Games are good, yes? I guess most teachers of English, especially teachers of children use them. But I wonder how many ever stop to think about the nature of the games they use. I don't mean the language content of a game but the format of the game itself. I am certain that over competitive games are detrimental to language learning. Further I have a feeling that all competitive games are ultimately limiting and less effective than co-operative games as teaching tools. That's only my feeling however, I have no evidence to back me up. I know that many would disagree. Consider for example two statements from David Paul, writing in Finding Out, "The desire to win games can also make the children much more interested in learning,", and again, "In general wanting to win can be a powerful motivating force." But I believe the desire to win only makes the children more interested in winning. In the worse cases victory in games can become a horrible one-upmanship. English is not enjoyed for its own sake but becomes a means to put down others. By definition competition means working for a goal in such a way as to prevent others from reaching their goals. I win by making sure that you lose. This is the underlying ethos inherent in all competitive situations. Such an ethos should be abhorrent in the classroom.

Obviously I don't think that teachers are using games to foster aggressive, competitive attitudes. But what form of game is most conducive to learning. I think that a warm, friendly, relaxed and safe environment is the best environment to encourage children to acquire language (or any other form of learning, for that matter). Even the friendliest of competitive games erodes such an environment. Yes, competitive games can motivate able children, but they discourage those with less ability. I've seen it happen in the classroom hundreds of times. Children are eager to play games, but once a child feels there is no chance of winning the child 'switches off'. A clear signal is the way the child uses the game equipment (cards, dice, or whatever). If the child begins to mess around with the equipment or use it in a labourous or exaggeratted fashion then that is indication that the child is not focused on the activity. And if the child is not focused then the value of the activity is nil.

I tackled David Paul, himself, at the JALT conference about such problems. He suggested 'creative cheating'. That is that the teacher should use surreptitious ways to keep the game balanced and therefore interesting. But as a game purist I would suggest that if cheating is necessary then somewhere there is a fundamental design flaw. I've tried cheating and it does work. But of course the teacher runs the risk of being accused of favouritism. And that itself can be very damaging to the cohesion of children's classes, especially when the children are young. Surely it must be better to redesign the games so that cheating becomes unnecessary. Accordingly I prefer games where the children are required to work together. This does not mean that there should be no challenge. Simply that the challenge should not be based on one child beating another. Challenges against the clock, or against previous group bests can work well. Another way is to create a game where the children combine together against an imaginary outside force, such as a monster, or even against the teacher. The aim is to require the children to work together.

Such games, however, are thin on the ground. The second Co-operative Sports and Games Handbook by Terry Orlick (Pantheon, 1982) and Everybody wins by Jeffrey Sobel (Walker and Company, 1983) provide a useful starting place but many of the games do require adaptation for the English classroom. I'm currently designing some noncompetitive games and I would very much like to hear from anybody working on similar lines. In the mean time here are some ways to water down competitiveness in common game formats:

1. Use a game which requires a variety of skills. Perhaps some physical skill (see grabbit below). By using a game which requires more than one skill you perhaps even out the chance of winning it. Moreover children are more likely to become involved if they think there is something they are good at.

2. In Quizzes introduce randomness. Nowadays I rarely give set points for a correct answer. I use cards valuing from 0-6 (with lots of zeros). These can be kept face down and only totalled at the end. Thus children cannot be certain who the winner is until the end of the game.

3. Don't use competitive race games. If you must, then use a snakes and ladder format which allows children behind to feel they still have a chance.

4. For question and answer sessions with small class sizes use a teacher challenge format. Hand out penalty cards at the beginning, an equal number per student. By making correct sentences students can pass their cards to the teacher. After a time limit or so many 'rounds' students total their cards collectively. Their objective is to have less penalty points than the teacher. If they have, they win.

5. Another possibility with small classes is to participate yourself - and lose. One good way to do this is to play a grabbit style game. Players are required to grab a counter when certain conditions are met (for example when there are matching cards). There is always one less counter than players. The player who fails to grab a counter receives a penalty (I use the cards described above). From here there are two ways to go. The traditional method is to eliminate any player whose penalty points reach a predetermined amount. Play continues until there is one victor. But play could end after one player is 'knocked-out'. If that player is the teacher then all the students can feel good. It's easy to be slow and clumsy, or alternatively try and grab the counter nearest the most able child. If the children want a winner allow them to count up the penalty points. But don't make a big thing of it. Yet another alternative is to simply play so many rounds. Again penalty cards should be kept face down and only revealled at the end.

6. Finally never make a big issue about keeping score, or who has won and who has lost. For example I have tried playing flashcard games where I keep the cards rather than giving them to the child who has "won" them. At first this might provoke some unrest but I have found that if I persevere the children accept the method.

Broken Hearts: Prepare some paper hearts, one per two children. Cut them in two, to create a two piece jigsaw. Depending on age and level introduce the feelings of sad and happy, and the idea of a broken heart. The game is to find your partner. If you have some space get the children to walk around the room pretending to cry. Play some music while they do this. When the music pauses the children find a partner and match hearts. If they are up to it give them the line "lets be together". Children who find their partner can walk around the room together, this time smiling. The game continues until everyone has found a partner. Other jigsaw ideas include cutting up simple pictures (of course you don't have to cut up the pictures - you could just copy each one twice, although doing so makes it easier for the children to "cheat". Use a different picture for each pair (I say pair, though to increase the challenge you can increase the number of pieces to three or four). Children should be encouraged to find their partner by describing the picture. This could simply be a picture of a noun, a ball, a cat, etc, or if you want to practise colours, for example, use the same picture but colour it. Since as I write this it's nearly Christmas I've include some drawings of pigs I've used. Butcher them as you feel fit.

Valentine cards: show a few examples, explain that they are usually sent anonymously. A week or so before Valentine's day get the children to make a card. Give the children a blank card with the name of another child written on it. Have the children make a card and then "post it" (make a post box for the purpose). If your children can write then give them the name for their card on a slip of paper. Another interesting possibility is to get children from one class to make a card for those in another. As near to Valentine's Day as you can announce that the cards have been delivered. Let the children try and find the card with their own name on it.

Finally Hug and Hum (from Orlick, page 63), one child per five or six is designated as a "huggit". Give the child a glove or some such. The huggits try to tag the other players. A player is safe when hugging a partner and humming some tune. If the player stops humming then both partners must split and find another. If tagged a player exchanges roles with the huggit. This can be adapted in various ways. Instead of humming children could be required to sing a song in English, or hold a simple conversation or even simply saying words in a given category (animals, food, sports) etc. Not for confined spaces!

I want a happy and relaxed atmosphere when I teach. Children learn through enjoying themselves. Games are a wonderful teaching resource. A game must be fun for all the participants. If you feel you are a loser there is no enjoyment, no fun, and no learning.

Comments please! You can e-mail me at knowbody@ddt.or.jp or fax me on 082 234 6690. Alternatively please write to Chris Hunt, 301 Matsui Mansion, 7-15 Kinya Cho, Minami Ku, Hiroshima. Don't forget to check out Chris's Home Page "The Time is Now"