The Trading Game: a Mini Classroom History Study

The month of June is an odd one in the academic year; a sort of strange twilight period. All of the exams for History and Politics students – both full A-level and AS-level – are over, and I’ve said my farewells to the students I’ve taught over the past couple of years. But for the first year students (the “Year 12s”) they are in a seeming never-zone: they’ve done the main task of the year (completing their exams), but yet they are brought back in for several weeks of further teaching before officially breaking up for the summer.

And so, the big question for June has been: how do we keep tired, disengaged students – who are dreaming of their summer break – engaged? In previous years I’ve attempted to simply crack on with course content, due to the relentless content-heavy specifications (thanks to the needless reform from the Conservative government a decade ago); however, I found that the content taught in June simply did not sink in as easily as the content did from September to April. This is probably due to the students being more invested and focused with this lengthy period leading up to their May exams, leading to a natural decrease of focus and energy in June.

This year I decided on a different route: avoiding ploughing on with content (because, if I need to “re-teach” it in September, it’s pointless putting them through it now) and instead attempting to engage students in more hands-on activities and consolidation tasks. For example, in Politics we held our own college mini-election: the students have researched key policies, put together posters, before then overseeing voting slips into ballot boxes.

June also provided the opportunity for teaming up with other subjects, which brings me – in a very round-about way – to the focus of this post: the trading game. Tom, my colleague at South Devon College, is a wonderful Geography teacher; he suggested that my Politics join him in his classroom to do the trading game task. This game has been devised by Christian Aid, with the aim:

‘to show how trade affects the prosperity of a country – both positively and negatively’

The rules are simple: students are split into groups (on each table), with each group being a country (they can choose their own country name). Each group is provided with a random pack of equipment which could include (or not include): scissors, rulers, pencils, compasses, sheets of paper, a post-it note, and some fake £100 notes. Based on this, the groups then had to accurately cut out various shapes from the paper (triangles, circles, rectangles) which they then passed into the “World Bank” for money to be deposited into their account. By the end of the lesson the class with the most money in the bank wins the game.

The really interesting part in the game is the jarring inequality between the groups. So, some groups started with all the equipment they needed to cut out the shapes, but perhaps with a lack of paper needed for the shapes. Some groups started with lots of paper but no pieces of equipment. The skill, then, is the ability to negotiate and work within a group (in terms of who does what) and with other groups to obtain the materials to create as many shapes as possible. On top of this, the “World Bank” (led by Tom) would increase or decrease prices for the shapes due to increased inflated demand. This ensured that the students were kept on their toes in terms of what shapes to create and cash in.

All of this meant that there was chaotic activity throughout the lesson, with students doing various deals with one another (some really smart and others very foolish) whilst also attempting to negotiate with the “World Bank”. Furthermore, there seemed to be some underhand tactics at play (more on which later), and some groups attempting to cut corners by producing inferior products in a hurry (many of which were rejected from the “World Bank”). Whilst I watched on, it struck me that we were seeing a historical-economic development on a small classroom scale. So, allow me to provide you with an overview of this study…

Initial Stages

To begin with, there were 5 countries. On the left of the room we had a group of 4 students (who named themselves “I Love Huel”… yep, I have no idea why this was selected, but it was their country to name!) who were provided with the best pack: they had all the equipment needed (scissors, pencils, etc), along with lots of money, but only a couple of sheets of paper. Behind them was a small group (“A&C”) who had a pack of sheets of paper, but nothing else.

On the right of the classroom were two other groups of four students in each: “Nah” and “TonyBLiar”. Within their packs they had lots of paper, but little else in terms of equipment. Then, in the middle was a group of three (“The Big One”) who had money, plenty of paper, and a couple of pieces of equipment.

After the instructions were provided and the packs laid out, the groups considered their positions and what was needed. Some students cautiously stood up and checked what the other tables had, sizing up their competition and what was needed. This is where the negotiating skill of students came to the forefront, with two representatives from the equipment-heavy “I Love Huel” starting to make deals with other countries in order to obtain sheets of paper. Whilst on the right side of the room, both “TonyBLair” and “Nah” realised their ridiculous situations and started considering how they could work together in a European Union style trade zone.

The Middle Stage

Both the left sided groups and the right sided groups decided on a formal merger of their countries and resources. This resulted in the smaller resource-heavy “A&C” being absorbed by the larger “I Love Huel” table, whilst “TonyBLair” and “Nah” joined forces (now to be known as “TonyNah”). “I Love Huel” managed to obtain plenty of resources in paper, which led to four of the students creating a production line producing all manner of shapes that could be cashed in with the “World Bank”. This also meant that they had two students who were able to understand developments on other countries, keep an eye on prices, and negotiate with the “World Bank”. This meant that they became a productive country, similar to other developed countries in the world today.

The right-sided groups (“TonyNah”) were incredibly rich in paper, but obtaining equipment to actually cut out shapes was a difficult task. Their chief negotiators obtained scissors, a ruler, and a pencil – but only enough for 1 student to work. This resulted in a ridiculous situation where only 1 student out of 8 was productive in working, whilst the others – an army of useless middle-managers – watched on. They were aided with one student who was incredibly good at negotiating with others, but they were hampered by their inability to sell to others. This lack of effective productivity meant they mirrored undeveloped countries in the world today, similar to a central African country like Chad.

Meanwhile, the middle group (“The Big One”) managed to obtain all equipment needed to start making shapes. They had plenty of resources in paper, and so they essentially cut themselves off from the rest of the world and cashed in everything that they could. In this way they became a sealed off community, akin to a North Korea.

The Final Stage

The groups had a final couple of frantic minutes to hand in their products before all money was totalled up. This led to the following scores:

• “I Love Huel”: £9,200

• “TonyNah”: £5,400

• “The Big One”: £4,700

However, Tom had a final twist: a carbon tax! For every sheet of paper that remained (included the wasted paper from cut out shapes) and every piece of equipment a deduction of £100 was made. This led to the following deductions:

• “I Love Huel”: £3,200

• “TonyNah”: £2,600

• “The Big One”: £1,200

Overall, “I Love Huel” – due to their fortune at obtaining all the benefits of a good start – still won outright (with £6,000, when compared to £2,500 from “The Big One” and £2,800 from “TonyNah”). However, their wastage was ridiculous, akin to a developed country heavily polluting the planet. So, both Tom and I gave special mention to “The Big One”; overall, this group was most akin to a Scandinavian country which was incredibly efficient and resourcesful.

The trading game does exactly what it is designed to do: to expose the inequalities in the world today. But it provides students with something a little more: the ability to engage in team work, to negotiate, to plan effectively, and to modify and adapt where needed. I enjoyed the solutions that each group came up with in an attempt to succeed: some merged forces whilst others decided on sealing themselves off. This is similar to the world today, against which we have the backdrop of Trump’s tariffs and other protectionist policies. But all in all, the trading game was the perfect type of activity to attempt to engage tired, disgruntled A-level students in June.