The Difference between a Game and an Interactive Exercise

"The exercise, together with the discussion ("processing") that followed, have brought the group in less than ten minutes to a point where they are focused on their common goal..."
-Moving Beyond Icebreakers, Stanley Pollack

When someone opposes using games in the classroom the implication seems to be that a game invariably is time spent frivolously with little attention paid to the intended purpose of the work at hand. With such a bias coming from fellow educators I must make a distinction between games and another classroom management and leadership technique: interactive exercises. Inherent to these interactive exercises is the appliance of students' multiple intelligences and a structured conversation used to either reinforce or challenge popular themes. In other words, through the employment of rehearsal (action) and meaningful association, educators can encourage a more appealing and educational environment. Such an approach to teaching is also important to our objectives of teaching these young people for the long term. Simply using the lecture format or worksheets where students have nothing to do with the creation of classroom information hinders memory formation. If the students have ownership, interest, and are challenged intellectually, they have a greater chance of storing the information for the long-term. It is a disservice to the student to not employ a strong interactive exercise as a keystone of your lesson plan.

While the game might have little to do with the objectives of a group, an interactive exercise's primary goal is to incorporate the intended objective and key ideas into a more cooperative and democratic system of education. The student that leads democratically in the classroom spreads the power of the intellect and will serve as an ally in the future. Too often games are seen as threats. Well interactive exercises are like alliance-builders: building alliances between the teacher and their students.