For those who aren't familiar with Apples to Apples, there are red cards, which have a variety of nouns--famous people, places, things and activities ranging from "a high school cafeteria" to "my mind" to "visiting the dentist." Everyone gets either 5 or 7 red cards (I believe 7 is the norm, but I usually give my English students 5, to simplify things a bit).
Each round there is a different "judge," who turns over one green card with an adjective such as "shiny," "cute," or "terrifying." Whatever the card is--let's say it's "terrifying," the other players have to choose from their hand the red card that best combines with the green one--in this case, "the most terrifying" thing. They put the cards face down in a pile in the middle. (Some versions of the game call for a quick choice--the last player to put a card down cannot play and has to take the card back. This makes it extra exciting. With students, I usually only introduce this as an optional way to play after a few rounds of playing "nice.")
The judge (the only one who doesn't play a red card) then mixes up the played cards and flips them over. This is where things get hilarious as we see some surprising combinations. Sometimes a player doesn't have a good match, and just throws in any card they may have--or even an opposite idea. Some cards combine well, others not so much, and others are just ridiculous, but it's up to the judge to decide on the winning card. Players can influence the judge, however, and, being careful not to reveal which card they played, they can make arguments that can sway the judge's opinion for or against some of the selections. For this, it's good to know the judge, or play to what you think the judge may like. If a card says "my____," that thing is understood to be the judge's--"my mind"= the judge's mind.
In the end, the judge chooses the noun that they believe best combines with the adjective, for whatever reason they like best--logical or silly. The player who put that card down reveals their identity, and the judge gives them that green card, earning that person a point.
Play continues as another player--the next one in the circle--becomes the judge, everyone replaces the red card they played with a new one, and a new green card is drawn by the next judge. In the end, the player with the most green cards wins. Depending on the size of the group, whenever someone earns a certain number of green apple cards, the game ends.
It's the surprising combinations in this game that gets everyone laughing. What I love best, as both a party host and as an English teacher, is the discussion that ensues when players try to influence the judge's decision. This is where we see creative thinking in action. Sometimes the cards a judge has to select from have almost nothing to do with the key word, but they have to choose one, and try to give a reason why. Sometimes players are desperate to get the judge to notice their card, or to not go with a more likely choice, and offer an alternative explanation that makes everyone see the ideas in a different way.
 |
| In this case, the word was "expensive," and we were debating whether the damage caused by flying monkeys or the empire of Batman movies and merchandise might be more expensive than imported wine. |
This creative debate doesn't always come naturally, and in a class, often has to be encouraged. I usually play this game together with my students, and I try to model this creative interaction as much as I can. As the judge, I make comments aloud about my thoughts on the choices before me. As a player, after students have said certain points about the cards on the table, I might argue for a different one--not necessarily my own--only to suggest a different perspective. I learned to play the game at parties back in the United States, with friends modeling in the same way.
But, depending on the kind of class, I sometimes prepare students before introducing the game. In conversation classes, I'll start class by putting some choices on the board--kitten or puppy, ghost or vampire, watch a sport or play a sport? Students will select one from each pair and explain their choice to their partner. After some discussion, I'll put an unusual adjective on the board with each pair, for example, "kitten or puppy--scary? vampire or ghost--thoughtful? watch a sport or play a sport--fragile?" Students are always surprised, but I encourage them to think of a reason why a kitten or puppy could be scary, demonstrating with my own examples if necessary. They slowly get into it, and by the end, they are passionately discussing whether playing a sport may be fragile because of risk of injury or whether watching a sport may be fragile because a fan's happiness can be crushed in a devastating loss. And that's when I'll introduce Apples to Apples.
In addition to the creative thinking and discussion that this game promotes, there are several language skills that this game puts into practice when used in the English language classroom. I usually recommend this game for intermediate or advanced speakers (B2-C2) of English, but have played it successfully even in pre-intermediate groups (closer to B1), giving them enough support. There is often vocabulary that I pre-teach--I'll pull out some adjectives they haven't learned yet, teach them, and then mix them in with adjectives they know, or play with only those adjectives. I always sort the cards and set aside some as a focus each time the game is played. Here are a few different focuses, each one for a different occasion or group:
- Comparatives and Superlatives -- "Apples are healthier than Swiss Chocolate, but my mother is the healthiest person I know!" This may be a nice way to finish up a unit where students have worked with these kinds of adjectives, using the game as a freer practice speaking task where they can use this language, along with other language they know, to complete the task of discussing and making a selection.
