The statement game is not a single structure but a family: you show a statement, everyone chooses a position at the same time — by standing up, raising a card or walking to a corner — and then people explain why. Anyone convinced may change position. That skeleton never changes; what changes is the gesture.
Below: what a statement game is, the four knobs every variant turns, and 2 structures you can run here right away.
A whole-class structure in which the group responds to a statement by visibly taking a position — all at once, on one signal. A few participants then explain their choice, and whoever is convinced by the arguments may show it by switching position. Opinions become visible without anyone having to take the floor, and the conversation afterwards has something real to be about.
That separates it from the two things it is most often confused with. Unlike a quiz, there is no right answer: a statement with nothing left to say after choosing was a fact — and then the round turns into an oral test. And unlike a debate, winning is not the point: the return is that the group sees itself, including the voices that never sound in a class discussion.
The family goes back to the values clarification technique of the 1970s: making opinions visible without judgement. There is no single inventor — which is exactly why the game circulates in so many shapes.
The variants below differ in the gesture, but every version turns the same four knobs. Whoever adapts a variant, or builds their own, is turning these:
The second knob is the only one the variants disagree on — the other three are the family. A statement game without the simultaneous signal or without the talk afterwards is not a variant but a loss.
The duration is that of a normal run as each structure describes it on its own page — several statements, explanations included. When preparing, you enter your own statements; every line becomes a round.
| Structure | What it does | Group size | Duration | Choose this when |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stand Up & Sit Down | agree or disagree: stand up or stay seated | whole class, 8–40 | 5–15 min | a quick reading — nobody walks, a round costs seconds |
| Four Corners | choose between four positions, one per corner | whole class, 12–35 | 10–20 min | the class keeps wanting to say «it depends» — nuance gets its own corner |
The binary variant, and the fastest: whoever agrees stands up, whoever disagrees stays seated, all at once. Nobody relocates, so a round costs seconds and the structure fits a full room. The silence beforehand is the working ingredient — everyone decides for themselves before anyone can look around. What makes it sharp: there is no escape position of «a bit agree», and exactly that makes the explanations afterwards worth having.
Four positions instead of two, and the class walks: every corner of the room stands for one answer. You choose not only what you think but how strongly — and in your corner you stand with allies, so explaining costs less nerve than facing the room alone. The labels do not have to be a scale: four causes, four characters or four solutions work just as well. Standing rule: the smallest corner speaks first.
Start with Stand Up & Sit Down and three light statements: it needs no material, no walking room and no explanation, and the class learns the game in one round. If the explanations keep circling «it depends», your statement is ripe for four corners — there that nuance gets a place of its own.
The sliding scale — an imaginary line from «strongly agree» to «strongly disagree», also known as the opinion line or barometer — runs on the same four knobs and can be played by hand: show the statement, everyone picks a spot on the line at once, a few voices from different spots, switching allowed. As a runnable structure it is not here yet.
In both structures you prepare your statements in advance — every line becomes its own round — and show them one at a time on screen, so the text stays visible while the class chooses.
A whole-class structure in which everyone visibly takes a position on a statement at the same time — by standing up, raising a card or walking to a corner — and then the choices are discussed. Changing position is allowed, and is in fact the best moment: it shows an argument worked. It is a family of variants around one skeleton, not a single fixed form.
Stand Up & Sit Down is binary — agree or disagree, stand or stay seated — and everyone stays in place: a round costs seconds. Four Corners gives four positions and has the class walk the room: more nuance, more movement, more time, and you explain your choice next to the people who chose the same. Rule of thumb: start binary; if you keep hearing «it depends», the statement is ripe for four corners.
The sliding variant of the statement game: instead of two or four positions there is an imaginary line from «strongly agree» to «strongly disagree», and everyone stands at the spot that matches their position. Maximum nuance, and the group's spread becomes a shape rather than a count. It runs on the same four knobs as the rest of the family and can be played by hand; as a runnable structure it is not on LudensFlow yet.
A good statement is a claim — not a question and not a fact — that you expect will divide the group, with something left to say after the choice. «Homework is useful» is too broad; «homework should never count towards your grade» divides. Order your statements from light to serious: the first rounds show that taking a position is safe here. Both structures answer this at length on their own pages, including a Microsoft Copilot prompt that drafts statements to measure.
Four to six. After about six the ritual becomes routine and the explanations go flat — four statements with real explanations beat ten without. As an energiser halfway through a lesson, two or three statements about the material are already enough.
No — and the whole family stands or falls with that. A public, simultaneous gesture measures no knowledge: it is distorted as much by overconfidence as by the fear of looking stupid. The moment points hang on it, the honesty of the choice goes. If you need an assessment, take a written answer from everyone.
Yes, with one adjustment: the gesture. Agree on a reaction per position — a heart for agree and a smiley for disagree, or four emoji for four corners — and keep the reactions equally neutral, or one position immediately costs more than the others. The order stays: choose in silence with microphones off, then everyone at once on your signal. Both structures answer this at length on their own pages.
The family scales from early years to adult teams, but the gesture shifts along: young children join in without the result being a readable picture of the group, in early adolescence the simultaneous signal is not a formality but the core, and adults stay seated not out of fear but out of dignity — name that out loud and the resistance mostly goes. Both structures carry a by-age section on their pages.
Compiled by Oksana Oliinyk ·