Skip to main content

One dice, one pencil


There is a craze for this game on MFL teacher social media at the moment. It is variously called: One die, one pen; One dice, one pen; One die, one pencil. Just combine your preferred noun with your writing implement. I have just learned it comes from the book Games for Teaching Primary French by Danièle Bourdais and Sue Finnie.

This is how the game is played. Each partner has a writing task to complete (gapped translations seem popular). On starts with the pen(cil),the other with the dice. While the pen-holder starts their written task, the dice holder rolls the dice until they get a 6. When they do they get to use the pen while their partner gets the dice and starts rolling until they get their turn again. The winner is the pupil who finishes their written task first. Some teachers are playing variations on this pattern with groups of three or four. Teachers report how motivating the game is and how keen students are to work quickly.

You could give each student a different written task or the same one (assuming they won’t just copy from their partner).

All in all, it seems like a very simple and enjoyable activity which gives a twist to a pretty mundane gap-fill task. All you need is a set of dice and a worksheet for each pupil.

There’s not much to dislike about this game. My only reservation is that when a pupil is rolling a dice they are not doing any work. They could be encouraged to think ahead on their worksheet, of course, and you might be wise to prime the class to do this.

Notes

Tip: use foam dice if you want a quieter lesson.

Vincent Everett on Twitter has noted:

“It's loud and motivates pupils to translate (implying they are not normally) but doesn't focus on any key desirable aspect of translation or accuracy apart from speed. By its nature the translation has to be easy as the activity has no mechanism for coping with unknown elements.”

Janet Lloyd on Facebook

“New take on one die one pencil perhaps ....
Would be great with word dominoes and sentence / short text building rather than translation too. Rather than working out meaning of word to put it in to English, the children could look up meaning of words to build sentences. Would work with verbs too that had to be matched to pictures etc. Translation in to English could then be final part of activity once again with dice rolling and pencils.”

Joe Dale’s Storify:

https://storify.com/joedale/one-dice-one-pencil

From Klass EP MFL on Twitter

"We've found it works best to give opponents different versions of the same task and at the end they use an answer sheet to mark each others' work together, so they can check accuracy and both self & peer assess. We also differentiate by making harder tasks = more points."


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad




Comments

  1. With regard to the dice thrower not doing much, a lot of people have said that students throw their dice/die with one hand and consult reference materials with the other. They can't consult reference materials while writing. This will help with the overall accuracy of the piece of work.

    ReplyDelete

Post a comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the natural order hypothesis?

The natural order hypothesis states that all learners acquire the grammatical structures of a language in roughly the same order. This applies to both first and second language acquisition. This order is not dependent on the ease with which a particular language feature can be taught; in English, some features, such as third-person "-s" ("he runs") are easy to teach in a classroom setting, but are not typically fully acquired until the later stages of language acquisition. The hypothesis was based on morpheme studies by Heidi Dulay and Marina Burt, which found that certain morphemes were predictably learned before others during the course of second language acquisition. The hypothesis was picked up by Stephen Krashen who incorporated it in his very well known input model of second language learning. Furthermore, according to the natural order hypothesis, the order of acquisition remains the same regardless of the teacher's explicit instruction; in other words,

What is "Input Processing"?

Input Processing (IP) was proposed by Bill VanPatten, Professor of Spanish and Second Language Acquisition from Michigan State University. Bill may be known to some of you from his podcast show Tea with BVP. He is one of those rare university academics who makes a specific effort to engage with practising teachers. IP was first proposed in a 1993 article (published with T. Cadierno in the Modern Language Journal) entitled "Input processing and second language acquisition: A role for instruction." My summary of it is based on an article "Input Processing and Processing Instruction: Definitions and Issues" (2013) by Hossein Hashemnezhad. IP is a little complicated to explain, but I'll do my best to summarise the key points before suggesting how it relates to other ways of looking at classroom language teaching. Is this actually any use to teachers? I apologise in advance for over-simplifying or misunderstanding. To paraphrase Dr Leonard McCoy from Star Trek &q

Pros and cons of pair and group work

Most teachers have made frequent use of pair and group work for many years, notably since the rise of communicative language teaching in the 1980s. Even before then it would have been common for pupils to work in pairs on simple role-play and dialogue tasks. So pair and group work is standard practice, if not universally supported by language teachers. It’s always worth evaluating, however, whether a practice works - whether, in this case, it helps students develop their proficiency. Pros Rod Ellis (2005) summarises the advantages of pair/group work (based on Jacobs, 1998) “1. The quantity of learner speech can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, the teacher typically speaks 80% of the time; in groupwork more students talk for more of the time. 2. The variety of speech acts can increase. In teacher-fronted classrooms, students are cast in a responsive role, but in groupwork they can perform a wide range of roles, including those involved in the negotiation of meaning. 3. There can

New MFL GCSE consultation

Updated on 7th April, with a few modifications to the original post written about a month earlier. ........................................................................... The DfE in England has recently published information about the proposed new GCSE exams, first teaching September 2023, first exams June 2025. There are two consultations going on, one regarding the subject content, and the other (much shorter) with respect to the assessment arrangements such as tiering.  The context is important here. DfE are worried about uptake in GCSE MFL, especially with their EBacc target of 90% uptake in mind. (This is highly unlikely to be achieved.) Therefore they would like an exam which makes the subject more attractive, both in terms of interesting content and accessibility (how easy it is thought to be). They are aware also of criticisms levelled at current papers that the exam is elitist, featuring too much subject matter which appeals to middle class students. Recall that MFL has be

An NCELP lesson resource analysed

NCELP (National Centre for Excellence for Language Pedagogy) is the body set up and financed by the DfE in England. based at the University of York and headed by Emma Marsden and Rachel Hawkes. It works through a number of hub secondary schools which, in turn, work with a small group of other schools. Their mission is, broadly speaking, to spread the research findings and principles as laid out in the Teaching Schools Council (TSC) Review of MFL Pedagogy from 2016. By sharing a selected body of research, considered relevant to secondary MFL in England, and creating schemes of work and lesson resources across the hub schools, they hope to spread so-called best practice around the country. As I write this, schemes of learning and lesson resources have been written up to the third term of Y8 for French, German and Spanish. I've been watching with interest as these resources have been built up and in general my view has been that the research resources are very useful and informative (