We received this game as a family gift last month and had not yet tried it, so we decided to open and play it last weekend. Although rated for ages 10 to adult, I played it successfully with my eight- and ten-year old children with minimal adjustment. The game play is straightforward and fast-moving.

Game play is simple. When it is a player’s turn, the player to their left reads the question on a card, and they provide three answers that fit the given category within the five-second timer run. If they cannot think of three examples, the player to their right gets the next opportunity to try, with the restriction that they cannot use any of the answers already proffered. A card moves to the right until someone is able to meet the criteria and gets to keep the card, or it arrives back to the original player, in which case, that player gets to keep it. Before starting the game, players decide how many rounds to play. The rules suggest two or three rounds for a large group, or more for a smaller group. We opted for five rounds for our first try, and the game took about fifteen minutes. At the end of the game, the player with the most cards wins. The only adjustment we made for younger players was skipping a few categories like “Celebrities that shouldn’t be celebrities” and “Facebook posts that annoy everyone” because they were well outside of my kids’ sphere of experience. Beyond that, play went smoothly, and we had a fairly even game. I won, but by a single card. I finished with six cards, my eight-year-old with five, and my ten-year-old got four. They surprised me with a few categories for which they had ready and solid answers. (For example, I would have been entirely stumped by “Brands of shoe,” but my daughter had no trouble listing three, with time to spare.) 

I see a few possibilities for application of this game to learning situations. It can be used even with large groups, and can give students practice with social skills like turn-taking and following rules. When there is disagreement about the relevance of an answer, the instructions say that the group should decide together whether or not to accept it. This negotiation and group discussion in a relatively low-stakes setting offers further opportunity for developing social skills. While Takeuchi & Vaala (2014) focused on digital games in their article, some of the positive effects that they noted in co-play are the improvement of social skills like “collaboration, communication, and negotiation.” (p.48) It seems reasonable those skills could extend to in-person, offline games, and this one seems a good candidate. 

I could also see adapting the game to a class’s subject matter by creating, or assigning students to create, new category cards that relate to the topic being studied. For example, in a chemistry class, questions at the early part of the year might include “Name 3 diatomic molecules,” or “Name 3 polyatomic ions.” These are fundamental concepts that students are expected to learn thoroughly enough to facilitate rapid recall, so this could be a way to practice that type of topic. The new variations could be used in groups to review for a quiz, and the process of creating the questions would engage students with their notes or texts to craft reasonable categories. It would also be interesting to see it used to present opportunities for discussion about more flexible ideas like “3 cases where molecule polarity matters” or “3 uses for acid-base reactions.” These would be cases where a timer would be best omitted, but could lead to some deeper discussions. These types of adaptations are opportunities for teachers to exercise agency and creativity in new questions and ways to explore student knowledge or reasoning. (Kalir, 2016)

Alternatively, I thought of using a single card per day that might be used as an exit ticket or participation evidence, to demonstrate something a student has absorbed during the class. In general, I am not in favor of speed tasks, as some learners process information more slowly than others, and differences in communication skills can seriously diminish the fun for certain students, as they struggle to get answers out in time. To adjust for that, perhaps a different, longer timer could be used, or no timer at all. Perhaps the category could be both posted visually and read aloud and students given a few moments to jot answers on a card. All students could display their cards together  in large or small groups, and outliers could be discussed. After reading Fowler et al (2019,) I am unconvinced that this very constrained type of answer would give strong formative information at the end of a class period, as it does not present good opportunity for students to explain their knowledge or lack of understanding about a topic. However, as an occasional quick check-in, if students enjoy the model, it might make for a fun alternative to a more involved usual ticket style.  

I found the noise of the timer distracting, which may be another rationale for minimizing the use of the official version in most educational uses. The five-second limit was an additional challenge. It made even categories for which I would typically generate a long list seem very difficult to name three entries. I wonder whether the game could help learners develop strategies for dealing with time pressure and the difficulties inherent in trying to think constructively about a particular topic when stressed or under a short deadline. 

Overall, we enjoyed the game. It was fast-paced, and it is possible to finish a game very quickly. I also appreciate the simplicity of the game because it is so adaptable. We had no trouble skipping cards that didn’t fit, game length is eminently adjustable, different timer options are easily arranged, and the paradigm is so simple that creating new cards for nearly any purpose could be either a quick exercise for a teacher, or a thoughtful one for learners, depending on what the instructional goals might be.

References

Fowler, K., Windschitl, M., & Richards, J. (2019, April-May). Exit tickets: Understanding students, adapting instruction, and addressing equity. The Science Teacher, 86(8), 18+. Retrieved from https://link-gale-com.aurarialibrary.idm.oclc.org/apps/doc/A581990226/EAIM?u=auraria_main&sid=EAIM&xid=dc743d48

Kalir, J. (2016). Good game: on the limitations of puzzles and possibilities for gameful learning [Conclusion]. In Williams-Pierce, C (Ed.), Teacher pioneers: Visions from the edge of the map (pp. 359-371). Pittsburgh, PA: ETC Press. Retrieved from: https://via.hypothes.is/http://remikalir.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Kalir-2016-Pioneers-Conclusion.pdf 

Takeuchi, L. M. & Vaala, S. (2014). Level-Up Learning: A national survey on teaching with digital games. Retrieved from: https://via.hypothes.is/http://www.joanganzcooneycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/jgcc_leveluplearning_final.pdf