The Case for Physical Over Digital

During parent conferences, I always asked if the kids were playing math games at home. The response was a blank stare as if to say I was questioning if their kid was brushing their teeth. Then they would list the many iPad games they downloaded, everything from Prodigy to Geometry Dash, stopping to say that they only get 30 minutes of screen time daily.

I’m sure many of these online games are great. They have their place. But it’s a conundrum I faced. I realized that many parents did not understand the difference between a digital game that promotes rote memorization (and keeps their kid busy and quiet for a bit of time) versus games that promote deep critical thinking and reasoning, using their voice to share their problem-solving process.

When I recommended games during Back to School Night at the start of the year, I meant games they would play with their child away from the screen. I should have specified.

I remember what one of my illustration heroes and author of the book Let’s Make Some Great Art, Marion Deuchars, said about the iPad about ten years ago. “I love the iPad, and I love my kids playing on the iPad, but I love them playing with paint and drawing materials so much more…You just sort of know it’s instinctively better for them because it’s their world and no one else’s world” (Design Matters with Debbie Millman, 2013).

Similarly, I felt an instinct in the classroom that physical math games that require students to play with each other were much better than what they could do in a digital realm.

A few years ago, I was looking for ideas for games. I bought a book called Counting & Number Bonds, Math Games for Early Learners by Denise Gaskins. The introduction explains this disparity. “Math games push students to develop a creatively logical approach to solving problems. When children play games, they build reasoning skills that help them throughout their lives. In the stress-free struggle of a game, players learn to analyze situations and draw conclusions” (p. 4, 2015).

What makes a “stress-free” struggle? Gaskins says, “Everyone knows it takes time to master the fine points of a game, so children can make mistakes or ‘get stuck’ without losing face” (p. 4). I couldn’t think of a better antidote for a student working on building a growth mindset. It doesn’t come overnight, and it is true; I always have had students who hate to lose, but their frustration about losing is still paramount to giving up because they can’t complete a worksheet or memorize math facts in time for a digital game.

​No matter how “fun” the game or worksheet looks with illustrations and characters, it does not replace the experience of learning winning strategies while playing a simple game with peers.

Here are a few of my favorites, which I’ll have to continue to add to because I have too many to count! (Pun intended!)

Rummikub:

My mom and I play this one every chance we get. The object is to rid yourself of all your tiles before the other players. You can play with up to four players (most games only come with four tile holders, but you can get creative). You start with 14 tiles; the youngest goes first. To start, you must “enter” the game with 30 points.

After that, you can play any amount of tiles you wish, unless you can’t play anything, and then you must select a tile from the face-down “pot.” Tiles may be combined by the same number or consecutive numbers with the same color. There must be three or more to make a group. There are more rules, but suffice it to say this game encourages ample strategy and thought. In my family, despite our competitive nature, we still help each other sort out our moves. Why? Because it’s fun.

War: There are so many variations of this game it is easy to see why teachers love it. You just need a deck of cards. Young students build the skill of comparing numbers because as players take turns laying down one of the cards from their pile, the one with the higher number gets to “steal” both, thus adding a larger stockpile.

Variations include putting down two cards to make two-digit numbers or adding the two. You could mix it up using Uno cards or create your own. I also made a version that my students loved, which used dominoes. They put them face down in a pile and only selected and put down one at a time. They collected the higher amount, and the winner had more tiles once the stockpile was depleted. The possibilities are endless.

Cover-Up: I made variations of this game every time we covered a new skill, and I think it’s easy to adapt to any grade level. You could extend it outside of math, using vocabulary words or phonics.

Two players use a single board, which was simply a printout in a clear protective sleeve, and each has a set of about five counters. (I used unifix cubes, but it doesn’t matter if players can differentiate their pieces.) The board often had a “spinner” at the top corner so that the kids could use a transparent spinner overlay. They took turns spinning to find their given number on the board, and once one was covered, it was occupied. The winner was the player with the most counters on the board once all were filled. I used this game to reinforce concepts like telling time, coins, fractions, addition to 9, and more.

Digits: I made this game up, but I’m sure variations have been played for years. This game is for two players. With one deck face down, players take turns picking up a card. They set their cards in a sequence. (I started having them play with 2, then 3, and so on for additional challenge.) On each turn, they put their cards in a position to indicate which digit the card represented.

However, they could not change the position once it was set down. The player with the highest number was the winner. Once my students were used to recording in their math notebooks, I had them write the whole equality statement for practice and to visualize the game a little clearer.