Keeping It Real

So, as someone seemingly ideologically opposed to technology, what resources have I used which don't involve technology and have been successful? Very few to be honest - I tend to, at the very least, incorporate a PowerPoint into most of my lectures. I should probably try and move away from my reliance on the PC.

Things I have tried and that have worked:

1) Balderdash

There is a fantastic board game of this name, which is great fun to play. The basic concept of the game is that you are given a word to define, or a sentence to finish, and you have to make up a definition or an ending. I love this game so much because one of the sections is on crazy American laws (well, it's supposed to be laws generally I think, but funnily enough the Americans have conquered pretty much the whole category) such as "In Oklahoma it is illegal for dogs to congregate on private property in groups of three or more without written consent from the mayor." Now, we would be given just the 'In Oklahoma it is illegal to' bit of that, and have to make up an ending. The other players then choose which one they suspect the correct answer to be, and if they guess yours, you get a point. In essence, you are being rewarded for lying convincingly!

I've used this same game with my Critical Thinking group. At first, I played with funny American laws - just so they got the point, and I got a laugh. Then I moved onto definitions - they had one that I had written, and so had to come up with a more authoritative/convincing definition. This really helped them develop an authoritative writing tone, as well as helping them learn the key terms.

2) Pairs

An oldie but a goodie. I modified matching pairs of cards together so that it involved the kinesthetic element of moving around the room.

Each person was given a card, and someone else in the group had a card which 'matched' theirs. It didn't have the same word on it, but instead had an analogous word. They had to find their partner by describing the thing on their card, without using the word that was actually on the card. For example, BRAIN was matched with COMPUTER (I used a general theme of body parts, simply because I was aiming to explain analogies generally). I think this game could be adapted to all manner of things - matching words with definitions, finding compatible or rival theories in subjects, matching theorists with theories etc. I did type the cards up though, so it's not like I avoided computers altogether

3) Playing with dolls

This was a philosophy-specific idea that I once used. I gave every person a cheap action man type figure (bought in bulk from the pound store) and a pair of scissors. The aim of the lesson was to get the students thinking about what the essential features of a person are. By this I mean, what makes the difference between a person and a non-person (like a stone, or perhaps a kitten).

We discussed what they each felt that they could 'lose' and still be the same person. The dolls were there to prompt them to think at first in a physical sense. If they felt that they could lose it, they could cut it off the doll. Obviously, clothes, arms, and legs are the first things to go, and then things start getting trickier: what if we could replace the heart and lungs with mechanical alternatives? can you survive without your brain? is there a soul in there somewhere? etc. This, of course, is a much condensed version of the debate! But it seemed to be a successful activity.