- Adjectives ending in -ed vs. -ing -- This provides a meaningful way to review the difference between terrified and terrifying, overwhelmed and overwhelming, enchanted and enchanting, confused, and confusing (I always tell students that "-inG" gives the feeling). Depending on the level, I may review active and passive participles, and then teach the meanings of words like flawed, misunderstood, dashing, or demanding, which almost always take that particular form.
- Adjectives with more than one meaning -- neat, raw, juicy, shallow, sharp, flaky, tough--I separate these cards from the deck, elicit both meanings from the students, and then mix them in again. When they are played, it's interesting to see the judge consider more than one meaning--and sometimes even both at the same time!
- Irreversible word pairs -- Tried & True, Spic & Span, Down & Out, Dazed & Confused, Dead & Gone, Young & Restless, etc. The expansion pack, and some newer versions of the game come with some of these, which are fun to separate, learn, and reintegrate into a deck of more common adjectives. There are some noun pairs as well--Sugar & Spice, Naughty & Nice, Venus & Mars, that may have interesting cultural significance, but I find it easier to preview adjectives which everyone will see, instead of nouns that only one person may see, and let players interpret these as they choose.
If students--particularly at a lower level--have cards in their hand that they don't know, they get frustrated. To avoid this, I always sort the deck first, taking out words that are likely beyond their vocabulary, and also words that are "too American"--referring to more subtle aspects of my home culture that others likely wouldn't understand. I always allow students to ask me for the meaning of a card they don't know during play. There are also synonyms, quotes, or amusing explanations printed on the card, which sometimes help.
Another mode of play I've recently adopted, a variation suggested on the game instructions, is that when it's their turn to be the judge, players may discard a card that they don't like (or don't know the meaning of), replacing it with another one from the deck. Sometimes I allow this after each round, but we go through more cards that way.
I've played Apples to Apples with groups of students who simply don't like to talk, and, although the game can be played with minimal conversation, it is just not as fun that way. I had one group in particular, a high level group of teens, and no matter what the topic was in class, I typically only got one word responses from them, even though they had the language skills (at least on paper) to contribute more. When we played this game, each judge made their choice giving almost no explanation, and players offered no debate. They affirmed that they enjoyed the game, but I found it painfully boring. Going forward, what I might do in a similar situation, is to require the judge to say something about each card, or allow students the privilege of swapping out a "bad" card only if they've said something that round.
In another group of teens, I was surprised that some of them, although they seemed to like the game, didn't want to be the judge and wouldn't take their turn. I suppose they felt insecure about how their peers would view their choices--even if the stakes are seemingly low. In this case, we were only playing the game as a warm-up to start a regular class. When I do that, there is not time to play enough rounds so that everyone gets to be the judge, so I change the rules, and reward the person whose green card was chosen by allowing them to be the next judge. But what I thought was a reward apparently put some of them in an alarming social situation, and so I allowed them to either be the judge or choose the next judge. Perhaps if we played this the normal way, going around the circle, when everyone gets to be the judge, students wouldn't feel as shy to take their turn. But in this case, time didn't allow for it.
I'd be more than happy to hear any outside perspectives on these situations!
One more potential problem that I try to be aware of is that a game like this may reinforce stereotypes. There are a few red cards with nationalities like French, Americans, places such as Rio de Janeiro, China, etc. There are also women/men, girlfriends/boyfriends, etc. Being that players must select a card that in a sense epitomizes the idea, there is a risk of encouraging harmful or hurtful stereotyping.
I can't recall any particularly ugly combinations, but, then again, it's possible that I didn't notice something that I should have, only because I don't identify with the group. One thing I've done, if I see a card and think "I hope students don't go there," is simply to remove the card in question before play. I did notice that my international students in Boston seemed to like it when their country appeared in the mix, and so I won't remove countries and nationalities unless there's something intense going on in current events.
Another plan of action is that if I see a potentially hurtful combination arise during a game, I'll write it down, and bring it back for a deeper discussion next class. The middle of what should be a lighthearted game isn't the time to discuss harmful perspectives. However, coming back next time with a fresh mind, we could take a look at the effects of certain widely-held ideas and things we all do and say without thinking, without singling anyone out.
All in all, Apples to Apples is probably my favorite game to bring to English classes, and has been a hit at many parties over the years. I've seen shy students get excited when they can play a game that isn't meant only for English classes. I've seen them passionately make their case, laugh hysterically over unusual comparisons, and start to think creatively, explaining a surprising choice. Games can transform groups, and this one, with its unlikely combinations, brings unlikely groups of individuals together and sends them away laughing, chatting, and also thinking differently about the world.
 |
| This time we combined the game with a very green American Saint Patrick's Day celebration! |
Comments