When is an activity a game?

cheapshot

This discussion started on the LLP Discord recently but I fear it getting lost, so pulling it out to here.

Martin said:

In an educational setting, what’s the difference between a game and an activity? I know that Uno, tic-tac-toe, and Memory are games, but I have another game/activity(?) I use in which the children each have a card with some kind of puzzle or question on it, and three possible answers at the bottom. They use a wooden clothespin to clip onto their answer choice. Is this a game? Why or why not? Does it matter?

Here’s a photo:

I replied:

I have my own ideas, but what do you think first?

is it a game?
why, or why not?
does it matter?

(Btw, I love what’s going on in this picture 😍 )

Martin’s response:

Haha to be honest I’m mostly thinking about my dissertation and how/if I can include things like these cards. Is it a game? There’s no element of chance/randomness, but doesn’t mean it isn’t a game. It’s not necessarily competitive, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a game. I want to say it’s ludic because it has interesting images, plays with words (rhymes, phonemic awareness, etc.), and uses an object (clothespin) in a novel way.
It has interaction, a goal, rules, and some level of challenge, so I’m leaning toward it being a game.

My big ol’ reply:

Alright, I see no one else has replied yet, so I’ll dive in :slight_smile:

Honestly, I’m conflicted, and not just on the topic of whether your playful activity with the cards is a game or not. More on the “so what” regarding the answer. Game? Not Game? So what?

I’m gonna come back to my LLPx02 keynote, cos that’s where my mind mostly is these days.

Let’s get some Goffman in here. How do you frame these activities?

"Hey kids, we’re going to play a game… I’ve got these cards. Go ahead, choose one. OK, and then I have these pegs… and I want you to see if you can find a connection between whats on the bottom and whats on the top. I’ll let you know if you have got it right or wrong…! Go on!

The kids probably feel like this is a game. And that legitimises it as a game. I think.

But let’s say it’s NOT a game. Then what is is it? It’s playful as all heck.

I want to compare it to some analogous activities, that get increasingly more multimodal and tactile:

You give them a worksheet without any pictures. Just matching words based on sound.
Same worksheet – only this time with pictures ONLY
Same worksheet – only this time with all of the modes above: pictures, words, different kinds of connections.
Now yours: cut outs, pegs, physicality.

There’s a deliberate attempt to make these activities GRATIFYING for the students. (remember the talk, the definition of “playful” –> to pursue an additional, aesthetic purpose of a given activity) You’ve poured more of the ludic in you into the activity. You’ve made it extremely playful by playing with materials (one of three ways that I think teachers can be playful, the other two being the methods and mediation).

But “so what”… right?

I think the so what can relate to a few things. Item (1) vs Item (4) on that list, can be compared empirically in terms of their effect on:

cognitive (language) development
motor skills
satisfaction, motivation, pleasure, fun…!?
…

Not sure. Ran out of steam a bit at the end there. Keen to hear others’ thoughts. This IS important (for me at least)

Martin

Thank you for the response! I think that’s a really interesting (and vital) way to look at it… it doesn’t matter so much what I call/categorize it as, it matters much more what the players/kids see it as and how they interact with it. With the numbered list above, it’s also interesting to think about where an activity might suddenly become a game. I see this as happening between 3 and 4, as soon as the dynamic switched from paper and pencil to an object specially designed for a child’s hands with a novel way to use it.

Martin

Thinking about this further, it might be quite important in some cases if something can be labelled as a “game” or not. For me, in the classroom space and the relationship between the children and myself, I don’t think it matters very much. I’m much more concerned about them 1) having fun, 2) enjoying and using the target language, and 3) getting the chance to practice some other important skills like teamwork, turn-taking, or hand-eye coordination. Games, in my opinion, check all of those boxes.
However, outside of this space, the classification can have ramifications. School administrators and other coworkers may have a negative attitude toward “games” in the classroom, seeing them as a waste of valuable time or something to be used as a reward (with little meaning) after a difficult task like a test. Certainly, using games in ways that are worthwhile is not easy, and it can be difficult to explain to parents who would likely be upset upon hearing that their children played games for most of the day’s class time.
Different teaching situations come with different levels of accountability, and while we (members of LLP) are fully on board with the idea of good games being used for good purposes, not everyone is going to see it that way. I think that one of the important things that LLP can (continue to) do is to advocate for games outside of its own space.

cheapshot

Martin School administrators and other coworkers may have a negative attitude toward “games” in the classroom, seeing them as a waste of valuable time or something to be used as a reward (with little meaning) after a difficult task like a test

I can imagine this being the case for elementary school level and above…

But I wonder: Do you think they would think the same if the terminology was switched to “play.”

In other words, whilst institutions and teachers might not want to associate with games, do you really think they have forgotten how important play is for young children / students in general? Kinda sad isn’t it…

Martin Certainly, using games in ways that are worthwhile is not easy, and it can be difficult to explain to parents who would likely be upset upon hearing that their children played games for most of the day’s class time.

YES YES YES. This is why I believe in LLP and our aim at focusing on the pedagogy (+ games) rather than just the tech itself.

Martin not everyone is going to see it that way. I think that one of the important things that LLP can (continue to) do is to advocate for games outside of its own space.

Totally agreed.