A Discussion on Competition
Chris, You wrote:
“Personally, I don’t think competition is fun.”
I use a fair number of competitive games in my kids’ classes and have also incorporated some of the principles of cooperation and non- competition you have been talking about on this list and on your website. As others have mentioned, adding an element of competition can spice things up and generate a high level of anticipation and emotional involvement that may or may not improve actual learning. Recently, however, the behavior of several of my students has been prompting me to question the wisdom of using competitive games at all. Two of my students in particular, one 5 years old and one 9, both boys, break down into tears and even throw tantrums at even the slightest indication that they will lose a game. They will resort to lying, cheating, or giving up completely to avoid losing a game. Even simple games such as a Card Track race (commonly used in FO) or the wildly popular (but competitive) Switchit game created by David Lisgo, can prompt strong reactions in these two boys. If they are winning they LOVE playing, but ONLY if they are winning. Just a few weeks ago, the 9-year old sensed that he might come in second. He grabbed his piece, pulled it off the table and burst into tears, “Aaaa, yaruki nakunatta.” He spent the entire remainder of the lesson sulking in his chair. I was at a loss as to what to tell him. Despite efforts by myself and classmates to bring him back into the fold, he stubbornly refused. Not exactly a healthy learning experience. Disturbing, in fact. These aren’t antisocial kids. When playing cooperative games or doing other activities, songs, pairwork, etc. that involve helping other students or participating as a group, they are fine.
So… my question, or call for advice to you as an educator is, what strategies would you recommend in dealing with examples like the above, AFTER the fact. Besides not introducing the element of competition in the first place, I would be interested in hearing from you and learning how to help these kids get beyond the unhealthy and counterproductive “Winning at all costs” outlook.
Kaj Schwermer
Osaka
Note: The following discussion originally took place on the ETJ Owners list. I thought it would be good to bring it to a wider audience. I’ve added it to this blog section so that additional comments can be posted. I’ve arranged the posts in the order in which they came in. This is an amalgamation of several threads, though not all posts are here. Permission was sought before reposting and some authors preferred that their posts not be used. I’ve edited the timestamp so that it shows the original date of each post. My thanks to everyone involved.
Chris (Hunt)
21 February 2006
December 31st, 2005 at 12:33 pm
Hi Kaj,
A 5-year old child lying and cheating to win is disturbing indeed. Assuming that there are no underlying emotional problems, the situation that you describe is not a reflection on the competitive nature of your games, but instead is a direct reflection of the lack of home training that these children are receiving outside your classroom.
Competition, winning and losing are parts of nearly every aspect life from getting a job; to finding a wife; to getting into that great building to hold classes in; to reserving the window seat. In fact, we owe our very existence on this planet to competition as we were all born from the race of sperm to join egg. It would seem that part of our responsibility as adults is to equip our children to deal with the realities of life. Therefore, for me the question is not how to avoid competition, but how to deal with it in a healthy manner.
Sorry, no advice just observations.
Keep swinging,
Keith
P.S. I loved “Never Eat Alone.”
December 31st, 2005 at 12:59 pm
COMPETITION
I couldn’t agree more, Keith.
We play competitive games at our school as well as non-competitive ones. We make sure to play a variety of competitive games so that winning is achieved through different means, such as by being the best at the language structure, by being the best at a physical activity (throwing a beanbag etc), by having the loudest voice, by having the best memory, by being the luckiest, by having the best concentration skills etc. Usually, all the children, not just the most academic children, have an opportunity to win.
Sometimes it doesn’t work out as planned. Some kids are just good at everything and lucky to boot. But over the long term, it usually more ir less evens out.
Some children are not well-equipped to handle what they perceive to be failure – I would imagine Keith, that it has more to do with the child’s innate personality than inadequate parenting. I handle each situation differently but my general attitude toward the child is ‘I understand how you feel. But you need to learn how to handle those feelings.’ I see my job as teaching them how to deal with disappointment. Some children take longer than others, but they all get it eventually.
Children need to learn skills that will see them through life as smoothly as possible. Competition as Keith pointed out, is a large part of life. I fail to understand the latest educational trends towards removing competition from classrooms. Better that children are taught how to handle competition in the controlled environment of a classroom, than having to deal with it in the work place or in the sports arena.
LYING AND CHEATING
Some 5-year old children lie and cheat with impunity as their sense of right/wrong is not fully developed. While it is true that most children of this age group understand the difference between the two, some fail to understand (yet) the magnitude of lying and cheating. If I catch someone lying or cheating in class (and it happens from time to time), I simply say to them in a serious voice, ‘You mustn’t lie/cheat. Don’t do it again.’ BEHAVIOURAL ISSUES I’ve been following with interest the discussion on behavioural issues. When we come across a child with bad behaviour all the staff members discuss how to handle the child. If applicable, we involve the parent as well.
Consistency is so important. All children respond to the right environment and I believe it is the job of the teacher and relative staff members to create that environment. Most children if dealt with properly show a big improvement within 3 months.We have had over 1000 children at our school, and I have never had to ask a child to leave for bad behaviour (although I have asked 3 mothers to do so.)
When one of our teachers has a problem with a child’s behaviour and is on the verge of giving up, I always tell them ‘There are 2 people in this equation – the teacher and the student – and only one of them is an adult.’
Laura Yoshida
December 31st, 2005 at 6:30 pm
Happy new year All!
I’m convinced competition should be avoided at all costs. There’s nothing “natural” about competition, it doesn’t bring out the best in people, it destroys relationships, and causes tremendous psychological and spiritual harm, especially to children.
(In fact, one thing about Japan I like is how much LESS competitive the culture is, compared to the west. An irony: I thought it would be the opposite.)
Anyway, I recommend Alfie Kohn’s NO CONTEST: the case against competition.
Peace for 2006
Sam.
December 31st, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Kaj and all,
Even simple games such as a Card Track race (commonly used in FO) or the wildly popular (but competitive) Switchit game created by David Lisgo, can prompt strong reactions in these two boys.
Well, Switchit is less competitive than ‘snap’, perhaps more in line with ‘rummy’. I’ve never seen this reaction in my classroom while playing the game, most students concentrate on the process and not on the end result, I would suggest giving “these two boys” something else to do while other children are playing Switchit. I often give the children a choice of continuing a writing activity or finishing off the lesson with a game of Switchit, if they (the boys) choose to play, then they should play by the rules.
As to the “Card Track Race”, there are many versions, which are not necessarily competitive, though the idea of competition can be very subjective and some students may perceive and act out a cooperative game as if it were competitive and indeed, they have changed it so.
Try playing “Survivor” in lieu of the usual track race. Here is how to play.
Now say we want to practice the 26 alphabet sounds. Lay your cards, two sets if possible, around a big table alternating the cards face up and face down (letters/pictures). Split your class into two teams, one team has only one member and the other team has all the other players and set the timer at two minutes (longer for slow classes). A student looks at the first card and says “apple”, the card is turned over and the sound “/a/” is read, then he or she moves onto the second card in a clockwise direction and says “/p/”, turns the card over and says “panda” and a second student follows immediately behind him or her reading the sounds and naming the pictures, then the third student and so on. In the meantime, the solo student goes in a counter clockwise direction and begins reading his or her cards. This is all done at a very relaxed pace so that I can ensure they are playing the game to the rules and that they are getting plenty of correct practice in reading the letters (the new sounds are put in the middle of the track, this gives more practice of these sounds). When the two teams meet, then they do “Stone, scissors, paper.” The loser goes back and starts again. The odds are stacked against the solo student because he or she is alone, as it’s many against one so he or she must survive until the timer goes, the student nearly always survives because the timer is set at only two minutes. Sometimes I will take the place of the solo student and increase the time to three or four minutes and then go as quickly as I can, this speeds up the game tremendously and hopefully everyone gets a lot of practice and the only person to lose is me against the clock. This game often keeps the excitement of a competitive game but there are no real winners or losers. My students always enjoy it.
Another way to play the “Card Track Race” is to lay all your cards in a circle on the floor. You need a question and answer format for this version. Split your class into three teams, if possible, give them a dice and a chip and have them start at different points around your track, all moving in the same direction. All teams roll their dice and move forward, then a team calls out “Kaj!”, and you go over and listen, then one student asks “What is it? and another student answers “It’s a horse.”, if the answer is good, put a chip on the card, if not they can move on or try again, but they must first call out your name. In the meantime the other two teams are probably screaming for you, so move over to the next team in line. I usually use different coloured chips for each team and allow only one chip on each card, so one colour can sometimes replace another, this is certainly a competitive element. The game ends when the timer goes and then I ask for the chips to be put back in the box, the highly competitive students try to count the chips, but they rarely succeed. You could of course count all the chips and put the total number on the board.
I find that keeping a competitive element in the game but not declaring a winner or keeping the result indefinite is the best. This satisfies students who love competition as they can believe that they won, whether or not they did, and those who hate competition certainly don’t feel like losers.
I often play Tic Tac Toe or Gridlock with two teams but I sometimes give them chips of three colours so they cannot play against each other.
Best wishes,
David
December 31st, 2005 at 5:40 pm
I can certainly empathize with your situation. I was recently made aware that the sometimes baffling dynamics in my classroom can actually originate from other settings and places where the kids are encountering one another during the week. To make a long story short, I recently found out that one of my kinder kids was being verbally belittled as “not as smart” by a faster-maturing classmate who is experiencing a recent break-through in understanding. (Phonics has begun clicking for him.) However, his unfortunate choice of “I’m-smarter-than-you” behavior has recently tried to creep into my class. I’ve found that bullying can be quite stealth-like and hard to detect before the damage is done. So, for the time being I decided we’ll need to take care to really de-emphasize the competition aspect of our class activities… especially due to the age factor. Perhaps after a time, we can occasionally introduce those types of games/activities again. Hopefully, next year those two boys will end up in different classes due to creative scheduling.
AFTER the incident…? Well, when this particular incident took place the manager was able to console and counsel the offended party–can’t remember the precise Kinder-logic that was used–but it seemed helpful in aiding his understanding that the other kid was just a kid, after all, and it’s really not worth dwelling on a fellow-student’s opinion who is not fluent in English either. The teacher thinks he is very smart! etc… Probably the greatest value of the conversation was that we were able to uncover the history of the situation. Since the problem runs deeper than and beyond my classroom, I’ll need to work harder than ever to achieve a feeling of camaraderie amongst that group of kids.
Cooperation is important, yes. Very important. And, I know many of you disagree, but, I still think healthy competition is important, too. Especially as kids get settled into elementary school. I really believe that it’s part of my job to help my students learn good sportsmanship. They need to be able to show good sportmanship whether they “win” or “lose”. This is not the focus of my classes, by any means. But, it is a small, important part. I don’t want my students to shy away from occasional, friendly competition in life. I want ALL of my students to have the kind of inner self esteem and self-confidence that enables them to walk with their heads held high regardless of the score board. Life is full of ups and downs. Knowing best how to respond to the ups and downs doesn’t always happen naturally. This, too, needs to be modeled and learned– somewhere.
My two cents,
Michelle
January 1st, 2006 at 9:07 am
Kaj -
About the situation of a deflated student, due to the perception of loss: Are rewards given to the “winner”?
Chuck Kayser
My English School – Kyoto
January 1st, 2006 at 2:19 pm
All,
Happy New Year! Just crawled out of bed after an all-night New Year’s party. Nice to be able to get up this late once in a while!
Thank you to everyone who took time to comment on the issue of competition in the classroom. Interesting New Year’s reading, thanks!
Chuck wrote:
Are rewards given to the “winner”?
No. In fact, sometimes the “winner” has to clean up. Out of all my students, it’s only these two boys who react so strongly.
David L wrote:
I’ve never seen this reaction in my classroom while playing the game…
Exactly and same here. Again, only the one boy (don’t play with the younger kids) with the attitude. Everyone else simply enjoys the process. Giving students a choice of whether or not to participate is an idea. One thing I might mention is that I’ve added extra cards to the game, such as switch directions, skip a turn, “magic” card, etc. Since he starts pouting if he doesn’t get any of these special cards, I think I’ll taking these out of the game might make a difference. This still doesn’t address the underlying problem that Laura and Keith so astutely pointed out, namely fostering a healthier approach to competition as a whole. I would agree with Laura that removing the element of competition in our classes entirely may not help kids deal with the realities of competition in society as a whole. Whether competition in society as a whole is a healthy thing or not is open for debate, of course, but as far this discussion is concerned, I am more interested in examining ways to foster a healthier approach in children who overreact to losing or have this “win at all costs” mentality.
Michelle made an interesting point:
the sometimes baffling dynamics in my classroom can actually originate from other settings and places where the kids are encountering one another during the week.
To what extent does external pressure (from parents, peers, jukus, play a role in these kids’ reactions? To what extent should we be putting additional pressure on the kids to achieve concrete results in our classes as well?
Sam wrote:
I recommend Alfie Kohn’s NO CONTEST: the case against competition.
Thanks, Sam. I’ll make sure to pick it up over the break. Although I would tend to agree more with Laura and Keith that fostering a healthy approach to competition may be more helpful than trying to eliminate it altogether, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts or experiences with competitive games in your classes and strategies you have used to foster a healthier psychological and spiritual outlook in your students.
