| Re: Emotional Intelligence We created a variation of the game "Telephone" to look at the way rumors and gossip get spread.
Objective: For students to learn the importance of effective communication and the detriment of rumors/gossip that can lead to "killer statements"
Suggested discussions prior to exercise:
* What is "communication"?
* What is "effective communication"?
* Introduce the familiar childhood game telephone. Do they see correlations between the game and how communication can flow, say throughout a school environment?
Exercise:
1. Divide class into teams of approximately 5-6 students each. (Hint: choose rows for easy and simple division).
2. Have all students stand up and face the back of the classroom except for the first student of each team.
3. Provide the last student with a piece of paper and pencil.
4. Show all of the first students on each team a simple picture (daisy or school initials) at the same time
5. When you say "go," the students draw with their finger the picture on the back of the student in front of them and so on, until the last student.
6. The last student is to draw the image on a piece of paper and fold it up.
7. The team that has the closest image wins.
8. I suggest playing the game 4 or 5 rounds alternating the first and last person among the group.
Suggested discussion post exercise:
* How did you do the first time you did the game compared to the subsequent times?
* How did your team do as a whole the first time compared to the subsequent times?
* Think of a time you communicated something to someone and a gross misrepresentation gets back to you.
o How did you feel?
o Did you follow the communication chain? If so, is there any way that is could have been communicated more clearly?
* Why do rumors and gossip get blown out of proportion?
* How would you feel if the worst information you ever heard was spread about you?
* How can you stop gossip in rumors from happening?
Outcomes:
I did the exercise with two different 6th grade classes of ~30 students. I also tried two slightly different versions based on suggestions from the first class; 1) they blamed others on the team if they messed up and wanted to choose their own team and 2) they wanted to watch the whole process.
Variation 1 Outcome
We had limited time which limited the discussion, but I thought it was meaningful and the students seems to get the point to communicate more clearly and how stories can become grossly exaggerated. It was a lot of fun and I would consider a success.
Variation 2: Lesson Changes
For the second class I allowed them to choose two teams of 15 and alternated 5 students at a time with 10 (each team) in the audience. I also went to the store and bought candy bars for the team that won the most rounds.
Variation2 Outcome
Chaotic!!! It was a disaster compared to the first class of 6 teams and no prize. The students that were observing were off-task and talking excessively among themselves and getting out of hand. There was also more cheating attempts. The leader would whisper the answer along as they drew on each other's back.
In conclusion I found that the token society of the behavioristic model created competitive not cooperative students. They were more interested in winning than understanding the communication lesson, and cheated. Due to the chaotic environment the discussion was not as meaningful.  | 
