Games have often been used in the classroom to teach physics ideas and concepts, but there has been less published on games that can be used to teach scientific thinking. D. Maloney and M. Masters describe an activity in which students attempt to infer rules to a game from a history of moves, but the students don’t actually play the game. Giving the list of moves allows the instructor to emphasize the important fact that nature usually gives us incomplete data sets, but it does make the activity less immersive. E. Kimmel suggested letting students attempt to figure out the rules to Reversi by playing it, but this game only has two players, which makes it difficult to apply in a classroom setting. Kimmel himself admits the choice of Reversi is somewhat arbitrary. There are games, however, that are designed to make the process of figuring out the rules an integral aspect of play. These games involve more people and require only a deck or two of cards. I present here an activity constructed around the card game Mao, which can be used to help students recognize aspects of scientific thinking. The game is particularly good at illustrating the importance of falsification tests (questions designed to elicit a negative answer) over verification tests (examples that confirm what is already suspected) for illuminating the underlying rules.

1.
Too many to list, especially if you include video games, but see e.g.
M.
Vinson
, “
Space Race: A game of physics adventure
,”
Phys. Teach.
36
,
20
21
(
Jan.
1998
),
E.
Forringer
,
R.
Forringer
, and
D.
Forringer
, “
The Plus or Minus Game – Teaching estimation, precision, and accuracy
,”
Phys. Teach.
54
,
172
(
March
2016
),
J.
McGahan
, “
A game for facilitating the learning of units in physics
,”
Phys. Teach.
15
,
233
(
April
1977
),
P.
Black
,
P.
Davies
, and
J.
Ogborn
, “
A quantum shuffling game for teaching statistical mechanics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
39
,
1154
(
Oct.
1971
), or
P.
Nelson
, “
Teaching introductory STEM with the marble game
,”
Biophys. J.
104
(
2
),
532
(
2013
).
2.
D.
Maloney
and
M.
Masters
, “
Learning the game of formulating and testing hypotheses and theories
,”
Phys. Teach.
48
,
22
(
Jan.
2010
).
3.
E.
Kimmel
, “
The game of physics
,”
Am. J. Phys.
41
,
1199
(
Oct.
1973
).
4.
Nineteenth-century European two-player game, with some similarities to Go, in which black and white tiles are alternately placed on a grid. Runs of tiles capped at either end by the opponent’s color are captured and flipped to the other color. Currently marketed by Mattel under the name Othello. See, e.g. http://www.othelloonline.org/.
5.
R.
Feynman
,
M.
Gottlieb
, and
R.
Leighton
,
Tips on Physics
(
Pearson
,
2006
).
6.
L.
Lederman
and
D.
Teresi
,
The God Particle
(
Houghton-Mifflin
,
NewYork
,
1993
).
7.
R.
Feynman
,
R.
Leighton
, and
M.
Sands
,
The Feynman Lectures on Physics
(
Addison-Wesley
,
Reading, MA
,
1963
), Vol.
1
, p.
2
1
.
8.
Can You Solve This?
” YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKA4w2O61Xo.
9.
P.
Wason
, “
On the failure to eliminate hypotheses in a conceptual task
,”
Q. J. Psychol.
12
(
3
),
129
140
(
1960
).
10.
The basic rules are very similar to Uno, which most U.S. students will have played. See, e.g., http://gameofmao.com/ or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_(card_game) for rule variants.
11.
It’s also an example of reinforced conditioning. Skinner describes how a pigeon repeats behavior it associates with reward, even when the reward is not causally linked to the behavior.
B. F.
Skinner
, “
‘Superstition’ in the pigeon
,”
J. Exp. Psychol.
121
(
3
),
273
274
(
1992
). Neither the pigeon nor the student has engaged in the scientific thinking required to tease out accurate causality, but the behavior “works” in that the desired result is achieved.
12.
W.
Quine
, “
Main trends in recent philosophy: Two dogmas of empiricism
,”
Philos. Rev.
60
(
1
),
20
43
(
1951
).
13.
Invented by R. Abbott in 1956 and popularized in
M.
Gardner
, “
Mathematical games
,”
Sci. Am.
200
,
160
(
June
1959
). In Eleusis, there is only one rule that needs to be guessed, and the players take turns being the “God” who establishes the rule. The other players are “scientists” who are trying to discern the rule by playing cards in a sequence, and when they think they know the rule they can declare themselves “prophets” and start trying to apply it on God’s behalf. I have not tried this game in the classroom, but I could imagine it working well, particularly with a smaller group or with students who find Mao too bewildering. In 2006 J. Golden developed a simpler variant specifically to teach students about scientific thinking, as Abbott describes here: “Eleusis and Eleusis Express,” http://www.logicmazes.com/games/eleusis/.
14.
An alumnus wrote me recently, and the one example he chose, unprompted, to share of what he remembered from the 2009 class was the Mao exercise.
15.
To help reinforce this, I try to give them plausible but false models, so their experiments can actually disprove incorrect models, rather than verify standard hypotheses. See, e.g.,
T.
Erickson
and
E.
Ayars
, “
Fake papers as investigation prompts
,”
Phys. Educ.
40
,
6
(
2005
).
AAPT members receive access to The Physics Teacher and the American Journal of Physics as a member benefit. To learn more about this member benefit and becoming an AAPT member, visit the Joining AAPT page.