Kaj Schwermer
Osaka
January 1st, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Kaj -
What about using a game to teach students about winning and losing. The “answers” are English words, etc., but the games are very short. Several games with chances to win, lose, etc. I have restructured some of my games to be less competitive with other students, and more competitive with me, or some limit I establish. Each student or group gets a point/chip when they complete a task. One limitation might be time, though I am usually very flexible, another might be neatness. In many of my other, more competitive games, I do absolutely nothing about establishing who the winner is, or even finish the game sometimes. I often talk with my students personally in class, via Japanese, when they become too emotional. I often find this a good time to talk with them as they are with familiar people in a comfortable setting with someone they trust. I find that follow up chats with parents to be important as it keeps everyone in the loop. But, to be honest, I feel I get more positive results with the students directly.
Happy New Year!!!
Chuck Kayser
My English School- Kyoto
January 1st, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Kaj wrote:
Thanks, Sam. I’ll make sure to pick it up over the break. Although I would tend to agree more with Laura and Keith that fostering a healthy approach to competition may be more helpful than trying to eliminate it altogether, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts or experiences with competitive games in your classes and strategies you have used to foster a healthier psychological and spiritual outlook in your students.
I don’t know if my children are psychologically and spiritually healthy, but I try my best. It’s not so much what we do in class, but rather the spirit in which it is done.
The thing is, healthy competition is a contradiction in terms. Like smoking clean
Language learning is, almost by definition, a co-operative enterprise. I try very hard to create a “we’re all in this together” kind of environment where the children feel safe enough to learn from each other and help each other out. Competition undermines that very environment, by creating subsets of “winners” (what exactly they “win” however, is not clear). If the children see each other as rivals, they’ll not only ask for help less, they’ll begin to see school as a frightening and dangerous place. Children (and other people) generally don’t learn well in that kind of environment.
Peace for 2006
Sam
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:37 am
Ah to compete or not to compete that is the question.
I’ve been struggling with this one myself. I’ve been trying the non-competetive approach and find it does work very well but sometimes I also find that a little competetion is not so bad either. One thing I try to avoid in competetive games is making a really big deal of winning, for example giving a reward to the winner. For ex: If I play bingo in a kids class and someone gets bingo simply start the next round and let a willing student be the next bingo “caller”. They usually all volunteer so I randomly choose someone (usually via “eeny meeny miny mo (sp)”). I make sure that all (or several in a large class) get a turn so taking turns is important in my class.
Or in the race game (FO1) the winner may get there first, but if you play to the end the last person to finish gets to play longer. That’s not so bad either.
Kids will face competition somewhere so occasionally it should be OK in class as long as it’s balanced with cooperation as well. We should jsut be careful not to make the “losers” feel like losers.
Renae
PS. Happy new Year
January 2nd, 2006 at 8:09 am
Hi Michelle
When we get older, I believe we make conscious decisions about when it is best to cooperate and when it is best to compete. Children can learn that some competition is for fun and these are usually called “games.” Some cooperation is also for fun and can be part of the very same game when teams are involved. (I am amazed by the unifying nature of team sports where complete strangers form groups to cheer on their favorite teams.)
Cooperation and competition are not just words, they are very real parts of life and a healthy attitude toward them is important. When people join to provide relief to disaster victims they are, in affect, competing against the ravages of nature to further the “human” team. On the other hand, when primary school students play out-for-blood baseball against other children in the same neighborhood just so the “Vikings” can beat the “Cardinals” I want to make parties aware that there are no real Vikings or Cardinals involved, all the players are human children.
The degree of competition will eventually be decided by the individual, but extreme competitiveness is not to be desired in my mind. I grew up in a family of six boys and everything was a competition. We rarely had the chance to join as a force or friends because of our interfamily rivalry.
I say stay the course…life involves competition and students will experience it and develop an attitude about it no matter what. I think it would be helpful to see it modeled well. The world does not end with a second place finish or even a no-place finish. Participation alone often yields great rewards and friendships.
Mike
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:58 am
Gordon wrote:
I appoligize in advance if I seem rude.
I don’t think you’re rude at all. Everyone’s entitled to their opinion. But I disagree. Maybe it’s because I grew up in a big city and now live in a small town. But anyway, I think Japan is less competitive. I’m generalizing when I say that, of course. There’s no shortage of problems; very serious problems here. And Japanese treatment of outsiders is notorious. (I’ve only lived here for 7 years, maybe I’m still a greener). And yet . . . despite all the exceptions and horror stories, I’ve noticed a much stronger sence of community and identity among the Japanese. A feeling of “we’re all Japanese, we’re all in this together.” We don’t have that in the west.
Much is made of Japanese cliquishness, which of course can be hell on earth if you’re excluded. But when you’re in the group, acceptance seems to be so much more welcoming and unconditional. We sink or swim together. In the west, groups are so much more ephemeral. A friend today could be a rival tomorrow, and often is. In the schools and offices, even in the family, there’s a sense of “to be successful, to be accepted, I have to ‘win’ — which generally translates into ‘beating’ other people.” For awards, for a job, even for love. The dominating emotions between people seem to be fear and envy. Fear of losing, and envy of those who win. My own high school was ruthelessly competitive. Out of about 200 freshmen only one quarter “survived” to graduation. I suppose the school prided itself on its high standards and “competitive edge”. But at what price. That’s what I mean when I say Japan is less competitive. But even if I’m wrong. That doesn’t mean we have to turn our classrooms into shaming factories. That’s excatly what happens when we condition them into seeing each other as rivals. When we make them compete; when we prepare them for the “real world.” We generate fear and shame when these feeling may not have existed before. (And if it did exist, we balloon them into monstrous proportions.) These kids often carry the shame of “not being good enough” of “losing,” perhpas for decades. They may come to hate English — perhaps all learning — as a result. Some kids might be relisient and press on anyway. But they are rare, and furthermore the shaming certainly didn’t help. (That’s like breaking a kid’s leg, and then we he becomes a championship runner later in life, we say “look how I helped him by breaking his leg.”)
How many of us had to work through the shame of our growing up years, before we could get down to the serious business of learning as adults? Here’s a little thought experiment. If you had 10 native speakers in the room, and you asked “who’s the best English speaker?” What would their reaction be?
Peace
Sam
January 2nd, 2006 at 11:58 am
This thread about competition and cooperation is very interesting and some good points have been made. In my opinion, of course competition is fun – if not then why would anyone enjoying playing games or sports? And of course cooperation is fun – everyone knows how satisfying it is to be part of a supportive and unified team. But should we use them in the classroom? Well, it’s nice to be idealistic about these things, but surely the focus should always be on how well the children are learning. I’m sure that Chris, Sam and the other advocates of cooperation are very pleased with their children’s results using non-competitive activities. And I’m sure that all the advocates of competition are equally pleased with their children’s results. Most of us probably only see our children for about 50 minutes each week. This is such a small proportion of the rest of the week that I don’t think we need to get too hung up about social ideologies here. The important thing is to teach them English as effectively as possible in such a ridiculously short space of time, using any means available (within reason of course). Emotional engagement and fun are strong catalysts in my opinion.
In my school we usually make the games both competitive and cooperative by playing in teams. Single-winner games are only played if there’s an element of luck involved – like throwing a dice. And the only reward the winner or winners receive is maybe a cheer, a round of applause or helping out in the next round somehow.
Fortunately I’ve never experienced Kaj’s problem with the losers taking it badly. I sympathise with him because these two children are spoiling it for the rest of the class as well as for themselves. It would be a shame to remove competitive games from the 9 year old class just because of him. Maybe you can keep on emphasising the “winning isn’t everything” point in Japanese before, during and after the game? Or get his parents involved? (Is he an only child?) Or surprise everyone from time to time with a last minute rule change and declare the losing team to be the winner! (making sure he sometimes benefits and sometimes doesn’t because of it). I don’t know though, I’m no expert and I wish you every success with the problem.
Wishing you all a happy and prosperous 2006.
Ian Griffiths
Hokkaido
January 2nd, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Happy new year, everyone!
Just wanted to share some random thoughts about some recent topics. I’m sure most of you already know, but it really depends on the class whether competition is okay. If you have a child who has no chance to win or a superstar who wins every time, better skip the competition. Games with an element of chance, like bingo, are okay. Also, concentration is a game where some of your slower students may surprise you. To speed up the game, I usually divide the table with a ruler and have them take a card from each side and then a third card of his choice. All students shout out every word together.
About the discipline problem, is the class on his level? If it’s too hard or too easy, a child is much more likely to cause problems. I had a boy who exactly fit the profile of Michelle’s student.
He came into a more advanced class and was frustrated. He turned out to be very bright and when he caught up and made friends, the problems decreased. Then he dropped out! Sigh…
About dyslexia, I’m sure it is over-diagnosed and used as a cop-out, but “It doesn’t exist” is a bit of an overstatement, don’t you think? I taught a student in a kindergarten in America who could not even learn to write his name (John!) after a whole year. The letters were scrambled, sideways and upside down. He was otherwise bright and seemed to be trying hard. I may not be the best teacher in the world, but my other students were “getting it.” As for learning disabilities being “new,” my aunt recently told me that she thought she had dyslexia. But 90 years ago, she was just labeled “dumb” (she is not!) and held back a grade (which her twin sister loved to point out to everyone).
Thanks to everyone for your thought-provoking posts.
Jeanne
January 2nd, 2006 at 4:59 pm
I’d just like to echo Gordon’s comment of “Are we living in the same Japan?” Sam first made the statement about Japan not being competitive on New Year’s Eve, I believe? So as I was reading it then, I half-expected him to end his message sort of like President Bush on the golf course:
“Now excuse me while I watch this PRIDE.”
(It was practically a Celebrity Deathmatch this year.) I think this issue has nothing to do with competition at all, but rather personal/growth issues of the children- if tears are consistently shed, it sounds like something’s definitely going on there that has nothing to do with the teacher/classroom environment, nor competition itself.
Japan is extremely competitive- everything Sam explained about the west by comparison, I found to be literally the opposite and applicable to Japan instead. While I’d have to agree that the ability to work in groups is certainly high, and there is a very strong sense of community here as well, yet the competitiveness to get into the best junior high schools, to get into the best high schools etc. is most tight and the “Japanese cliqishness” you speak of only reinforces competition. I mean, twins actually have different ages in this country- they can’t _both_ be the same age.
During my teaching years, I ran into many other teachers who were against competition, to the extent they’d introduce new rules as has been suggested (changing who “wins” at the end, etc). (Despite the fact that whenever I visited an elementary school class, there was always, always a game of some sort). I recommend you tread carefully on that ground because it may come across as disingenuous- and you’re assuming that the kids won’t recognize that they not only have to win (lose this time?) the game, but also win your subjective favor (the new game), assuming they’re still interested in the subject matter, which is the whole point. The benefit of competition is not to shame anyone, but rather to make the competitors better than they otherwise would have been, and as a device for student motivation/incentive. I heard once that kids can be cruel, so of course this is all easier said than done.
David Boudreau
EPITFOG/Fawnix
Nagaoka City, Niigata
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Gordon my man you have hit the nail on the head!
I consider myself to be a competitive person, however I strongly believe that it is not necessary to be combative, insulting, selfish, or in any way a shitty person – all things that competition can bring out in people. When we compete against others, we set our sights too low. My opponent is me.
I wish you all success,
Keith
“The first and greatest victory is to conquer self; to be conquered by self is of all things most shameful and vile.”
Plato
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Happy New Year everyone!
Sorry for being late to reply. I’ve been struggling both with writing my newsletter and with a bad back. I’ve probably been trying to carry too heavy a load and I suspect I’ll end up making this reply do the same…
A lot of interesting points have been made and I’d like to jump to the thrust of Kaj’s question which is what to do when competition goes wrong, but first I do wonder if we are all defining competition in the same way. Are co-operation and competition exact opposites? Considering that team sports involve co-operation it’s doubtful. In No CONTEST Alfie Kohn defines competition as MEGA – mutually exclusive goal attainment. This is the definition I usually go with, though sometimes I wonder whether this definition is sufficient. I’d be interested to know how those who advocate competition in the classroom define it.
Incidentally a good summary of Kohn’s book can be found here:
http://www.shareintl.org/archives/cooperation/co_nocontest.htm
An interesting challenge to the definition of MEGA can be found here:
http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralEd/articles/gordon.html
Clearly though, where children react violently there is a problem. I wonder if anyone has had a child react violently to a non-competitive or co-operative game? I’ve seen a child cheat when playing a co-operative game, but I haven’t seen the kind of outbursts Kaj described. What is cheating would make for an interesting thread.
Another point to consider is that most advocates of competition will agree that competitive games should not be played with very young children but can be introduced to older children. Why is that? Is there something poisonous about competition that the very young can not cope with? Perhaps competition is like a alcohol and tobacco – a hard drug.
One thing I am certain of is that forcing children to play competitive games is a form of abuse (by the way, I think forcing them to play co-operative games is also abusive). There should be a choice and given the position we have as teachers it is important that we make that choice explicit and real. Being able to sit out of a game suggested by the teacher is not enough of a choice but much better than being forced to participate, but I think there should be real negotitation. Children could be offered alternatives or games could be chosen randomly or children could take turns choosing games. Where possible consensus should be reached. Consensus may involve a child choosing to watch a game rather than participate but this process is very different from the teacher simply imposing a game on the group. The process is involving children taking into account each other’s feelings and I think that is critical.
