GAMES AND ACTIVITIES, COMPETITION AND THE AFFECTIVE FILTER HYPOTHESIS

By Elaine and Arthur Rubin

A few decades ago, psychologist Stephen Krashen, Professor Emeritus at the University of Southern California, formulated what he was subsequently to call the Affective Filter Hypothesis. Simply put, this theory holds that factors like anxiety and lack of self-confidence have the potential to hinder language acquisition.  

What is the relationship, if any, between the Affective Filter Hypothesis and competitive games and activities?

John Shindler, in his recent (2009) book, Transformative Classroom Management: Positive Strategies to Engage All Students and Promote a Psychology of Success, distinguishes between what he calls “healthy” and “unhealthy” competition.  Among the characteristics of healthy competition: (1), “the goal is primarily fun;” (2), the competitive aspect is not presented or perceived as “valuable” or “real”; (3), the emphasis is on learning; (3), the competition is brief and high-energy; (4), the competitive exercise has no enduring effects; and (5), all participants believe that they have a plausible chance to win.

Unhealthy competition, on the other hand, is the exact opposite of the healthy variety on each of these points, and can cause anxiety and/or fear of failure. You can see that without mentioning the Affective Filter, Shindler has pointed to some of its components.

Moreover, he writes that having one’s students play a “friendly” game like Jeopardy, Trivia, or Knowledge Bowl can be an interesting and fun way to review content and/or reinforce skills in preparation for a test.  “But,” he writes, “If the outcome of the game becomes part of what is formally graded, the competition goes from the healthy to the unhealthy column.”

In the next blog, we will briefly describe Shindler’s views regarding cooperative learning.