The name game is an activity used on the first day of class to help students in a writing workshop program get to know each other and understand the mental processes involved in learning. In the game, students go around the circle saying their names while others listen and repeat them back. Through playing the game and reflecting afterwards, students generate a list of 40 awarenesses related to listening, perceiving, speaking and learning. These awarenesses demonstrate that learning names involves many of the same mental activities used in reading and writing. The game is an introduction to the self-reflection emphasized in the program and helps students understand their inner resources for learning.

1. http://www.uneeducationpourdemain.org
Page 1 sur 3
The Name Game - Peter Miller
All 25 first-year students in my writing class are there because they have failed their initial
proficiency exams in reading and writing when they entered the City University of New York
(CUNY). They have chosen to participate in the “Freshman Workshop Program,” to improve
their academic skills while also studying themselves as learners. The program was created
over ten years ago by Rose Katz Ortiz, who worked with Dr. Gattegno for a number of years
in the 1960's and 70's. I took part in the initial seminar that helped design the program and
have continued to teach in it for 12 years.
Given the diverse cultural, linguistic and educational backgrounds of the students, it is
essential for us to bring them together as a group as quickly as possible and introduce them to
our distinctive ways of working in the program. For many years, the vehicle for this
introduction has been what we call the "name game," an activity originally created by Dr.
Gattegno. Although the game has many possible variants, let me describe how we usually
play it and then talk about the special purposes it serves.
On the first day of class, students are asked to sit in a circle, listen to each other say his or her
first name, and then, taking turns, repeat everyone's name. When students first begin to say
their names, they invariably make two mistakes: they speak too quickly and too quietly. The
first mistake allows for comment about the value of going slowly, taking one's time, and
stopping the game, if necessary, to "get it." The second mistake, speaking too softly, allows
for questions about the importance of paying attention and bringing one's interest to the game.
Larger questions about listening and perceiving are raised later.
As students take turns saying their names, they stop and ask each other to slow down and
speak louder or more clearly. They repeat the names to themselves, look around and double
back. From a generally passive attitude at the beginning of the game, students become more
attentive, listening to classmates and to themselves repeating the names. Instead of lounging
in the chair: legs outstretched and crossed, hands clasped behind their heads, they understand
what is required to play the game: sit up, lean forward, and twist around. At some point, the
game is stopped momentarily to ask if anyone has noticed changes in their physical behavior
and what that could signify.
After all the names are said, students are called upon to repeat them. What about their saying
wrong names or forgetting? Sooner or later, it happens that someone will forget a fellow
student's name. At this point, the student is asked what he or she was doing when that
particular name was said. Did they distract themselves? Did they fail to look at the person?
Did they hear the name clearly? Did they give themselves time? What was going on when the
name was said? Many times, after a brief discussion, the name comes forth. Far less
frequently do we need to ask students to repeat their names.
The game proceeds. Some make occasional mistakes, many don't. Some can say the names
quickly; others struggle slowly. But all do it. Students readily forgive each other's mistakes or
moments of inattention, since it is obvious that there is no conscious intention to forget or
embarrass others by not remembering. After a while, it becomes apparent that perfection is
not demanded at once, that mistakes are both necessary and inevitable, and that we are all in
the activity together. This part of the game takes about half an hour.
It is also true that some students have greater difficulty than others in remembering names,
primarily because of what they do with themselves as learners while the names are being said.
When I ask where the difficulties lie, the answers generally are: "I don't care about anyone's
name." "I didn't come to college to play silly games. I came to learn." "I can't do it, anyway.