But what to do when competition goes wrong and children get upset? I like to team teach and team teaching is very useful in such situations as it means one adult can give attention to a hurt child and the other can carry on. Whether carrying on is the best option depends upon the situatation. It is also an ethical decision that reflects the teacher’s values.
If a member of a group is hurting should the group ignore that hurt or embrace it as collective hurt? Should the group support the individual who is hurting or leave it for the individual to solve?
I think members of a group should care for each other. I think members of a group should look out for each other. I think members of a group should love one another. If they don’t what kind of a group is it?
It may well be at the time that the best course of action is to leave the individual alone. Give the child some space and look at the problem later. But the point I’m making is that a temper tantrum should be seen as the group’s problem. The child is not the problem.
Modern society is very competitive. How could it be otherwise when capitalism is the economic model? Competition permeates society and I think it effuses into our thinking unless we are careful. Part of the “Second Cooperative Sports and Games Handbook” (Pantheon Books, 1982) by Terry Orlick is devoted to games from various different aboriginal cultures. By no means are all of the games co-operative but it is obvious that a different spirit is in operation. For example, in Papua New Guinea children play Siikori which is a game of tag played around and in rivers. When everyone agrees the game is over there is a ceremony in which one child touches the other children in turn saying, “Doko no peromo” – I take it from you. The child then touches a special tree with a sticky sap and in this way cleanses the group of bad feelings. Other games end with different cleansing rituals. There is communal action to deal with animosity and negativity. Could something similar be introduced into the language learning classroom?
If I were in the situation described by Kaj I’d focus on team games without individual player pieces. I’d also make sure I got anonymous feedback after each activity perhaps by getting children to post assessment slips. I’d set up a situation so that in turn each child could choose which game to be played and note which games they chose. I might set up a board game where the children had to escape from a monster, take the roll of the monster and then throw a mock tantrum as the children were winning. I’d mirror horrible behaviour to see what reaction it got. I’d think about using a game like REACH THE TOP which can’t be won if an individual tries to win it.
http://wisehat.com/resources/games/reachthetop.php
I’d also want to find out the feeling behind the behaviour. I’d ask the child if he felt sad or angry, frightened, embarrassed or ashamed. I’d do this in English and perhaps encourage the other children to do the same. If necessary I’d do some work on feelings so that the children had the vocabulary. I might play some games where children got to act out different feelings. I’d avoid competitive games when doing so.
One thing to consider might be making mood cubes. Children could make these using cut-up cartons and coloured paper. Each side would have a different colour and the colours could represent different moods. For example, tired, sad, happy, excited, bored, hungry. Children could personalise their own cubes by drawing faces. Each child would change the top face of their cube depending upon how they felt. I’ve not tried this idea which I first read about in a Rose and Maslich book but I think I will. I think mood cubes could help to make a classroom more caring. Children should set cubes before and after each activity.
When I hear people talk about healthier approaches to competition I wonder if they would also advocate healthy approaches to violence. A “better” aim, I think, is to move to a position beyond winning and losing – ie create a world where the concepts are alien.
I find little merit in the argument about using competition to prepare children for life. Prepare children for a competitive life, perhaps. Life offers plenty of opportunities for learning to deal with disappointment and other emotions without employing competition to do so in the classroom. From a language teacher’s point of view is there anything that a competitive game can do that a non-competitive game cannot? If there is I’d like to know. One could then assess whether it outweighed the negative aspects of competition.
I think modern society is self-destructive and that competition is one of the negative strands that is twisting us towards destruction. I think this is because modern societies are based on a dominator paradigm rather than a paradigm of love. I said at the beginning that this reply might become too heavy a load. I can hear creaking so I’ll stop.
Best wishes,
Chris (Hunt)
January 3rd, 2006 at 12:56 pm
Gordon made a good point:
but mostly it’s just me trying to be better than I was yesterday. The competition is with myself.
I want to clarify something: competing with yourself is a contraction in terms. Competing is by definition something that involves other people. (Like wrestling).
There’s absolutely nothing wrong with self-improvement. It’s perfectly admirable and sets a powerful positive example to others. The problem comes when self-improvement comes *at the expense* of others. (ie. I can only succeed by defeating other people.) In fact, competiton undermines self-improvement, because it encourages thinking about stragey (how do I beat them), rather than thinking about understanding.(How can I interpret this reading? How can I express myself in English?) It is the latter, and not the former, I think, we want to encourage. Co-operation does not always facilitate this process, but competition never does.
Peace for 2006
Sam
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Hi Chris,
Good post – very interesting read, all 1325 words of it.
Another point to consider is that most advocates of competition will agree that competitive games should not be played with very young children but can be introduced to older children. Why is that? Is there something poisonous about competition that the very young can not cope with? Perhaps competition is like a alcohol and tobacco – a hard drug.
Young children aren’t developmentally mature enough to understand the concept of competing, that’s why. In general, it’s not until they are 5 or so that they begin to understand strategy. I’m sure this is the reason why competition is not introduced earlier and not because it is bad for them.
Laura
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Gordon wrotet:
but mostly it’s just me trying to be better than I was yesterday. The competition is with myself.
And Sam Pitch replied:
I want to clarify something: competing with yourself is a contraction in terms. Competing is *by definition* something that involves other people. (Like wrestling).
Sam, I think that perspective on competition is limited in a negative way. Gordon is entirely correct- competition is simply that- the dynamics of interacting forces with different forces/interests/desires. Any effort exerted is competing with an opposing force *by definition*.
The results of competition are as likely to be beneficial as harmful- it depends on the way it’s used, and responded to. Rising from the futon each morning is fighting with gravity and laziness- thank goodness I win that one each morning.
Not complaining about my neighbor’s bad habits (and thereby keeping the peace between us) is my appreciation fighting with my irritation. Competition, victory, good result (we get along).
Staying healthy is the good result of your body competing with germs and viruses. May you always win that competition.
I’m astounded daily by the dynamics of a thriving free economy. The struggle between competing businesses continually produces innovations and improvements that benefit everyone. Remember slide rulers and mimeograph paper (shudder)? Every day, I’m grateful for competition. Without it, excellence cannot emerge, and we would still be living in caves (double shudder).
In fact, competiton undermines self-improvement, because it encourages thinking about stragey (how do I beat them), rather than thinking about understanding.
With respect, this is entire a negative view. Let me suggest the opposite:
without competition (inner and outer) any improvement (inner, physical, group, social, etc.) is impossible.
The problem comes when self-improvement comes at the expense of others. (ie. I can only succeed by defeating other people.)
Here I almost agree. Defeating another person doesn’t demand demeaning them. I competed in swimming in high school because I enjoyed competition, but despised the contact of basketball. My idol was a swimmer from a competing school named Moses, when we shook hands before the start of our races it was a gesture of sincere mutual respect, and when he beat me I didn’t feel degraded, just enlightened (and determined). Perhaps I equate Interaction and Competition, which provide a true view of ability, understanding, and value, both individual and social. Without interaction, we all lose. Okay, new definition: competition is simply interaction. [Chris Hunt: THAT'S what I'm trying to say.]
Now, getting back to our classrooms: Competition can be useful, stimulating, even essential (Hanako, trying to write, is competing with the expanding limits of her awareness and understanding). It can also be destructive and counter-productive.
The difference is our responsibility, as the sole authority present (the teacher). Know your students, know their limits, know their strong and weak points, arrange your lessons accordingly, and guide the process with alertness. What goes on is largely in your your hands and in your heart. It should not resemble the prison exercise yard, and you may have to exert control to ensure that it doesn’t. Change the activity, stay ahead of the situation.
Regarding the two boys whose unacceptable behavior started this thread, I’m as surprised as David Lisgo. I’ve seen cheating and frustration, but not that extreme. For them, I would design a different activity altogether, and place myself between them perhaps. There’s lots of things that could be done in pairs or teams as a joint effort rather than win/lose.
Or individually, which is where the real competition is. A cranky child might thrive on being let to go at their own pace, pushing their own envelope. Nicolas Cueto’s testimony of the junior high girl who he let use the Finding Out CD-Rom on her own (during group classes that she shunned) comes to mind. Some of my students work hardest and are the most focused when they are writing individually, undistracted by their classmates.
Please consider that competition itself is both neutral and unavoidable. The RESPONSE to competition can be a wonderful thing or a terrible thing, and the difference in the classroom is our (the teacher’s) responsibility.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
At Home English Nagoya
PS: A personal note to Chris Hunt, who I have discussed this issue with at length but not to conclusion: I’m sorry I dropped the ball on our exchanges over this issue, and I cordially look forward to further discussion. I truth, I don’t think we disagree that much as I recall our last emails.
January 3rd, 2006 at 4:23 pm
Fascinating. At the very same time that I was working on my own post on this thread, Chris (Hunt) wrote:
In No CONTEST Alfie Kohn defines competition as MEGA – mutually exclusive goal attainment. This is the definition I usually go with, though sometimes I wonder whether this definition is sufficient. I’d be interested to know how those who advocate competition in the classroom define it.
That certainly clarifies and helps the discussion, Chris.
My definition is dramatically different: Competition is Interaction.
‘Mutually exclusive goal attainment’ sounds horrid and rather unappealing, no thank you all around. With that definition, I would be as passionate as you in seeking to banish it from our classrooms. Happy New Year everyone!
Thank you, to you as well.
I’ve been struggling both with writing my newsletter and with a bad back. I’ve probably been trying to carry too heavy a load Sincerely, I’m very sorry to hear that. May you be Blessed with a strong recovery and good health for the remainder of this new year. Your vitality and contributions are a tremendous benefit to us all and your students.
Best regards, Peter Warner.
Nagoya
January 3rd, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Hi Chris and others,
As a proponent of competition, I’d like to respond to your questions. First though, just to make sure we’re talking about the same things, as I have a question about this “MEGA” definition of competition, from one of your web links:
Beating Others: Kohn defines competition as any situation where one person’s success is dependent upon another’s failure. Put another way, in competition two or more parties are pursuing a goal that cannot be attained by all. He calls this ‘mutually exclusive goal attainment’ (MEGA).
Ok, I understand he isn’t comfortable with zero-sum games, and any situation that produces any “rotten eggs” last to the finish line. But the goal (attainment) is not what’s mutually exclusive. The goal is universal. But I guess “UGA” is not as catchy. All competitors have the same goal.
The phrase “mutually exclusive goal attainment” sounds like each competitor is running around, doing their own thing; some listening, while others speak, for example- quite the opposite situation. What he means by mutual exclusive is when there is a clear line drawn between “best performer” and anyone else. It’s true that not everyone can be first every time (or ever), but everyone should also get over the finish line at least.
As a proponent of competition, myself, I suppose my definition includes allowing for rotten-egg situations (obviously not allowing for cruel put-downs or insults from other students). The other link you included makes a good distinction between competition and rivalry; perhaps rivalry is what we competition proponents mean when we use the word competition. Also, I don’t think we make a distinction between competing with ourselves vs. competing with others, against the clock, or gravity to get up in the morning; it’s all competition.
I have seen outbursts before, not precisely as described but where a child just starts crying for no apparent reason during some activity or game (both coop/comp). I don’t see those cases as having anything to do with competition itself, however.
I wouldn’t readily agree that competitive games should not be introduced to very young children, as you said. If they’re so young that they can’t discern the difference between winning a game and winning unconditional love for example, safe to say that that’s too young of course.
If a member of a group is hurting, the group should address the hurt to the extent that it affects the group itself, but not to the extent that it affects the individual. The member and his hurt are important to the member, but the group and overall group-hurt is what’s important to the group. “Ask not what your group can do for you, but what you can do for your group.” If a member is hurting in a way that also hurts other members of the group, this is not good and when played out in real life that member is either “expunged like a virus”, or at least has a negative effect on all remaining members. KC might sit the member down and say, look, I think after moving you around from seat to seat, it’s time you got off the bus.(?)
The Papua New Guinean game of Siikori might have a certain tradition of dealing away with animosity and negativity- however, touching tree sap does not really work to accomplish that objective very effectively. We all wish life’s pains could be disposed of so easily. If the game is played in a river, I would hope there are more than rituals to cleanse away bad feelings- not to mention the players, too. Competition might be a lot more lax in Papua New Guinea, but I think there’d be advantages to living up-river from everyone else. I like the game go (igo, board game w/ black and white stones), which also ends only when both players agree it should end. It is fiercely competitive, however. Yet there are always opportunities to learn and it has one of the best handicapping systems of any game.
“Reach the Top” seems like a great game for dealing with this issue of competition in the English classroom. While it’s true that a fast climber is held back with the rest of the group, what really matters is that the slowest player on your team becomes the bottleneck/weakest link in the chain. The winning strategy would then be to give anything that slowest climber can handle to him, and leave everything else to the rest of the members. Get the slowest member on top of everyone else in the team, and carry as much of his weight as you can.
