h a l f b a k e r y
Point of hors d'oevre
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
or get an account
Exercise 1: The class divides into 2-person teams, A and B. Each student A looks at an unfamiliar object and writes a description of it. (All the As look at the same object.) The description is then passed to student B, who has not seen the object. Student B draws a picture based entirely on the description.
The entire class then compares all the drawings to one another and to the original object, and votes to determine the most accurate drawing. The team producing the best drawing wins a prize. The class then compares the descriptions and analyzes why some descriptions were more successful than others.
Exercise 2: The class divides into 3-person teams. Student A looks at an object and writes a description. Student B reads the description and makes a drawing. Students A and B then view the object and the drawing and consult together to discuss how the description could be improved. They collaborate to produce a revised description. The revised description is then passed to student C, who makes a new drawing. Then the class analyzes the drawings and descriptions as in Exercise 1.
In these exercises, the teacher serves only as a moderator or facilitator of the process and not as an arbiter of what constitutes good writing. The students are encouraged to develop their own criteria, independent of the judgment of the teacher. They also develop an appreciation of the value of teamwork and revision.
||I've done a very similar task in a interpersonal communication course. One person looks at a picture which they describe to another person who then draws it. The exercise is repeated where the describer and drawer can: a) ask questions; and b) use body language as well as verbal language.
||Also, this is common method of teaching people how to 'construe' the claims of a patent.
||I've done this before. It actually might not lead to better
descriptive writing and just encourage Twitter-style
descriptions (ex. "Two inches high. Grey.") Also, good writing
doesn't always have to describe objects in complete detail. A
lot can be left to the reader's imagination. Finally, a drawing
would only acknowledge a visual description, ignoring the
other four applicable senses. 
||Might work with instructions, as well as descriptions. I recall
a robotics exercise: to give instructions
which made absolutely no reference to any goal. The other
party followed instructions blindly, and it was amazingly (for
us, then) hard to get the task performed correctly.
||I'm a copywriter in an ad agency and I'm going to try this out with the creative teams. I'll let you know how it goes.
||In the scenario with the 3rd person, they would be the client, which is an unfortunate reality in our business.
||I should suggest a third modified approach:
Class divides into groups of five or six or so, each
perceives not a static object, but a dynamic situation
only concentrates on one particular sensory aspect
other than visual (theyll each only describe what it
looks like otherwise). These descriptions are kept
separate, and passed to a world-famous film producer,
who will make a major feature film based on the
descriptions (and perhaps sequels, prequels and
trilogies, etc). Other members of the class go and see
the resulting film, writing a critical review of it, as a
group exercise, per each group. The original group (in
each case) doesnt see the blockbuster hit film just
yet. They read the composite reviews, perhaps in the
popular press, and see if theres anything resembling
the original situation in the reviews.
||Do you happen to be in the AFROTC?