2. http://www.uneeducationpourdemain.org
Page 2 sur 3
I'm terrible with names." "I didn't pay attention. My mind drifted away." "I really didn't think
you'd call on me."
In the next part of the game, after everyone has taken a turn and said the names, students are
asked to reflect on what they just did and explain what made it possible for them to do it. I
stand at the chalkboard and write down what they tell me. The obvious answers come first: "I
looked at everyone. I listened carefully. I repeated the names to myself. I said the names out
loud. I associated the name with the face."
I slow down this process and ask what they mean by listening and looking "carefully." At
first, there are some blank stares: "Whadaya mean?" I just listen more carefully. "Yes," I say,
"and how does this take place? What do you do?" After more questioning, we arrive a more
expanded list of "awarenesses" that constitutes listening as a complex inner activity: I can
appreciate the tone, the volume, the rhythm, the speed and the possible "attitude" of the
speaker from the way they say their name; I question and check whether I hear the name
right; I bring the name into relation with my past experiences and my prior knowledge; I
listen to myself saying the names, perhaps several times; I recognize new combinations of
sounds and must slow down to become familiar with and assimilate these new sounds; I
recognize that the unique sounds "go with" the unique face, especially when two students
have the same name.
By more questioning, we work on the process of seeing and further broaden the list to include
some of the inner attributes of perception: I can "see" in various ways, to gather an overall
impression or look for minute details. I interpret, weigh, measure, judge, compare and
associate the unique facial features and aspects of dress with the name. I create mental
pictures and can call them forth at will. I can use my imagination. I use my memory. I must
differentiate pictures, especially when two or three people in class have the same name.
After the fundamental importance of listening and perceiving are more clearly understood, we
move on to speaking, the need to say the name to oneself and hear oneself saying the name
perhaps several times, questioning whether one has it right, particularly for unfamiliar names,
because a number of students in the class come from foreign countries or cultures where
English may or may not be the native language.
I keep asking for more possibilities and more answers come to light:
I pay attention. I concentrate. I focus. I put distractions aside. I clear my mind. I keep an
open mind. I participate willingly. I want to see how well I can do. I am patient. I am
persistent. I enjoy playing the game. I am curious. I am interested. I am comfortable and
relaxed. I become confident. I notice patterns of sound and rhythm which help me. I create
order for myself by inventing mnemonic devices, such as, using adjectives (Hand - some
Harry, Lovely Lillian) or word play (Phillip contains "flip," "fill," "lip" and "pill,"), to
remember the names. I take the time it takes. I say the names out loud as many times as I
feel the need. I repeat the names to myself while others take their turn. I recognize the
mistakes of others.
At the end of an hour, students clearly know each other's names, but more to the point, they
have generated a list of some 40 awarenesses that collectively comprise what they have been
doing. Some groups of students are more thoughtful than others in reflecting on the activity
and articulating these awarenesses, but there is always surprise and appreciation for the
complexity of the task and the relative ease with which most accomplish it. In fact, generating
the list of awarenesses is unquestionably more difficult than remembering the names.
In the next phase of the game, students are asked to remove items from the list that they think
pertain exclusively to learning names, items which would not generally be used in learning
anything new. They go through the list, reading off each item and asking themselves whether

3. http://www.uneeducationpourdemain.org
Page 3 sur 3
they can eliminate it, but none can be removed. Every mental activity that students use to
remember each other's names they also use to learn anything else. They are also asked if they
can remove any item from the list that does not pertain to learning how to read or write. They
read through the list again and realize that everything they have done for the last hour applies
as well to reading and writing.
I go on to ask students if they can separate items on the list into any distinct groups or
categories. Looking over the list, it eventually becomes apparent that one group of attributes
comprises a frame of mind, an attitude, or way of working as a learner, which yields greater
success at playing the game. Students are more "present in the activity," as Dr. Gattegno has
said. Another group of attributes more specifically comprise those mental operations one does
to remember names. It is one thing, for example, to be open, clear-headed, patient, persistent,
curious, interested, confident, focused, and relaxed to play the game. It is another to look at
faces, listen carefully, associate names with faces, repeat names out loud, and use one's
memory, prior knowledge, and past experiences.
So by playing the "simple" game of learning each other's name for an hour or so on the first
day of class, students are introduced both to the distinctive process of self-reflection, which is
the cornerstone of the “Freshman Workshop Program,” and to some of the inner resources
and behaviors they must call forth whenever they read and write. The process is reinforced by
our duplicating the list and distributing it at the next class. The list continues to grow over the
semester and informs much of our subsequent work, as students, upon further reflection, find
themselves able to explain with increasing specificity their own inner dynamics of reading
and writing.
© Peter Miller College of Staten Island City University of New York The Science of
Education in Questions - N° 10 - 1993
"The Name Game" by Peter Miller is licensed under a CreativeCommonsAttribution-
NonCommercial-NoDerivs3.0UnportedLicense.