Even in that case, however, the critical step is determining who the weakest link in the chain is. It can also hold back a top performer, but the point is to get to the top together as a team so that’s certainly acceptable. (If the top performer starts hurting so much because of it- maybe it’s time to get off the bus/expunged like a virus.)
I do advocate a healthy approach to violence- avoid it! (Some ways are more effective than others.)
As for preparing children for life with competition, it provides a measure, at the least, to gauge how they’re doing. Take your “Reach the Top” game as an example: the point is for everyone to stick together- no one gets too far advanced, no one falls too far behind. This is _great_ for the slowest climber, as a member of the group. For the group, however, they will _always_ be limited to progress at the exact same rate of their slowest climber, and no faster. Always. It limits not only the fastest climber, but the group as a whole. The group may hurt, in a way. (What should the member do if the rest of the group is hurting?) Now consider competitive games, i.e. when healthy rivalry happens. There is absolutely _no_ limit on the upside, at _all_. Not on an individual member, nor the group as a whole. Even when you try to set “realistic” limits, those limits will be broken (eg 4 minute mile). The sky is the limit. That is what you want, ideally. (easier said than done, granted!)
David Boudreau
EPITFOG/Fawnix
Nagaoka City, Niigata
January 5th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
I have been following with great interest the thread about the pros and cons of competitive activities.
I have been, and am still, on the fence about it; I can see both sides of the argument. What I keep thinking is, how much I love to play volleyball, an innately competitive activity. (I’m not good at it, mind you–I just enjoy it.) But then I read this excerpt from a message from Sam Pitch:
Language learning is, almost by definition, a co-operative enterprise. I try very hard to create a ‘we’re all in this together’ kind of environment where the children feel safe enough to learn from each other and help each other out. Competition undermines that very environment, by creating subsets of ‘winners’ ….If the children see each other as rivals, they’ll not only ask for help less, they’ll begin to see school as a frightening and dangerous place. Children (and other people) generally don’t learn well in that kind of environment.
And I asked myself whether I would learn a new language better during the playing of a game with the competitive feeling of volleyball, or during the playing of a game with a non-competitive feel to it. I have to admit that I think I would learn better during the latter.
This doesn’t negate the point about our having an opportunity to foster healthy attitudes towards competition (good sportsmanship), but that point begs the question: Is our job to teach sportsmanship, or English? If we can teach both without the primary goal suffering, fine. But if the primary goal (I am presuming we would all agree it is teaching English) is compromised, are we justified in trying to serve both?
Just more food for thought.
Alan Miesch
January 5th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Gordon said, “Competition will never go away. If we ignore it we lose.”
I agree. Every single one of us is in competition in one way or another. If I have a job teaching, someone else who would like to have that job doesn’t have it. I win, he or she loses. If my school has students, they are spending time/money at my school that some other entrepreneur would like them to spend at his/her place of business. And so on.
But that doesn’t mean we have to employ competition in our classes. Our students will have enough competition in their lives without getting it in our classes too.
Alan Miesch
January 5th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
On January 4th, Peter Warner made some really good points about competition.
But I want to challenge (in the friendliest, non-competitive way, of course!) a couple of things. For one thing, Peter, I think you are stretching the meaning of competition when you refer to things such as struggling to get your bulk (no insult intended) up out of bed. At least to me, competition suggests one party trying to come out ahead of the other, resulting in a winner and a loser.
The gravity and laziness you are “fighting” don’t lose anything when you succeed. A struggle is not necessarily a competition. Not that you can’t call it competition, but I think that denotation of the word is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
The other thing is about these comments: “The struggle between competing businesses continually produces innovations and improvements that benefit everyone. Remember slide rulers and mimeograph paper (shudder)? Every day, I’m grateful for competition. Without it, excellence cannot emerge, and we would still be living in caves (double shudder).”
I don’t think we can assume that the innovations and inventions that replaced the slide rule and such resulted from competition. One of the links someone provided recently (sorry I don’t remember who or which link) talked about research that showed that the most successful people also tended to be the least competitive. If I write a song as great as “Bridge Over Troubled Water” (not yet, and don’t hold your breath), I don’t think it is likely that I write it in an attempt to write a better song than someone else. More likely, I am just trying to write the best song I can. Who or what am I competing with?
Guess that’s it for now. Whatchu think?
Alan Miesch
January 5th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Yes, our job is not to teach sportsmanship, itself, after all, but English. Therefore, the point of _any_ activity, be it a drill/practice, cooperative game, or competitive game must be to support the students’ learning (or just “using”) English. Having the students truly learning/using English must absolutely be a by-product of any competitive game- no doubt. This is the entire reason a competitive game is ever employed.
So you ask, why do we need to produce the rotten eggs too? Can’t we just have the learning as the only by-product?
I think the answer lies in how the different types of games themselves compete among each other for effectiveness in classtime, in terms of the primary aim (learning English). The subtle pressure of avoiding being the rotten egg often sparks quick motivation to engage the game more directly, and fluidly- getting into it, more involved, immersed, etc. The pressure should be subtle enough to keep each student involved and actively participating, yet not enough to cause despair, hopelessness, give up, or feeling obligated to commit suicide from dishonoring your family name, etc. Interestingly, this subtle pressure also happens in cooperative games, whether the students recognize it or not. Just recently on the etj list, a post was made about a penalty/fine jar, where the students, _already_ paying some money for the class presumably, actually opted to pay even more than other students at times, for being nothing other than rotten eggs…
imagine!
I’m not saying competition will work every time- but I will say that if you eradicate it entirely from all of your options of obtaining the primary aim, you could be missing out (which means the students are, too).
Sportsmanship in this regard is a prerequisite for English classes with competitive games. But to say the child consistently throwing tantrums/outbursts “just needs to learn sportsmanship” might be missing something deeper going on- again, nothing to blame on competition itself. I’d ask the parents about it.
re: Bridge Over Troubled Water- First of all, this is art, and art does not really advance society in the ways described. Artists might draw pretty pictures on the cave walls, but tend to starve us all if relied on for getting us out into homes and into cars and stuff.
But under the “competition IS life!” stance, I’ll take a stab at it…
the competition can be viewed as whether Paul Simon is able or not to very very very accurately describe in lyrics, vocals and guitar plucks a popular sentiment that everyone feels– quite strongly– but cannot so easily express, and rarely as accurately as he did with that song. Basically, he kept it real. Not keeping it real (with this feeling he had, which also happened to be popular with others) loses the competition. It gets tricky with things like art, because of how art reflects life. First the competition is internal within Paul, then it happens to resonnate with others after it’s sung. The Spice Girls reflected life too- for young girls- but I don’t buy their music. At the end of the day though, both Paul Simon and the Spice Girls contributed about the same in terms of advancing society.
(btw the phrase “rotten egg” may only be an American colloquism – children there often chide last-place finishers of improvisational races as “rotten eggs”.)
David Boudreau
EPITFOG/Fawnix
Nagaoka City, Niigata
January 5th, 2006 at 6:25 pm
Hello,
I’m still keen to find a definition of competition that we would all be happy with. Until that is done I do not think one can argue about competition bringing people from the caves, or for that might returning them to it, which is still very much a possibility given the state of the world today.
Like Alan I think defining competition as effort or struggle is so broad an interpretation as to render the definition pretty meaningless. I agree with Sam that one cannot compete with one’s self but I’d welcome a definition from someone who thinks one can. Equally I think it might be illuminating to consider what competition has that co-operative and non-competitive games do not. What advantage does competition bring? Co-operative games and non-competitive games can involve struggle, effort and challenge so none of these can be claimed as unique to competition.
David (Boudreau) talked about the pressure of being the rotten egg – the pressure to avoid finishing last. If this element is included then competition would necessarily involve more than one person aiming to avoid finishing last. In situations where everyone had an objective to win and there was only one winner we would arrive at MEGA.
How about the following for a definition of competition?
“competition involves sorting participants into a hierarchy”
I wonder how subtle one can be with calling anyone a rotten egg? If the game involves skill in English and a student finishes last often enough the student might begin to feel that English is beyond them. I remember Laura saying that at her school various kinds of competitive games emphasising different skills and luck are used. I think games of pure luck might produce less negative feelings than those involving skill. Actually the reason I first got interested in non-competitive games was after my experience with one class of six students. There was a girl who I could never get to win anything, no matter what kind of game I presented. I even tried creative cheating but she was very sensitive to that. Once I started using non-competitive games I saw better results, she became less hesitant to speak and seemed to try more. The other children also seemed to be more relaxed, we had more fun and got more English done.
I think non-competitive games are healthier for learning English than competitive games. Perhaps competition is like taking alcohol. I don’t agree with Laura that the reason competition isn’t used with the very young is because they don’t understand strategy. Not all competition involves strategy and in any case non-competitive games can also involve strategy. I think the reason is because deep-down competition is anti-social. Perhaps Don Block or KC can comment on this – I think they’ve read a lot on teaching the very young.
To repeat myself, I’d very much like to hear from those using competitive games what they can do that non-competitive ones can’t. I’ve experienced the negative effects of using competitive games which is why I don’t use them by choice. However, I also believe in democratising the classroom so I’d never ban competitive games from my classes if the children wanted to use them.
Chris (Hunt)
http://www.wisehat.com
January 5th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
OK, I give and finally decide to add my two cents. I’ve enjoyed reading this thread and it’s definitely given me a lot to consider.
Chris you offer many good arguments and I’m not writing to say that you are wrong. You ask what competitive games do that non-competetive games cannot.
I think that competitive can sometimes act to motivate and provide a higher goal. Some students will participate for the sake of learning. Others don’t always feel the same way. They need a goal or reason to complete the task.
I’ve seen many low level classes come to life with a competitive game.
It took the focus away from English ability and put it on something they felt they could succeed in.
In fact, a very wise educator, pointed out that often times a student feels like a failure because they don’t know how to set goals and as a result set them too high. A student doesn’t have to get the top score or react the fastest to feel successful. Some of my best moments in teaching are when a class breaks into applause because a slower student answers a difficult question or achieves a goal (even if this goal is surpassed by everyone else in the room)
There is however a very fine line between healthy and unhealthy competition. Teachers sometime cross the line and perhaps “fail”
the student who ends up feeling bad.
But isn’t it also the teacher’s responsibility to challenge and motivate?
Can a teacher also “fail” a student because the group consensus was valued more that pushing the student to try to do a little better?
How many of us have been inspired to study Japanese a little bit more because we met someone who spoke it better? How many of our students studied harder as a result of a speech or essay contest they were unable to place in?
I think both competitive and non-competitive games are valuable tools in our toolboxes. They both have different roles and neither is the cure-all for all classes.
There are some classes that because of the group dynamics or personalities of a few students, where I avoid competitive games. I think this came from experience in finding out what worked and what didn’t.
Chris, it sounded like you made a wise decision in your group of 6 students. The girl thrived in the atmosphere that you helped create.
I do hesitate though in saying that competitive games have no place in the English classroom.
This turned out to be much longer than I intended. Looking forward to reading more on this thread!
Aimee
January 5th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Chris, thank you for your illuminating comments on competition. I’ve already printed your first (1325 word) message and hung it up on the wall next to my desk.
David B. Interesting post. Explanation of a couple lines might shed some more light on the issue:
All competitors have the same goal.
Which is…?
To what extent should we play a role in determining what that goal is? Is it simply a race to the finish, or should we be encouraging students to approach it more like a picnic, where enjoyment of the process is more important? Chris’ and other’s comments on giving students a choice gave food for thought. Okay, so I give a student the choice of whether or not to participate, he agrees wholeheartedly, but then midway through the game, sensing he may not win, withdraws, perhaps violently. Again, his choice. Is this any healthier?
I have seen outbursts before, not precisely as described but where a child just starts crying for no apparent reason during some activity or game (both coop/comp). I don’t see those cases as having anything to do with competition itself, however.
This may indeed be the case. I’m at a loss as to what the underlying reasons for the outbursts are, however. Is it simply wanting to be heard? Is it focusing too much on the desired outcome, winning, rather than the process, playing? Is it a feeling of letting themselves or the teacher down by not being the best? Is it a sense that they feel they are being treated unfairly?
More importantly, what would the appropriate response from the teacher and the class be, both in setting up the parameters beforehand and dealing with outbursts after the fact? Some people have suggested simply ignoring the child in question and letting them sulk in the corner and “get over it” on their own. Others have suggested avoiding games and activities that prompt the outburts. Others have suggested adding variations such as chance or teams, etc. Well, the addition of the element of chance actually exacerbates the situation. Both of these boys are strong students and usually win skill-based games. The addition of the element of chance actually increases the chances that they won’t win, thus creating anxiety and, more often than not, unhealthy reactions. Teams… I’ve tried putting students into teams using a variety of techniques, random “gu-pa” pairings, numbering students then grouping by number, pairing stronger with weaker, boys vs. girls, who’s wearing blue vs. who’s wearing red, etc. The end result of this is usually that the students in question start pouting before the game even starts if they aren’t paired with the strongest members of the class. They give up before we even start.
