I Have Who Has

Each student gets a card that says 'I have [X]. Who has [Y]?' The first student reads their card, and the student who has the answer to 'Who has [Y]?' reads theirs next. This creates a chain that eventually returns to the first student. Every student must listen carefully and be ready.

I Have Who Has keeps every student engaged because they never know when their card will be called. Unlike traditional Q&A where students tune out after their turn, this game requires constant attention -- miss your cue and the whole class stops. It is a whole-class review that ensures 100% participation.

Based on the testing effect and attention research. The chain structure creates suspense -- students must listen to every card to know when theirs comes up. This sustained attention prevents the zoning out that happens in traditional review sessions.

Based on the testing effect and attention research. The chain structure creates suspense -- students must listen to every card to know when theirs comes up. This sustained attention prevents the zoning out that happens in traditional review sessions.

Use for vocabulary, math facts, science terms, or any content with question-answer pairs. Great as a warm-up or review activity. Best for grades 2-8. Works best when all students need to review the same content.

Avoid for very large classes where the chain takes too long. Also avoid if some students have very different ability levels -- the chain can expose gaps publicly. Don't use for complex questions that need explanation.

Grades Grade 2 to Grade 8

All subjects

• 100% engagement -- every student must listen
• Quick and fun
• Creates a sense of class unity -- everyone is part of the chain
• Self-checking -- if the chain breaks, the class finds the error
• Can be timed for an extra challenge

• Creating the card set takes preparation time
• The chain can expose struggling students publicly
• If one student isn't paying attention, the whole game stops
• Limited to Q&A content
• Can be frustrating if the chain breaks repeatedly

• Not preparing cards carefully -- a wrong match breaks the chain
• Letting students help each other too much -- defeats the purpose
• Not timing it -- the challenge adds motivation
• Not reviewing the content afterward
• Using it too often -- novelty wears off

Vary the game format, question types, and team structures to maintain engagement across multiple review sessions.

This strategy requires no technology. If desired, enhance with digital tools such as Google Docs for collaborative writing or Padlet for sharing responses.

Assess through observation of participation, quality of review, and formative checks such as exit tickets or quick writes.

• Kagan, S. (2009). Kagan Cooperative Learning. Kagan Publishing.