completely new way of playing.
I had to give them plenty of time to mess around with the materials and decide what they wanted to do. It's never enough to just say "make something;" students need a bit of guidance. The culture of games that I had already created in my classroom helped, as did the video, but the biggest catalyst for creativity this time was collaboration.
I believe this activity is a prime example of the final two P's in the Learning Creative Learning Course I've been taking: Peers and Play (the first two are Passion and Projects). Students started with little to no idea of what to do, and had to play around, tinkering with the materials to see what sparked their imaginations, as well as to find out what worked and what didn't. Some students were immediately doubtful of their abilities, and I could see the "I'm not creative" reel beginning to play. But that's where the power of peers stepped in. Inevitably, one member of the group would get an idea, another would build on it, and, eventually, together, they came up with a game.
I did this activity in three different classes of the same book, and only one group in one class was not able to come up with a game. This particular group surprised me, because two members were avid fans of the "game night" conversation class. But I saw them working extremely well as a team, going in one direction with an idea, then trying something else, working together with focus as well as laughter. And they expertly used previously-learned vocabulary to tell me how they hit a wall and couldn't come up with a solution.
Looking back at this from the perspective of the Learning Creative Learning course, I could have done a few more things to nudge this group forward. I could have asked some more reflection-generating questions, such as, "What first inspired you?" or "How did you want the game to work?" I might have taken the opportunity to be a "matchmaker," and invited the students to collaborate with someone else who had already solved a similar problem. In the end, however, the product isn't as important as the process. Given time limitations, I was impressed with this particular group's approach and teamwork. And I was super-impressed with their use of previously-learned language. Even if they didn't end up with a finished product this time, they were able to collaborate and talk about the process.
All the other groups of students came up with something unique and were successfully able to teach the game to the class. Even a student who always insists on working alone, who started a sentence with "I can't..." when I introduced the challenge, worked with his team and succeeded in teaching the class their game. Some games involved finding the right number, others involved clapping hands around a circle, and others brought a challenge involving geography, vocabulary, and/or speed.
I had given the class a minimum of 15 minutes to develop their game, allowing more time as needed, and then gave another 15-20 minutes total for groups to teach their game for the others to play. After this, I put the grammar I had already taught them on the board--language of probability (It's unlikely that...The chances are...etc.)--and asked them to speculate on the potential marketability of their game.
Finally, we worked through the speaking lesson on how to give a quick sales pitch, and, as freer practice, students were invited to "sell" their game in one minute. These kind of conversations work best while standing, so I had students mingle and give their elevator pitch a few times until the bell rang.
Games are not only fun, but they require teamwork. The collaboration in this activity is what made it work. I've had students design their own games in the past using other target language. It works really well with modal verbs (You must...Players can't...etc.), and even better with passive modals (The game must be played with...), because students learning that structure are at a higher level of English and have more vocabulary to work with.
The other key component of game creation is play. Students have to mess around with a variety of objects in order to decide how their game is going to work. In doing so, they find unexpected elements that direct the development of the game. This doesn't mean that teachers need to invest in lots of gimmicky objects like I have, however. I had a student, using simple modal verbs, develop a game out of toilet paper tubes (which you can't knock over) and water cups (which you have to try to knock over), with a ball.
Yes, it's a challenge, but it is possible to kindle creativity in students while getting them to use target language, and the results are well-worth the effort. What is your experience with games? Have you ever developed your own? How do aspects of peer collaboration and play work for you when developing something new?
Comments