Interestingly, this subtle pressure also happens in cooperative games,
Actually, the reason I made the original post in the first place was because this DOESN’T happen with the two boys in question with cooperative games. The only time the outbursts occur is when we play COMPETITIVE games and only when either one of them senses they are not going to win. In other parts of the lesson, writing activities, for example, both of them will often go out of their way to help other students. Although both of them are the strongest in their respective classes as far as English ability is concerned, when we aren’t playing competitive games, there is no bullying, comparing or putting other students down. They are both exemplary students in all other respects: they love coming to class, they have a lot of fun simply learning the language, they enjoy learning for its own sake, they help others, etc. Again, the only time the ugliness rears its head is when the competition starts and they sense they aren’t going to come out on top.
Chris wrote:
Actually the reason I first got interested in non-competitive games was after my experience with one class of six students. There was a girl who…
Well, I think may be at that stage in my career as well, Chris. At least as far as the boys in question are concerned.
Thank you all for a wealth of insights. Look forward to learning more.
Kaj Schwermer
January 5th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Hi Aimee,
Thanks for a good read. I agree that helping students to learn to set goals is important. I find non-competitive games work much better for this than competitive ones. For example, sometimes we play target games. With a non-competitive game players can decide their own challenge individually. This also involves more English – I’ll move the target closer or further away according to the directions of the player whose turn it is. We can all cheer a successful shot and commiserate a miss.
I think non-competitive games help children to set their own goals where as competitive games often put them in situations where they are measuring against each other.
Personally, I think adults should allow and encourage children to develop their passions. If a child is not passionate about English they shouldn’t be in an English class. Reality is usually different and classes often contain children who are ambivalent to English or enjoy other aspects of a lesson (eg socialising) more than English itself. From what you wrote I’m not clear how a competitive game provides more of a goal than a non-competitive one. Non-competitive games have clear goals. The difference is that the children all succeed together or fail. I have some games which some classes have yet to succeed in. Perhaps you could develop your point further. I’d like to see some examples of how competitive games can challenge and motivate in a way that non-competitive games cannot.
You wrote about healthy and unhealthy competition. How about unhealthy co-operation? Which is more likely to arise in a class and why? I can imagine some children banding together to be mean to another and I can imagine that might well involve competition.
From what you’ve written it seems one has to be much more careful using competitive games than non-competitive ones. Competition can get out of hand in a way that co-operation hardly ever does. I think that in a way those who favour using competitive games in English class are saying is that competitive games are fine as long as they don’t become too competitive. Would anyone say co-operative games are fine as long as they don’t become too co-operative?
I use competitive games when children request them but I don’t introduce them. I think choice is very important. I also think that goals are important and I guess some students might find extra motivation from a contest or test not that I’ve seen that. I think self esteem and seeing oneself as being a speaker of a language is likely to be more beneficial. I think competition is more likely to undermine such internal factors than build them up. But then we are back to defining what competition is. So far I’ve offered two ideas:
1. Mutually Exclusive Goal Attainment
2. competition involves sorting participants into a hierarchy
Anyone care to chip in with some alternatives?
All the best
Chris (Hunt)
http://www.wisehat.com
PS I’ll address the issue of co-operation holding an able student back in another post.
January 6th, 2006 at 12:35 am
All competitors have the same goal.
Which is…?
to make all other competitors feel like rotten eggs, and that only _one_ competitor, like San Dimas high school football, rules. Supreme. No– wait a second…I mean…
All competitors share the same goal in UGA (/MEGA/zero-sum/rotten-egg situations) which is First Place: the top of the heirarchy that Chris mentioned in his definition.
While it’s not permitable to actually have more than one competitor reach the top of the dogpile, all competitors aim for that spot. A competition is a gathering of participants, who all agree on the same one, unifying dogpile, agree that the top of it is the best place to be, and then honorably agree to figure out who actually belongs there, despite opinions to the contrary.
I do not see how competition is at all like alcohol, though- one makes you lean, focused on a goal, and more mentally acute, while the other makes you fat, kills your liver, and impairs your judgement and ability to think clearly.
It’s more like Frisk (“Sharpens You Up”). We don’t always hit the sun when we aim for it. But it’s possible, through serendipity, or a good teacher, to find ourselves on the moon after trying, which isn’t so bad. Competition can be used as a device to get you on the moon, and other things, like learning English. Aimee’s posted great insight to how it should work out in a classroom.
Ok, you might not want to get on the moon, you just want to know what to do for this situation- you asked about the underlying reasons for the outbursts in this case with the children in question. Chris had good advice to dig deeper. I’d try to find out about his particular situation, and talk to the parents to try to find out more about what’s really going on. I’d open the conversation with saying how well the student does when it counts (skill-based games) and make sure they know that.
Actually, the reason I made the original post in the first place was because this DOESN’T happen with the two boys in question with cooperative games. The only time the outbursts occur is when we play COMPETITIVE games and only when either one of them senses they are…
Would you consider Chris’ Reach the Top as being a cooperative game? I’d like to know how that would work out. From what you say it seems like these children would be at the lead of their teams, but likely feel “dragged down” by the rest of the team below their level. I also wonder how the other students (rest of the group) feels when they have outbursts… do they get scared? Feel responsible for moving someone’s cheese? Dependent on help from the children in question?
One last question: What is the ratio of girls to boys in this class? The closest I had to anything nearly as _consistent_ behavior as you mention was a class of about 10 girls to one boy (there was a second boy, but he wasn’t always taking the class). I ask because it’s important to note that girls do not really compete in the same way that boys do. Girls compete more laterally along social lines instead of things like raw performance.
If everything else seems normal, competition is not the only constant-
it’s the particular children in question, as well. Without those two, the class would be able to handle competition?
by number, pairing stronger with weaker, boys vs. girls, who’s wearing blue vs. who’s wearing red, etc.
The end result of this is Whatever you do, don’t ever get on the bus to South Central LA!
David Boudreau
EPITFOG/Fawnix
Nagaoka City, Niigata
January 6th, 2006 at 1:20 am
David B,
I’d try to find out about his particular situation, and talk to the parents to try to find out more about what’s really going on.
With the younger kid (5 years old), he’s been with us since he was 1 year, 8 months old, so we are quite close to the family. He was fine until his younger brother was born about a year ago. After that, he started acting up, crying, throwing tantrums for no apparent reason, etc. The mother is aware of what is going on and we work closely with her at all times. The father works and lives in Tokyo, returning to Osaka on weekends only, so that could also play a role.
With the 9-year old, he’s a relatively new student (since April) and the mother rarely comes by the school, so have had little chance to talk with her. Very bright kid. He does go to juku almost every day for about 2-3 hours, including weekends, but whether or not that has anything to do with his behaviour, I’m not sure.
I also wonder how the other students (rest of the group) feels when they have outbursts… do they get scared? Feel responsible for moving someone’s cheese? Dependent on help from the children in question?
Not scared. No cheese moving. Not dependent. Most of the other kids in both classes are either friends or quite close. 9-year old’s class has 4 students, 2 girls and 2 boys. One girl is just 7 and tries hard, but struggles compared to the boys, so she usually sits right next to me. She does a very good job of taking the older boy’s antics in stride. The other boy is a friend of the 9-year old’s and usually tries to talk sense into him if he overreacts, then, when that fails, just ignores him and continues the game. A healthy reaction IMHO.
The younger boy comes more than once a week, so his classes are varied. All kindergarten kids. Boy/girl ration varies from class to class, but about 50-50 overall. As above, the other kids seem to take things in stride.
Without those two, the class would be able to handle competition?
Yes. No problem. Again, it’s just the two boys out of all my students who react like this. They only react like this during competitive games. The other students don’t seem to be adversely affected by their behavior. Competitive games in other classes resemble the healthy and dynamic dogpile you described.
Kaj
January 6th, 2006 at 8:46 am
Thanks Kaj,
Yes, David (Boudreau) wrote about outbursts in co-operative games. I’d like to know more about this. What kind of outbursts and under what conditions. In my experience non-competitive games are free of animosity.
I like the analogy of a picnic. I think giving a child a choice and then being faced with the situation where a child has a tantrum in a competitive game is better than having no choice. It opens up more possibilities of helping the child to notice the behaviour and find the feelings that are being triggered by the competitive game. I’d allow the child to withdraw from a game but I’d try to prevent the child from destroying the game (eg upset the board) if others were playing. The next time a child chose to play a competitive game I’d ask if that was OK and if the child would be OK with not winning. Inner reflection is a process.
Chris (Hunt)
http://www.wisehat.com
January 6th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Chris,
Thank you. I just wanted to clarify. The boy didn’t upset the entire board, just his own piece. No violence was directed toward other players at any point.
Also, younger boy’s tantrums consist of stamping feet and crying, never violence or animosity toward another child.
Kaj
January 6th, 2006 at 9:52 am
Chris (Hunt) wrote:
I’d ask if that was OK and if the child would be OK with not winning. Inner reflection is a process.
Yes, that’s it! Will do just that. Give choice, allow time and space to reflect. Thank you.
Kaj
January 6th, 2006 at 11:03 am
Aimee, thank you for your thoughtful and articulate post. I’ll stick my neck out and say that this excerpt sums up the core of your points:
I’ve seen many low level classes come to life with a competitive game. It took the focus away from English ability and put it on something they felt they could succeed in.”
The problem with this response to Chris’ query is that all of this can also be gained from NON-competitive activities/games. Chris was asking what competitive games have to offer that non-competitive games don’t. So I think his question still stands.
Alan Miesch
January 6th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
My guess is the home lives offer good insight- the 5-year-old’s new younger brother seems to be as much a constant as competition is. It’s certainly possible he is too young for competitive games, particularly if discerning between losing a game vs. losing attention/approval/ unconditional love is a bit much at his stage.
The 9-year-old does indeed seem to have a friend with a very healthy attitude. He might learn more from that friend about this issue than anything you might be able to do, at the end of the day. In both him and the other boy, I’d also say it’s a most positive sign that no violence is directed at anyone else. Losing does suck, after all, and no less later in his life (probably don’t want to tell him that yet, though).
Outbursts I’ve seen in co-operative games:
I remember one school visit I team-taught with another visiting Japanese teacher, and the homeroom teacher was present as typically the case for my elementary school visits. I think the grade level was 2nd or 3rd grade. We hadn’t started playing the game yet, but explaining/preparing the students to get into single-file rows of about 5 or 6 students each. The kids were to act like certain family characters (grandma, grandpa, baby, crazy uncle, etc.) and say to the student behind you, “how are you?”, acting out the character to make it interesting, and the student behind you answers “I’m fine…” (turning around to student behind him) “…How are you?” etc., until the end of each line. When demonstrating it after they’d assembled into the lines, I asked one student chosen by the Japanese team-teacher, “How are you?” (maybe as an old man or something, can’t remember) but the child stared at me for like 2 seconds and then just burst into tears. He was encouraged by his classmates, but he started to go into tantrum. At the time I thought I might have done something, but was assured by the team-teacher it just happens sometimes and to just keep going with another student. The child might have been scared or angry, but I had no idea.
The other time, I think happened during a common game of passing a pair of large fuzzy dice during the playing of music, and when the music stops, the kids holding dies stand up and practice the greeting above, or one like it like “Hello My Name is…”. I think it was 4th graders this time. One student who first appeared very genki and eager to learn English either helped us with the demonstartion/practice explanation of this game, or was the first one to hold a die. He did well and then we went for another round. At some point, I don’t remember if it was right after or later on, he got extremely distraught and upset, breaking down into tears when someone else got to go- it was like the world was over for him. It was also with the same exact intensity he had when he was genki before, just opposite. Only later on, did anyone tell me that that kid “had some problem” (team-teacher failed to mention to me, even though she was told). He may have been bi-polar or something like that. I think we gave stickers as a reward for chosen students of this game, so you might consider it competitive (to win a reward, you had to be holding a die whenever a teacher pressed the pause button to the music, unless you went already).
All of what Chris said about presenting choices, inner reflection as a process etc. sounds great. I still consider competitive games to have value, enough so to be more than cooperative games at times, depending on the particular class. What advantages does competition have over cooperation? One would be that comp places no limit on the upside potential performance, while coop progresses at the rate of the slowest learner. Classroom environments are prone to that factor anyway, in general, so comp offers a refreshing alternative. I don’t see it as a picnic. Picnics are something to be looked forward to, stopping to smell the roses in life, spending quality time with people you care about. You can decide to play frisbee, consume food, or just soak up some sun but you’re not allowed to do anything productive. A class of students must progress, and advance at some point; there must be some kind of accountability; results. A class is much closer to your game of climbers; I see it as a hike with a group. You can all stop to take a picnic, but sooner or later you have to pack up and continue along the trail. Sometimes, the trail gets narrow, and you can’t all walk side-by-side. Someone has to walk in the front, and someone has to walk behind. (…Chris’ heirarchy…) And after a while, you’ll come to find that you need to put the slowest hikers in the front- because if you don’t, the fastest hikers will get too far ahead (everyone stretches out, someone gets lost) but the whole point is to go as a group. The fastest hikers in any class will always be limited by the pace of the slowest member. It’s not a race, but you eventually want to get from point A to point B before it’s over.
Once, I was watching this documentary about a village in Africa, where they had this contest where two players would whack and beat each other with long sticks, surrounded by the rest of the village. They showed one competitor start to lose, and he started to run away (to avoid more blows), but the winning guy chased after him, and so did the rest of the village, shouting something that was very high-pitched, and sounded like a battlecry, like “AH-LILILILILILLILI!!” There was no tree sap in sight. It was brutal.
