1.4.3. Game stabilization and lifespan
Keeping the pupils in suspense throughout the project was not particularly easy. A variety of factors played a part in their assimilation of the process (their own interest toward the subject, their ability to conduct research and to produce a short relevant text, projection in the development of a tool over the long term whose limits were undefined: there was no maximum number of points of reference that could be proposed).
Thus, it was necessary to accept down time in the development of the tool, and the project had to be relaunched on a regular basis in a variety of ways, essentially in order to prompt the pupils to follow through on their initial suggestions and to produce the clue sentences that would lead to the correct answer. Table 1.6 shows different elements connected to these constraints. The 24 points of reference are the ones that were kept throughout the year, which were accepted by most of the class because they were considered “finished” by the pupils that had constructed them; in other words, the three clue sentences that made them usable had been written. The pupils’ level of investment was thus quite variable; several of them were content to suggest the names of points of reference without seeking to suggest the elements that would make it possible to define them. As shown in the last column of the table, three main sets can be seen: the September–October period, which was marked by the initial suggestion of “finding important places to know how to locate”; the November–December period, during which the idea was relaunched with a focus on travel enabled by a sabbatical year and an associated budget: “what are the places you would like to visit if you had a sabbatical year and the budget to pay for travel?”; and the January–February period, when the pupils were prompted to work in groups using recommended documents (atlas, maps, dictionaries, other works, etc.) to create new points of reference in class. The last relaunch also had the objective of showing the over-representation of locatable points of reference on the map of the world, while few were kept for the maps of Europe and France, thus initiating an attempt to rebalance from then on. There were no subsequent relaunches, as the end of the year was taken up with assessments.
Table 1.6. The retained points of reference and project relaunches
Place | Type | Location | Initiating element by period | |
1 | Tower of Pisa | Monument | Europe (Italy) | September/October: the ten key places |
2 | Eiffel Tower | Monument | France | |
3 | Statue of Liberty | Monument | World (America) | |
4 | Amazon forest | Nature | World (America) | |
5 | Dumont d’Urville Station | Science | World (Antarctica) | |
6 | Easter Island statues | Monument | World (America) | |
7 | Capoeira | Culture | World (America) | November/December: sabbatical year |
8 | Kangaroo | Nature | World (Oceania) | |
9 | Kiwi | Nature | World (Oceania) | |
10 | Cliffs at Etretat | Nature | France | |
11 | Burj Khalifa Tower | Monument | World (Asia) | |
12 | Hollywood | Monument | World (America) | |
13 | Villa Mandessi Bell | Monument | World (Africa) | |
14 | Emperor penguin | Nature | World (Antarctica) | January/February: group work and in-class creation based on documents |
15 | Statue of Jean Bart (Dunkirk) | Monument France | ||
16 | Lascaux Caves | Monument | France | |
17 | Corinth Canal | Transport | Europe (Greece) | |
18 | Blue Mosque | Monument | Europe (Turkey) | |
19 | Christ the King | Monument |
Europe (Portugal)
|