This paper is intended to inspire a competitive incentive in classroom participants. In a class where the number of students is big and a flipped way is worth consideration, it is often presumed needful for participatory pedagogy. I would like to share a classroom experience according to my observation during the semester and a semester-end survey filled out. Intended to drill college students in English abilities through studying special topics on modern China, my class was characterized by the gallery game where the students were requested to display their learning results with sticky notes and wallpapers, on which all participants, including the teacher, used stickers to show their approval. Although the process appeared insufficient for student assessment, it was found useful to motivate learners. There were 88 students signing up for the class, where 86 of them were regular attendees. More than 10 students had come from abroad, whose mother tongues were non-Chinese languages, so the only language used in class was English. The 25 survey questions are raised to inquire whether and to what extent the learner autonomy was increased. The findings are that the students’ attendance rate was high, the students were gradually used to either self-learning or teamwork learning, and they became a little more proactive than before when having to make their works creatively interesting enough to win as many sticker points as possible. In doing so, my students were metaphorically baptized market probationers who voluntarily confronted the hustle and bustle with each other’s help.

1. Brown, D. H. (2014). Principles of language learning and teaching: A course in second language acquisition. White Plains, NY: Pearson.
2. Craft, A. (2011). Creativity and education futures: Learning in a digital age. Stoke on Trent, UK: Trentham Books.
   
3. Gray, D., Brown, S., & Macanufo, J. (2010). Gamestorming: A playbook for innovators, rulebreakers and changemakers. Beijing, China: O’Reilly.
   
4. Hativa, N. (2000). Teaching for effective learning in higher education. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   
5. Huba, M. E., & Freed, J. E. (2000). Learner-centered assessment on college campuses: Shifting the focus from teaching to learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
   
6. Jahangiri, L., & Mucciolo, T. (2012). A guide to better teaching: Skills, advice and evaluation for college and university professors. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
   
7. Jorgensen, D. L. (1989). Participant observation: A methodology for human studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   
8. Koch, R. (2008). The 80/20 principle: The secret to achieving more with less. New York, NY: Doubelday.
   
9. Lens, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2008). Promoting self-regulated learning: A motivational analysis. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 141-168). New York, NY: Routledge.
   
10. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
    
11. Nurnia, Kamaluddin, Milwan, Herman, Masmur, & Sondeng, S. (2017). Developing students’ writing project by means of a flipped classroom. International Journal of Business and Administrative Studies, 3(1), 16-21.
    
12. Robinson, A., & Udall, M. (2006). Improving performance through enhancing student understanding of criteria and feedback. In C. Bryan. & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 92-99). London, UK: Routledge.
    
13. Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2011). Research methods for social work (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
    
14. Sanders, I. (2012). The simple power of the doodle. Retrieved from https://goo.gl/xM7RHl
    
15. Suskie, L. (2004). Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. Bolton, UK: Anker Publishing Company.
    
16. Tolman, A. O., & Lee, C. S. (2013). True collaboration: Building meaning in learning through sharing power with students. In O. Kovbasyuk. & P. Blessinger (Eds.), Meaning-centered education: International perspectives and explorations in higher education (pp. 110-121). New York, NY: Routledge.
    
17. World Cafe Community Foundation. (2015). A quick reference guide for hosting world cafe. Retrieved from www.theworldcafe.com

Chang, C. Y. (2017). Autonomy vs. assessment: To what extent the audience approval in a gallery game helps bring pleasure, pressure, and progress. International Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences, 3(4), 148-156