In the village where I grew up, we had a ritual where, when one of us started to sulk or get upset after losing a game, sometimes the other kids would join hands in a circle around him or her, and start chanting: “Sucks for you! Sucks for you! UGA! UGA!!” And it made a man of you.
David Boudreau
EPITFOG/Fawnix
Nagaoka City, Niigata
January 6th, 2006 at 11:31 pm
Hello Chris,
Perhaps it will be easier if I offer specific examples so that we know we are talking on the same level.
I rarely use competitive games with children 7 and under. I find that they remember winning or losing more than whatever English was taught.
Chip Wood in his book Yardsticks (highly recommended as a resource and practical guide in child development) explained it by saying that 6 year olds just like to be first.
I have also found that students this young are happy just to reach a goal.
On the other had my 5th and 6th grade+ classes include students who need a little more push to get involved in a game, as well as a few students who would rather not use English at all. I’ve found games like Tic Tac Toe, Battleships, Group Jeopardy, pictionary to name a few successful. I have seen students instantly become engaged and suddenly they are actively participating and want to know how to say a word or phrase so they can “play the game”. They even continue playing the game long after the class if over. I’ve never really compared them to non-competitive games but I wouldn’t stop using them just because their are other “better”games out there. To me they served their purpose and I really have yet to have a bad experience with them. (Not all students shared the same enthusiasm however).
Chris also asked if there was unhealthy cooperation. Let me stray a bit and ask why an overwhelming majority of major league baseball players in Japan are NOT the first born? I think this carries over into other sports as well. My take is that the chonan have a stronger sense of responsibility. They are not encouraged to go all out and instead hold themselves back.
I think competition serves the purpose in allowing the students to act as individuals or teams and encourages them to push themselves harder to ‘win’ whether this be a game, contest, or test.
The educator, Susan Winebrenner, gives an excellent example in her advice on pairing students. She recommends that you NOT pair your top students with the slower learners. She says that the top learners may often see this as burden and become resentful. She recommends instead that the top students be grouped together so that they can continue to challenge (“compete”?)
each other.
Again I want to stress that I am not valuing one type of game over the other. Each has a different purpose so that it’s not easy to say one is simply better than the other. I really do not want to get in a discussion on which one I think is more important. I think I would get much more out of sharing what worked and what didn’t work in our classes and “challenging” each other to become better teachers.
Now I really need to end this letter and work on tomorrow’s class. Goodnight.
Aimee
January 7th, 2006 at 8:26 am
There’s a point I’d like to make Aimee wrote:
The educator, Susan Winebrenner, gives an excellent example in her advice on pairing students. She recommends that you NOT pair your top students with the slower learners. She says that the top learners may often see this as burden and become resentful. She recommends instead that the top students be grouped together so that they can continue to challenge (“compete”?)each other.
This is a dangerous half-truth, I think. Why would students become resentful? (As I often became resentful when I had to do group work in school.) In an environment that is extrinsticly motivated, with grades) children will resent others (see them as the enemy), if they reduce their chance to get the grade. They won’t think about what they’re learning, but rather, what their standing is in the class. This is perfectly consistent with a competitive environment that pits children against each other.
In an environment free of extrinsic motivators (there are no grades; there is no prize) it tends to bring out the better nature in children and encourages a more co-operative environment almost by default. The top students will want to help the weaker students. They’re not the enemy, they’re part of the group.
Making the class, or school, or workplace, free from extrinsic motivators is the key to making it more co-operative.
Peace
Sam
January 7th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Hello Sam,
This is a dangerous half-truth, I think. Why would students become resentful? (As I often became resentful when I had to do group work in school.
OK time to take my foot out of my mouth or typewriter. Let me quote the author not because it proves my point (it helps proves Chris’ .) but because I think it is good advice; this appeared under the title (gasp) Cooperative Learning
“Group your 3-4 most capable students into their own group and give them an extension of the regular task. When gifted students are in mixed-ability cooperative learning groups with struggling students, the gifted kids tend to take over and get bossy, since they fear that if they don’t take charge the group product or outcome will not meet their high standards. When gifted students are not in the “regular” groups, other kids have the chance to show off their talents.”
Teaching Kids with Learning Difficulties in the Regular Classroom
Susan Winebrenner
Aimee
PS Chris, I am looking forward to your post you said your would write later on this subject.
January 7th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Aimee wrote
the group product or outcome will not meet their high standards.
I think you may have inadvertently pointed out an underlying issue with the two kids in question. Thank you.
Kaj
January 7th, 2006 at 11:45 pm
Chris Hunt realized:
1. Mutually Exclusive Goal Attainment
2. competition involves sorting participants into a hierarchy Anyone care to chip in with some alternatives?
I defined ‘competition’ several days ago as ‘interaction’, possibly adding ‘between conflicting forces’. Some may consider that definition so broad as to be unhelpful. Not at all: only by making effort can there be any development, and effort is defined by conflicting forces. And I repeat, thank goodness for competition and the human desire for improvement.
Furthermore, I find the MEGA (mutually exclusive goal attainment) definition of competition to be singularly negative in outlook and therefore unacceptable. People who engage in an activity just to win don’t understand the mutual spirit of competition, and neither do those who see it as an activity just to defeat others.
Competition is being labeled in these discussions as being unhealthy and destructive. Let me directly suggest that the ABSENCE of competition is unhealthy, unnatural, and indeed impossible to accomplish. If the idea being promoted is to somehow avoid hierarchies, and avoid recognizing levels of ability, it would seem to be advancing socialism or egalitarianism, both of which deny the individual of his identity and worth. That’s promoting a cure that’s worse than the disease.
In this aspect this discussion simply repeats area covered in the threads on testing: testing simply is evaluation, evaluation is simply awareness. Competition (and testing)improve awareness and help development, which is beneficial.
That they can be used destructively is obvious, the solution is to manage, not eliminate. That is the teacher’s authority and responsibility, which we should embrace with respect and humility.
That’s my last ten yen, Peter Warner.
Nagoya
January 8th, 2006 at 1:00 am
Chris Hunt wrote:
I don’t agree with Laura that the reason competition isn’t used with the very young is because they don’t understand strategy. Not all competition involves strategy and in any case non-competitive games can also involve strategy. I think the reason is because >deep-down competition is anti-social. Perhaps Don Block or KC can comment on this – I think they’ve read a lot on teaching the very young.To repeat myself, I’d very much like to hear from those using competitive games what they can do that non-competitive ones can’t. I’ve experienced the negative effects of using competitive games which is why I don’t use them by choice. However, I also believe in democratising the classroom so I’d never ban competitive games from my classes if the children wanted to use them.
The way I look at it……from my years of experience combined with open-mindedness: It does depend on the students’/groups’ individual needs and personalities. Almost any activity can be done in the spirit of play or the spirit of “dog-eat-dog”/ beat out the others etc. I can read a large, colorful picture book to a group of young kids which ,of course, does not sound like a competitive activity,but it can become competitive. Children jostling for position, for a good view can lead to shoving and competition,elbowing and complaining about unfairness. A game with very “competitive-style rules” can be fine/pleasant/joyful if the students are really doing it in the SPIRIT OF PLAY.
In a two-year-olds class, a baby can throw a tantrum because I handed the plastic strawberry to one of the other babies. The upset baby wanted the strawberry not the peach,apple or banana. Such a tantrum is related to the concepts of scarcity and competition.
Usually what I do is I make class decisions based loosely on the acceptability/cooperation level of the most competitve class member (in order to avoid conflict and negativity). One might say that , by doing that, I’m allowing the ‘least enlightened ‘child to have too much influence, but really nobody loses anything. I still am teaching ,basically, the same curriculum or target vocab. I just take the metaphysical point of view that the forces of the universe have brought this group of children together at my school and ,as the adult facilitator, it is my responsibility to facilitate things in a way that promotes harmony/avoids conflict.
Regarding what Chris says Laura said: It is true, of course, that young children have low understanding about strategy, but that is what makes many games non-competitive(even if they normally are competitive games). Ever tried playing soccer with three year olds? It’s quite hillarious. They have a great time. There is not much strategy even if you keep explaining and demonstrating the objective and rules. It’s like kittens wrestling with eachother. The objective is not to win.
Don Block
January 8th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Miscellaneous points/responses on the saga:
Relative to some students being held back: I don’t think anyone has pointed out that higher level students often benefit by helping lower level students. As we have probably all learned by being teachers, having to teach something to someone else forces you to learn it more deeply than you ever had before. Advanced students learn what they “already” know more deeply when they help lower level students along. (This doesn’t negate the point, though.)
Gordon’s post was very thought-provoking. I especially liked this analogy: “Ignoring and not acknowledging or diminishing the importance of competition issues is like swimming and denying that there is water.”
A couple of comments. The Soviet example is so complex as to cast a thousand doubts on any interpretation as to its ultimate failure. And the Star Trek series are . . . Yes, I’m sorry, Gordon, but they are actually fictional. Oh, you KNEW that? (Sorry, Gordon. I couldn’t resist.) It’s hard to make a solid argument about what does or doesn’t work based on a work of fantasy/fiction.
In response to I-don’t-remember-who, about being stuck in a group project with “non-performers.” I personally never minded being teamed with “weak” students. I just resented being teamed with slackers who would benefit from my hard work. It wasn’t a question of grades, it was a question of taking pride in what I did and not wanting to be taken advantage of.
As usual, Peter Warner had a lot of valuable insights. But, hmmm. Peter, you said, “… thank goodness for competition and the human desire for improvement.” If you hope we will infer from this that competition and the desire for improvement are equivalent or at least go hand in hand, you would need to present a convincing argument to convince me that such a premise is so.
Peter, you also said, “testing simply is evaluation, evaluation is simply awareness.” We may have that ideal in our minds, but the reality of the negative baggage that goes with this ideal is undeniable.
And I can’t believe that was your last ten yen, Peter. You are a wealth of insight and careful thinking. You might say I think of you (as well as a number of other contributors to this list) as my “rich uncle.” If I am feeling low on “funds,” I know I can always hit you up for a little help.
And finally, Don Block, I loved your analogy to playing soccer with a kid, reinforced by, “It’s like kittens wrestling with each other. The objective is not to win.”
Alan Miesch
January 8th, 2006 at 11:19 pm
Hi
First, I’d like to say thanks to Chris who has done a lot to help people develop more ideas about how to decrease the negative elements of competition in their classes and how to develop a more cooperative class. I think many people, myself included, play(ed) games involving a competitive element by default and don’t give enough time to other ways that games and activities can be developed. But I think he pushes it too far with his black/white definition of competition that applies to all games that involve anybody winning in our classes.
1. Mutually Exclusive Goal Attainment
2. competition involves sorting participants into a hierarchy
If you define competition in a single sentence then there you have it. That is a correct definition. Competition bad, bad, bad. But when you play a “competitive” game in class a lot more goes on than just the competition. It can be just competition and then the teacher has failed, the class is not learning as much English as they could, the class dynamics is being undermined. But that’s not the role of the teacher. That same teacher who doesn’t manage the class well in this situation and keeps on playing games that accentuate the weaknesses of an individual student or students or makes it all winning focussed, will have the same problems with cooperative games and indeed any kind of activity in the class. They are not in tune with their students needs.
Gian says:
whether or not you agree or disagree with having competition as an element within your classroom environment, what matters is that you are responsive and in tune with the needs of your students first and foremost.
And there he has it.
Would anyone say co-operative games are fine as long as they don’t become too co-operative?
No, but they too can turn into ganging up on one child who is weaker and slowing the team down or making it more difficult to attain the goal of the task if they are not managed well by the teacher. This has been said before. It’s true. This doesn’t happen much in classes when I use cooperative games because I manage the classes in such a way that the kids don’t start to feel like that. In the same way, I manage competitive games so that the kids don’t get to feel like that either.
Here are just 3 examples when games that involve competition have brought about some success:
1) I have about 20 of those Switchit games that David Lisgo has developed in my drawers at school (it’s like a Crazy 8s game). I also have a host of other games too – cooperative bingo, a reading game where you race yourself, other competitive and cooperative games. The kids love playing Switchit. They are allowed to arrive up to 15 minutes before their class to play games/socialize and when they do, about 4 times out of 5, they’ll choose to play Switchit. My kids reading and spelling rocks! When they “win” they immediately start helping other kids in the group who are still playing. Often when I’m surprised they can spell something new, they’ll say “It’s like the Switchit word X”. I’m not sure exactly what point there would be changing this into a cooperative game since it is enjoyed by all and does the very thing that we are hoping for in our classes – improves English.
