| Instructional Objectives | Learners & Context | Object of Game | Game Materials |

| Time Required | Rules | Design Process | References |

Instructional Objectives

Give & Take encourages learners to:

• Understand meanings of operations and how they relate to one another
• Compute fluently
• Use various types of reasoning

Learners & Context of Use

Give & Take is designed for elementary-age students, grades 3 and higher, who are developing their sense of numbers. In the earlier grades, it can be used to teach operations and basic reasoning skills. In grades five and higher it can be used to reinforce quick recall of basic math facts and also to foster advanced reasoning skills.

This game is designed for play in the classroom.

• Prior to playing: Model how to play Give & Take. Clarify the rules. Introduce the vocabulary: addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, sum, difference, product, quotient, strategy, reasoning, logic. Answer questions.
• During play: Circulate the room and observe the students.
• After playing: Discuss the game.
  "What operations did you find yourself using frequently? Why?"
  "About how many computations were you making in your head on each turn?"
  "When did you use division?"
  "Describe a strategy you developed during the game."
  "What made Give & Take challenging for you?"
  "What would you want to try next time you play?"

Since it is fun and challenging, players will enjoy playing Give & Take over and over again. Also, it can be adapted to meet the needs of different learners.

• For beginning students: Use addition and subtraction only.
• For all students: Two pairs of students play against one another. Pairs make decisions together.

Object of the Game

The object of the game is to be the first to play all of one's 50 chips and to cover the four center squares of the gameboard.

Game Materials

Time Required

Give & Take is a two player game. Setting up only takes a couple of minutes. The length of play varies between 30 and 45 minutes.

The Rules

Setting Up and Getting Started

• Place the Give & Take gameboard on a flat surface.
• Decide which half of the board each player will use.
• Distribute 50 blue chips to one player, and 50 green chips to the other.
  Keep the chips off of the gameboard.
• Roll the three dice to see who goes first. The player with the highest sum begins.

How to Play

Winning the Game

There are two criteria to winning the game.

Design Process

Although Give & Take might be considered a simple game, the design process was lengthy and involved. My design process went through the stages explained below.

Before Beginning

From the start I knew that I wanted to create an educational game that would encourage players to use various types of reasoning. Othello and Mancalla became models because they are simple yet powerful: their boards are basic; they appeal to both children and adults ("A minute to learn, a lifetime to master" is Othello's slogan); and they allow for various types of reasoning. I wanted to try to design a game with these characteristics. Since I have a background in elementary education, my audience became, but was not limited to, 8 to 12 year olds.

Brainstorming and Generating

The idea for Give & Take came to me over a late dinner in a Chinese restaurant. I had been brainstorming for days when, all of a sudden, it came to me. I actually felt a spark of energy. I envisioned some sort of battle game where players tried to get rid of 50 pieces on a 100-square grid. I jotted my ideas on a napkin. At home that night I drew a grid and started formulating rules.

I started out with a paper version of the game. Version 1 used two dice. In this game a player rolled, applied an operation to the two numbers (addition, subtraction, multiplication, or division), and then put down that number of chips. To make the game challenging, it was required that all of a players' chips were adjacent to one another on the board. This game was fun but had two problems. First, it was extremely hard to manage the chips; the greatest number that could be played on a turn was 36. Second, my testing partner and I found that it was easy to surround and trap one another. With the rule of needing all pieces adjacent, did that mean that the game was over once you were trapped? That didn't seem fair.

Version 2 of the game, which I now called "50-50," addressed the issue of getting trapped. On a turn, a player could choose to either play his pieces or remove up to ten of his opponent's pieces. For more player interaction on the board, I added a rule which required that both players began in the center of the board. This version was okay. However, my testing partner and I found that we were forced to play mostly either offensively or defensively. Also, there was not as much strategizing as I had hoped. Furthermore, I had not resolved the issue of handling high numbers of chips.

Researching

Thus far I had been generating paper-and-pencil versions of the game. Since I wanted the end product to be a quality game I knew I needed to research game design. I looked at other educational games, both commercial and student-made. This helped me identify the strengths and weaknesses of my game. I talked to Bernie Dodge, my professor. I also talked to parents and teachers of elementary-age children. Their feedback was incorporated into the design of the game, especially the rules. I also reflected on the EDTEC 670 readings and lectures.

Playtesting

While I researched game design, I continued thinking about how to make my game fun and challenging, yet simple. I made a playable prototype using a printed Excel spreadsheet with 100 cells, and index cards cut up into "chips." The game was adapted in many ways through playtesting. Some of the ideas, listed below, were rejected because they complicated the game or made it less fun. The ideas with an asterisk (*) made it to the final version because they enhanced the game.

• Requiring the players to land on a corner square to win
• Being able to remove one's own pieces on a turn
• Adding special squares (bonus turns, landmines, removing opponent's pieces) to the board
• Requiring players to place pieces on the board so they formed a path
• Rolling three dice and choosing two of the dice to use*
• Requiring players to remove their opponent's pieces*
• Calling the game Give & Take*
• Not having to place pieces adjacent to one another*
• Requiring players to have the four center squares covered to win*
• Using a gameboard with less than 100 squares
• Using a gameboard that was not square in shape

Finalizing the Game

Once I had the version I wanted, I played it with several more people. We paid attention to our thinking and discussed our reasoning.

• "I gave you four chips back because you had nine left, and I knew that you wouldn't be able to make 13 on your next turn."
• "I didn't think I'd need to cover the center squares early in the game but I think I should have."
• "I used division because I knew a free turn would get me another chance to give you more pieces."

All of the playing, thinking, and talking that I did confirmed that Give & Take was ready. It finally felt right.

Reflecting on Lessons Learned

I learned many lessons from this experience that I will carry to my next game design project. The highlights of those lessons are:

• If I can't explain my rules to someone, then they need to be simplified.
• Don't get frustrated with a project and give up. Stick with it.
• Be open to adaptations, modifications, and change.
• Listen to others' ideas.
• Test, test, test.

WONDERINGS

Even though I am done with the design of this game, I wonder if I am truly done. There are still a couple of things that perplex me.

• Should the gameboard have 96 squares instead of 100? Currently when a player wins, there are two uncovered squares on his side of the board. This bothers me. I have considered designing the board with 46 squares on each side but it seems less aesthetically pleasing than the nice square shape I have now.
• How can this game be adapted for advanced learners? I'm not sure it can. I considered imposing a time limit. However, one of my objectives is that the learners use various types of reasoning. People need time to reason. I also considered limiting the number of times an operation could be used. Again, this seemed to take away from their thinking. Certainly I do not want to make a silly rule that makes the game harder for advanced learners. They should not be punished for having advanced skills. I am still pondering how to adapt the game in this way.

References

Books & Journals

• Ellington, H., Addinall, E., & Percival, F. (1982). A handbook of game design. London: Kogan Page.
• Laramee, F. D. (2002). Game design perspectives. Massachusetts: Charles River Media.

Electronic

• Cardboard Cognition
• Reasoning and Proof Standard for Grades 3–5
• Number Sense Standards for Grades 3-5
  

Return to the Board Game Table of Contents.

Updated on October 18, 2003.