Line up 5-10 cards on either side of a long table and divide the students into teams. Set up a point-getting activity, like shooting a basketball through a hoop (toy basketball set hung on the whiteboard) or a suction-cup ball/disk with a target drawn on the whiteboard. One contestant from each team goes down the line on their side saying the word associated with each card (or responding to the phrase or making a sentence or some other language task). When they reach then end, they can take a shot at the basket, target, etc. Then the next contestant starts on the row of cards. Play for 10-15 minutes, changing cards randomly, and the team with the most points wins. Teacher calls the end of the game when time is up, points are tallied and a winning team is determined. Variations: If basketball is used, different point values can be assigned for different positions (e.g. near the basket, 1 point, at the end of the table, 3 points, etc.). Near the end of the game the teacher can slowly remove cards to increase the pace and therefore the tension. Note the difference between this and Around the Table: There is no direct contact between the teams, so there is less of a direct competition.
The student variables in this game are once again the visual recognition and the production task, but here, the production task is somewhat more integrated: the speed and accuracy of the production is now an issue. In its most basic form it is not quite a communicative task, but there is a tension surrounding it that, some argue, does in fact simulate the tension of production in a communicative situation. It is easy to see how this production under stress might be as valuable, if not more valuable, than a role play with someone the student is very comfortable with.
The teacher controls factors including the content of the cards, as a level of difficulty, the composition of the teams, the production task associated with the cards, and the completion (point-getting) task at the end of the line of cards. Contestants are motivated to be faster in the production tasks because they want to get to the completion task. This, of course, implies that the completion task is indeed enjoyable. There is also motivation to help team members who have difficulty, so that the team can ultimately win.
These positive motivations interact with the production task difficulty, and also the completion task difficulty. If the line becomes too tedious, or if the completion task has a low chance of success, positive motivation will be washed out. For example, a single small target offers much less chance of getting points than a larger, three-tiered target. However, adding player choice also creates valuable motivation for contestants who may not be good at the particular task: in a basketball shooting task, offering three levels of shot lines gives even the least confident contestant a chance to gain points for the team.
It is also important to note that the length of the process allows the other team members to become part of the production task. If a particular contestant finds a card difficult, the other team members can help. There is always incentive not to do this because being able to do it yourself is much faster.
Finally, the observables in this task are the speed of both recognition and production, which are controlled by the content and task difficulty.
by Ken Romeo and Will Percy