2) At my Christmas party, I had about 5 minutes to fill when the kids had finished up their dinner and were waiting for Santa to arrive. Thinking quickly, I pulled out my “What is it?” game that has like an A4 envelope on the front of a large piece of card, flashcards can be slowly pulled out of the envelope type bit so that kids guess what it is. I use it in various ways, but this time because of the uncertain amount of time, I was just pulling out cards slowly and encouraging “first to call out” answers. To be honest, i thought it would be lame and the kids wouldn’t enjoy it very much, but I had to plug that gap quickly. Kids were in pairs. All of the vocab was well-known to all, but the flashcards I used had only been seen by my youngest kids and the lowest level kids. One of the first ones that came out was shouted out by Sho, a new boy who is really quiet in Japanese too! All the other kids were so impressed, as was his mother, and he got to feel great! Other little kids and beginners also had a head start and actually the older kids never suspected that the other kids had already seen the flashcards, so were just saying things like “Wow! your English is really good!”. Actually the activity worked really nicely and helped to close the gap between the older fluent English speakers and the sometimes younger, sometimes beginner students and was very happy happy. Everyone got a prize at the end, everyone had a chance to be first merely by angling the card their way, flashing it fast at them, or because the other kids waited for them (i.e. were cooperating and understood that everyone has to win!).
3) I have one kid in one of my classes who can best be described as a little anti-social. He has problems at school and problems at home and he doesn’t function well in a group. When he joined my school his mother warned me about his bad ways and he certainly exhibited a few of them in his first class! Anyway, his mother was so impressed when she came to classes recently to watch to see how he is doing. The highlight for her was when we played a game and he didn’t win and didn’t bat an eyelid. I have to admit I have a hard time in this class balancing things so as to keep him involved and cooperative but I use a number of approaches. His mother told me she has never seen him play a game and lose and not throw a tantrum. But I don’t think the game itself is the problem. There are a whole host of other things going on with him and if we address those and he feels comfortable, then he has access to all the different kinds of interactions that make-up my class and life.
So I guess I’m saying that if you have a bad situation when you play a game, then certainly you need to assess how and why that situation is arising; so-called games can bring out underlying issues that children and adults have. But it’s not the game that is the problem but some other issue. By not playing those games, you’re ignoring the underlying issue. That’s one strategy and it’s certainly advisable in the short-term and could be an easier way of resolving the issue on the surface in the long-term too. But in a class where kids are truly cooperative then they’ll be able to function as a unit in all kinds of activities and enjoy them equally too.
Janina
EnglishDream
January 11th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Hello,
Sorry for my sporadic postings. I think this discussion has been very interesting with a lot of thoughtful and thought-provoking posts. I know I promised to write something about co-operation and more able students and I will but I’m still interested in finding a definition of competition. I feel that unless one knows what it is then it is problematic to argue for its use in the classroom. I’d like to re-summarise the definitions so far. Hope I don’t miss any:
1. Mutually Exclusive Goal Attainment.
2. competition involves sorting participants into a hierarchy
3. Interaction between conflicting forces
4. the measuring of your ability against a third party or yourself
Gordon wrote that some people win, win win and some people run and hide. He suggested that definitions are personal. I find it interesting that a definition for competition is so illusive. Why is this?
I think some kind of personal measure must be involved. I think definition three is still way too vague. By that definition riding a bicycle is competition. But my riding a bicycle to work is not the same as participating in a bicycle race.
Someone (DJ, I think) mentioned sportsmanship. Does competition necessarily involve this. If so then that would be another argument against the notion of being able to compete with one’s self.
Janina made a very important point about managing games and the playing of them. She mentioned that children are coming to class early to play David Lisgo’s Switchit. I haven’t used it but from Janina’s description it sounds that I should. The children are actively choosing to play the game. I think that is important.
Janina also mentioned there would be no point in making a co-operative version. It might be interesting to have one (if it were possible) and try it out with children who did react negatively to Switch It.
Janina suggested that where children react negatively that is not the game but some other issue. I think this may be true sometimes but it is not the whole story. Different kinds of games are more likely to trigger different kinds of reactions. The structure of a game can also affect the participants. Some competitive games are more competitive than others. Perhaps the boys Kaj mentioned were reacting to the competitive element in Switchit which has been described as mildly competitive. Perhaps it was something else. Probably it was a combination of both.
Janina mentioned that children can gang up on a “weaker child” in co-operative games. I’d like to hear more details of the games involved. Ideally, a co-operative game should be structured so that everyone can contribute comfortably (to their individual ability level) and so that everyone is required to contribute to ensure success. It’s certainly true that players can bring a competitive attitude to a game or try to turn a co-operative game into a competition. This Christmas, for example, I had a memory game at a party with 50 children. The aim of the game was to find matching cards and get Santa to some sleeping children. A group of 5-6 boys (I guess fifth or sixth grade) decided they wanted Santa to fail. They deliberately gave bad calls and at one point Santa had nearly gone home. As it happened luck intervened and Santa did reach the goal. There was an outburst of cheering.
I agree with the importance of being flexible. Certainly to avoid competitive games at all costs is too dogmatic and a poor approach. As I keep mentioning I think genuine choice is important and if one never uses a particular game then how can children decide whether they want to play it or not? A “try it and see” approach based upon the perceived nature of any particular group seems sensible, and I think, is. But at the same time, competition (MEGA definition) is so prevalent in modern society that I think it is important to start with non-competitive and co-operative games before ever considering competitive games. With young children non-competitive games are essential.
From the posts so far, those who favour competitive games suggest that they should be played lightly without emphasising competition. I still stand by my old statement that the less competition involved in a game the more English learning takes place.
Chris (Hunt)
http://www.wisehat.com
PS I’m more than happy to have a go at making non-competitive versions of games currently used. I do agree that competitive games are easier to find and I’d like to do something about that!
January 13th, 2006 at 12:33 am
Hi All
In answer to some of Chris’ last post. I stand by my definition of competition as “measuring your ability against others or yourself” because I feel “mutually exclusive….” gives a negative image straight away, as does “…. conflicting forces”. “sorting into a hierarchy” is closer to neutral.
I was the one who mentioned sportsmanship but, as Chris pointed out, this is not an intrinsic part of competition.
I think competition in and of itself is not bad or good, it is the way in which it is used which leads to the problems. This is also true of non competitive games.
If the focus is on “beating” the opponent at any cost, I too would recommend staying away from such games. I don’t like games with “rotten eggs” or any which make the “loser” ashamed. The way I want to use the competitive game is to stimulate people to greater achievement.
I play squash. Frequently, as a group we practice and just have a rally. This is non competitive, we aren’t trying to win a point but nor are we trying to continue the rally, we just knock the ball around together.
IT BORES THE PANTS OFF ME!!!!!!! I hate it. WHY BOTHER??
I bother because that’s how some of the others want to practice so I join in and I make sure I’m “happy” about it. After a while I can ask “do you want to play a game?”. I don ‘t mind if I lose. In fact I usually do. If I play on a Thursday night I’m lucky if I get a couple of points never mind winning a game but those are the games I love the best. The ones where I have an impossible mountain to climb and I try my best, I give it my all…… and get my backside well and truly whooped!!
We all co operate to learn squash together. we all take account of each others styles, needs and wants. We use competition to hone the skills we learn through the initial co operation. We find out if we can succeed under pressure.
I know the people who just want to rally, fine I’ll rally. I know the people who are beginning and need a gentler start. Great, I’ll knock it around and give them a chance but they will never win…… unless they actually beat me. That way they know they have achieved something. In the same way I never want to be “allowed” to win. beat me 9-0 till the day I die but never let me win, there’s no point unless it means something.
So a combination is the solution I go for. I love competition but I mustn’t lose sight of the fact that not everyone does and so I must make sure I allow my students the freedom of learning in a variety of ways, both competitive and non.
However, one point that I feel has been missed so far is that not everyone wants to cooperate with others. Chris mentioned that some of his students wanted santa to lose and so gave bad calls. (At least they knew enough to know what the wrong answer was). Santa’s final victory was greeted with a cheer! (joy at winning????). But the point is even if the game is co-operative, the students may not be. I have certain students who, while being very nice people, just aren’t popular and are viewed as strange. As a result, if I allow the students to form their own groups, they will be left out. If I ask them to form pairs, some will sit silently rather than co-operate with the “strange” one. If I “force” a group I will sometimes get a “yada” at the thought of being in that persons group. These students often turn out to be the ones who are actually best at English. The students, while being supportive of the “strange” low ability student, are basically nasty to the clever “strange” one. At least in a competitive game, these clever ones have a chance to shine and see that they are as good or better. If no one will co-operate with them how can they complete a co-operative goal?
On a class management level, can anyone give me any hints on how do get these students accepted into groups?
DJ
January 8th, 2006 at 12:32 pm
First, I am a fan of competition. I love it. I thrive on it. I look forward to it. When the pressure is on I can come through, no pressure no drive. (in the “near pin” comp. in golf I hit the green, normally I’m nowhere near!!)
Second, I am a fan of streaming, of ability classes and of “testing” (but that’s a [slightly] different topic).
My definition of competition would me “the measuring of your ability against a third party or yourself”.
In the old joke about the 2 hikers and the bear, one hiker puts on running shoes when they see the bear. “You idiot, you can’t outrun a bear!!” says the other. “I don’t have to. I just have to outrun you!” comes the reply.
I think, on reflection, this is a possible problem with competition. When the goal is to BEAT only the opponent and not achieve a certain goal. If I have to outrun someone wearing hiking boots will I really try my best. Will I really achieve all I can?
My parents never let me win a game unless I actually WON the game. This meant they also played games that I could stand a chance at winning. But if I lost, I lost. When I finally won I knew I had achieved something.
My school was a highly competitive boys school in the UK, but the emphasis was always on sportsmanship. Winning wasn’t enough, you had to be a gracious winner, acknowledge the stiff competition and the joy of the game. Likewise you had to be a good loser. Accept that the opponent was better on that occasion but next time…… Cheering was allowed, booing was banned. Positive support only. Congratulate the winner. commiserate with the loser.
To remove competitive games completely is to deny a very real part of life. To focus entirely on winning (or worse beating another) is to create an atmosphere of animosity. Healthy competition is required.
I also feel that to lose teaches you what you have to do to win. To fail teaches you what you need to do to succeed. Don’t remove the joy of the feeling of wining, take away the stigma of losing. Create an atmosphere were the failure is mitigated in some way to turn it in to a drive for the next time.
Ok enough of the theory, what solutions do I use?
With tests, when a student look depressed at their score I say “ask yourself 2 questions. Did I do my best? Do I think I deserve a better score (does the score reflect my true ability)”. If they answer yes to the first then they should be happy and I say that I am happy with their score. We will then chat about how they can improve. I will also compare their previous scores and point out that they have actually improved or matched it. If their score is lower we talk about reasons why this may be.
1 Games. I have classes of 40 so individual competition games are almost impossible. Groups are the way to go and this also takes away some of the stigma at losing. But when I actually thought about the games I use in class they tend to be adversarial but never ending with no clear winner. circular board games. Card games where sentences are used to take cards form each other but where no one is ever eliminated because they always have a chance to get another card from someone else with the correct English. Participation is (strongly) encouraged but some individuals don’t join in. As Chris puts it, they have the choice not to participate. In my opinion I don’t have time to waste on someone not prepared to put themselves out for their group when 39 others are. If the class are having fun the game goes on for longer but if it isn’t working then it can be brought to an end without a problem as there is no winner. Class management not just competition is a feature here.
2 Whole class information gaps/communication activities are also a good idea. Eg Can I borrow…. Each student has a task they must do. They need certain things do do this and they must borrow these from the other students. Each student also has about 4 items which they can “use” themselves or “lend” to others. The student finishes the task when they have all they items they need. They then come to me and I will give them a new task. In this way students are working at their own pace. Those who don’t want to don’t have to. Those who do want to have almost unlimited practice opportunities and can “compete” against friends as to who can finish the most tasks.
Benefits: active use of English with self appointed targets (good English, number of tasks finished, chatting to friends about their puri kura) while working towards the language target I want them to achieve (most of the time).
Drawbacks: preparation time
3 Group quizzes. Speed answers are ok but work better in combination with group specific questions. If the group can’t answer the “fastest” next group gets the bonus opportunity. Questions are group not individual so talking about the answer is ok
4 Ask for volunteers. Usually the same people volunteer but the occasional surprise “prize” for the volunteer AFTER the fact (ie a “pinky” sweet) often encourages more volunteers for the next time.
5 Random selection for speaking. I use chopsticks with student numbers written on them. The previous person to speak pulls the next chopstick. Ask the question first then choose the number. This way everyone has to think of the answer but no one feels picked on. Important: I allow up to 3 people to “pass” each class as there are always those who are too nervous to answer but I don’t remind the students of this. That way they usually all try to answer (because they think they have to) but if they get stuck, I just invoke the rule.
All of these use a certain element of competition, but usually this is directed at competition against their own ability. Any laughing at another student is stamped on while helping is encouraged.
Ok enough. Sorry to be long but I get tried of going to presentations which just talk about the situation as it is, I want to look inside people’s Bags of tricks.
How do you all apply your ideas about competition in practical ways?
DJ
January 13th, 2006 at 11:42 am
On 1/11/06, Chris (Hunt)wrote:
2. competition involves sorting participants into a hierarchy
3. Interaction between conflicting forces
4. the measuring of your ability against a third party or yourself
There were more than just those four- for instance, in one of the weblinks you included, it described another as healthy rivalry, which most people accept when they accept competition (in the classroom, as one example, or in life).
Anyway, let me see if I can express what you’re getting at… you feel the benefits of a class game should focus on that early stage of a game when players feel like “let’s just get a volley going, before we keep track of the score”. DJ explained the reasons why this eventually matures into advanced stages of keeping score, and measuring yourself, instead of just rallying (it gets boring). But let’s focus on the early stage- the rallying, or, just having a picnic stage. The point is not to win, and crush the competition into the ground, but just simply immerse yourself into the game rules and environment, (now what am I supposed to do again*? oh yeah. oh wait, can I try something? ok. can I do it like this, or do I have to do that all the time? only when he’s there. no you can’t move there. sorry. “don’t maind”. don’t mind?? I mind!!). Go through the motions for a while, let the synapses develop, etc. Is this a fair assesment? Do I have it correct?
Gordon wrote that some people win, win win and some people run and hide. He suggested that definitions are personal. I find it interesting that a definition for competition is so illusive. Why is this?
I don’t agree that defining competition is all that illusive, really. Sometimes it was described in an absolute sense, outside the scope of a classroom, and how it’s natural in life to a biological degree, regardless of our personal takes on it. The definition we’re looking for is one that applies to the classroom, and where competitive games outperform non-competitive ones. I worry that there is an underlying assumption that just because competition is Adversarial, that’s necessarily bad.
Someone (DJ, I think) mentioned sportsmanship. Does competition necessarily involve this. If so then that would be another argument against the notion of being able to compete with one’s self.
I disagree. While sportsmanship is distinct from competition, competition can most certainly be had with the self. For example, you run a lap in a certain amount of time. You decide to run another lap. It’s highly unlikely that the second lap will be run in the same exact amount of time. You can compare the two times, and see which one is less than the other. You don’t need a time machine to do this, just a watch with a second hand. You can be unfair to yourself, cheat/cut corners on yourself, lie to yourself in the process as well.
Did anyone see the big upset with Asashouryu this week or last? He lost a match, and not only that, he was unsportsmanlike, I’d add. I thought he set a great example by giving a hand-up to his opponents after he’d win, as done many times in the past, oh but when his competitor beats him now, all of a sudden he won’t accept a handup, himself? Just goes to show you that even if you’re Asashouryu, losing _still sucks. I doubt they’ll cancel sumo because of this, or stop showing it on the NHK news every day there’s a match.
That’s something to note for anyone that still thinks Japan is not competitive- they consistently show highlights of a contest in which the entire goal is to literally push, slap, and trip the other guy (_and_ his wedgie) out of a circle, and are unlikely to stop doing so anytime soon. It’s a regular Botero painting.
Janina also mentioned there would be no point in making a co-operative version. It might be interesting to have one (if it were possible) and try it out with children who did react negatively to Switch It.
I believe I may have one, actually. There is a new computer game that teaches phonics. Well, it’s single-player, but at least, it’s non-competitive, in the ways I think you want, I can say that. The idea is to send kids off on a kind of virtual picnic, but they come back expert hikers, able to progress from one point to another and back again, so to speak. I’d like to present it within the context of this discussion and offer it as an alternative that was asked for, but since I made it, please know I don’t intend to go against the rules of the list. I’m still just trying to get some volleys going back and forth on this list, but I don’t always get the ball hit back over the net… maybe you don’t want to play with me, or I tend to go straight into hardball too quickly, so uh… don’t mind? Please don’t mind?
David Boudreau
EPITFOG/Fawnix
Nagaoka City, Niigata
* The question “what am I supposed to do?” is often applied in real life to things like work, and our professions. Brian Tracy says that that’s the wrong question to ask. To really start playing the game, you should ask yourself “what am I expected to _produce_?” instead. The “what you’re supposed to do” can often enough take care of itself.
Needless to say, Brian Tracy is someone really big on goals.
January 14th, 2006 at 9:54 am
David tried to paraphrase Chris Hunt’s thoughts thusly: “… you feel the benefits of a class game should focus on that early stage of a game when players feel like ‘let’s just get a volley going, before we keep track of the score’. DJ explained the reasons why this eventually matures into advanced stages of keeping score, and measuring yourself, instead of just rallying (it gets boring).”
I hope I am not being presumptuous in saying for Chris that I think that is a bit off-mark. A non-competitive game is NOT the same as rallying. Rallying does not have a specific goal, whereas a non-competitive game does. People love stories, don’t we? Why? Because stories lead somewhere. A story that led nowhere would get boring. So does rallying. For a game to be fully engaging, there needs to be a goal. You might say that, for both a game and a story, random wandering can be fun for a while, but gets old. It seems to me that game or story needs a vector to it to be fully engaging.
Alan Miesch
January 15th, 2006 at 12:14 am
I’d agree with you Alan, about it being more like a story, leading somewhere, and it “needing a vector”- well said. Before, I contrasted picnics (more like random wandering?) with hikes (that have specific start and end points, but it’s still not a race). Chris listed the different ways we’ve tried to define competition, but if he’s not satisfied still then I tried going a step further to try and see it from his point of view.
What do you think about LEGOs? When playing with LEGOs, you usually try to build something, but wind up experimenting and trying stuff out, using different ways to put the pieces together along the way. The rules governing the properties of how you put the pieces together are self-apparent in most individual pieces, but to play with LEGOs means to see how they fit together, according to your artful expression and mechanical/architectural engineering abilities. You don’t really have much objective competition with LEGOs at all.
In your next message, you requested suggestions of non-competitive games. If you could provide an English game in the form of some kind of LEGOs to your students, would that satisfy your requirement?
David Boudreau
EPITFOG/Fawnix
Nagaoka City, Niigata
January 15th, 2006 at 11:14 am
To David B: I can’t imagine a Legos activity that would include enough English to justify it in my classrooms, as we are always pressed for time–that is, we have a specific curriculum to cover in a (usually too short) given length of time.
Yeah, I understand your point about the hike. But it makes me realize that activities are on a continuum of wandering (picnic) versus vector (“get to the top of the mountain”) activities. In other words, activities are not simply goal-oriented or not goal-oriented. Some goals are clearer, and some have a more important focus. If you didn’t get where you were planning to go on a hike, would you feel that you “failed” or “lost”? Probably not. But if you didn’t reach the top of the mountain in an attempt to climb, say, Mt. Everest (My, aren’t we ambitious!), the feeling of failure would be greater, wouldn’t it?
Some random thoughts (some of which may be stating the obvious) that have come into my head on the topic of competitive and cooperative activities:
1) Team activities can be both competitive and cooperative. In volleyball, you are cooperating with your teammates to achieve a mutual goal, but vying with the other team.
2) Some competitive games have only one winner (king of the mountain), while in others, 50% of the players will be winners, 50% losers (volleyball).
3) Cooperative activities with a goal (I think someone suggested this as the difference between a game and an activity–games have specific goals) can have all losers. But somehow losing then is not the same as losing in a competitive game, is it? I suppose because there is no hierarchy–the superior vs. the inferior–established.
So what are the ramifications (what a great word!) of these observations on how an activity will affect the dynamics in our classrooms? Food for thought.
Alan who-has-decided-to-stop-signing-off-with-his-last-name
January 15th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
Hi All
My computer fritzed for a couple of days so If I’ve missed something I apologise.
Alan, I agree completely that non competitive games have a goal whereas my rallying example doesn’t.
The point I was trying to make with that comment was more about the different styles of learning and goals we have. Mine are competitive whereas others just enjoy the act. As a fellow “student” I should be willing to put aside my own goals (for a while) to support others. However your interpretation does raise the point that no matter what our methods , as teachers, we must never lose sight of the reason we are using the activity. If that is just to allow the student to have fun with the language, fine. Focus on that. If it is to practise a given structure, make sure that structure is used etc.
if I remember correctly, Sue Hatfield’s books Elementary games for communication (also Intermediate and Advanced) contain a lot of co- operative goal games. Finding information, information gaps and group games. The only drawback with them is that usually they require mid to large groups. Not always but often.
Almost any information gap exercise could be turned into a larger group non-competitive game with a little tweeking . Desert island games (what items do you want) work well. Murder mysteries, build a story (split sentences).
My problem is not creating the games as much as how to get everyone working together. Most activities fall down if 1 or more of the participants “choose” not to join in. At a ETJ expo a couple of years ago a certain textbook author joyfully explained to me how his particular book worked because it required 4 people to work together to finish the exercise. “They have to talk to each other” he said. I have no doubt this is a great book (friends of mine swear by it) but my immediate thoughts were “only if they want to. If they don’t want to do it they can just go to sleep and the others are stuck or they can just talk in their mother tongue when the teacher isn’t looking over their shoulder.” Of course this is the owners list and most of the people reading this work with small groups of self motivated learners but even so, if choosing not to join in is a valid choice how do you compensate? Do we have to design back up versions for every eventuality? Should we only design games which contain redundant players so they can be removed without any problems?
Finally, as one of the more verbose contributors to this thread, is is just me or is this not really an “owners” topic? Valuable but better off on the other list.
DJ
January 15th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
re: my LEGOs question- let me clarify – I didn’t mean actual plastic LEGO pieces.
I meant, in an abstract sense, would you (and anyone else looking for non-competitive games) like to be able to provide a kind of proverbial LEGO “bricks” set to each student, that he or she can use to put together English?
That is, do you want some game where they can immerse themselves in the way English works and is “pieced together” so to speak, to come up with acceptable English?
There is a goal- to complete an English phrase (i.e. the peak of the mountain to hike), so therefore it would satisfy the requirement of being a game (and not just an activity).
The reason I’m using LEGOs as a metaphor is because I want to focus on the value of immersion (let’s just get a volley going before we start off on the pro-tour), to benefit classes trying to acquire language proficiency- trying to immerse themselves in the way the language itself works, before worrying about competing (e.g. “who can build the fastest?” is not a very fun game). Also, I used LEGOs because any individual brick you give them is useless on its own, but when the brick is pieced togther with other bricks, forms meaning (in the context of an English phrase).
LEGOs are almost always acquired in sets with a preconcieved vision. Although the picture on the front of the box is the maker’s, and not the student’s, expression, the idea is that _after_ the student can make the bricks look like the picture on the box cover of the set (using the instructions), he can then take it apart and SYNTHESIZE with the same pieces to come up with expressions the teacher never even conceived of. _That_ is the value of LEGOs, and also basically what you want in teaching English- to get the student to eventually be able to synthesize with what he knows, to express whatever he wants.
Students don’t come to our schools trying to buy fish. The idea is that they learn how to fish for themselves. Competition seems to have little value in achieving the overall goal and enabling them to synthesize, so for those looking for a non-competitive game, does all this fit?
(As for “failing” on a hike, I would think getting lost is failing-
since you could potentially die on a real hike if that happened. Or at least, what happened to the Brady Bunch when they got lost in the Grand Canyon. Hikers need to come prepared with the right tools/equipment to accomplish their objective.)
David Boudreau
EPITFOG/Fawnix
Nagaoka City, Niigata
September 11th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Hi Chris- thank you for compiling this thread! I’ve often thought about the comments here since that time.
Re-reading it over, I don’t think I ever posted another thought I had about it…. When riding in an airplane, and the flight crew explains about what to do in situations where face masks are deployed from the ceiling in an emergency, they always say “if travelling with or next to a small child, apply your own face mask first, _then_ assist the child”. I often wondered about why they made it a point to always say it like that. Aren’t children valuable too- a priority, even? I think the answer is because you have to make sure you are able to take care of yourself before you can take care of anyone else, at a very fundamental level. Maybe as children mature and become less and less dependent, they learn to look out for number one, before anyone else, for survival. Competition probably stimulates this development.
Since this thread, I noticed that at the end of Major League Baseball games, the players high-five each other but only with players on the same team. In Little League baseball, the teams high-five or shake hands with the _opposite_ team’s players… what happened in between? That one I haven’t got an answer for.
Incidentally, in May I started playing go at a local club on Saturdays, where both children and adults play this competitive, teeth-gnashing game. Kids play in the mornings, but sometimes stick around for the adults in the afternoons. One girl, about 5 or 6, often played with the adults (as do a handful of other kids) but I don’t see her anymore and I wonder if she dropped out altogether, feeling go was beyond her abilities. In go you have a rating, indicating your relative skill, which also determines your handicap. One of the imperfect things about how accurately such ranking systems measure your skill level accurately is that it can’t really take into account the factor of how beginners that don’t improve as rapidly against other beginners tend to drop out of playing altogether, compared to experienced players that advance at a faster rate- just as someone might get discouraged if everyone in his English class were better at English that he.
Yet the same ranking system offers a lot of other benefits, such as providing a handicap, and allowing you to track your relative progress over time by some metric, and set goals. Despite the teeth-gnashing frustration of the game, the other side of that coin is a lot of opportunity to learn and improve through reviews of games and advice from better players. This past weekend, the Meijin Tournament’s first game was held here in Nagaoka, and I attended the NHK filming. I had the chance to meet older greats Ishida Yoshio and Kataoka Satoshi, who did commentary on the match, and then they played against us fans, in 7-games-at-a-time match-ups. I played a game against Kataoka, and actually won- quite an accomplishment, but it never would have happened if I had given up playing. Though competition tests one’s skills, I think most teachers would generally agree that persistence is what can ultimately challenge and prevail against any level of skill tested.