This is missing the "How this could go wrong" section. Off the top of my head, here's one failure mode:
Not all students get excited by riddles. Some get frustrated by the gnomic statement of the riddle, and/or freeze under time pressure. And if they hit a wall trying to figure things out-- or worse, when they see others get to solutions that they just couldn't intuit their way toward-- they can get discouraged and down on themselves. I know because I have been that student sometimes.
Yes — excellent! I, too, have been that student sometimes — I remember very clearly a math event where I Just Wasn't In The Mood. The group of adults (this was a few years ago) was working together to solve a puzzle involving knots, and I found an excuse to hide in the bathroom for the remainder of the hour.
I have some theories as to why I don't see this happen in my science lessons. The dark possibility is simply that kids who don't like riddles for the reasons you suggest just don't sign up again.
I wonder, though, if there are other aspects this doesn't happen — aspects I didn't include in the above pattern, because I hadn't consciously connected what I do to my distaste of experiences like that math-knot-thing. To wit:
1. I try to make the riddles straightforward questions about the world (that is, not-gnomic): this week's is "what is a cloud?". I give kids chances to guess, and then (typically) tell them they're missing the big picture.
2. I immediately give (maximally strange!) clues to pique interest. (This week's: "leaping sea mice", "everyone in China and India", and "a runny nose = Mountain Dew".) This sort of promises that something interesting is coming.
3. The way that I do it (at least in my online Science is WEIRD classes — less so when I'm in person), most of the class is still me talking — telling stories, asking for their nonsense answers to questions, and so on. (I'll be posting more of these patterns in late summer, but look for "10 Second Answers", "Finger Code", "Quick Thumbs", and "Estimating Your Understanding". Suffice to say, it's still very interactive, even though I'm the one doing most of the talking.) So "hitting a wall" doesn't really happen with these, since I'm always adding in more information.
Thanks for unearthing this "what could go wrong", and please point out more! I lumped together that section with "Open Questions", because I wanted to bring back the snarky voice of the "Imaginary Interlocutor", now that I'm doing more patterns than anything else. I'll try to find a way to make it more obvious that we want to zero in on premortems.
Ah! I think what I find lacking in these Patterns is an explicit "diagnosis." The implicit diagnosis seems to be:
> The reason schools are like this is teachers simply don't understand the value of engagement enough to prioritize it. Therefore, to fix this we need to preach Egan hard and creatively enough until people take his insights seriously.
I've heard some people say that duolingo (gamified vocabulary/grammar for learning languages) works great for them, but I've also heard it described as "gamifying staying at beginner level forever" which I wouldn't count as a success.
This is missing the "How this could go wrong" section. Off the top of my head, here's one failure mode:
Not all students get excited by riddles. Some get frustrated by the gnomic statement of the riddle, and/or freeze under time pressure. And if they hit a wall trying to figure things out-- or worse, when they see others get to solutions that they just couldn't intuit their way toward-- they can get discouraged and down on themselves. I know because I have been that student sometimes.
Yes — excellent! I, too, have been that student sometimes — I remember very clearly a math event where I Just Wasn't In The Mood. The group of adults (this was a few years ago) was working together to solve a puzzle involving knots, and I found an excuse to hide in the bathroom for the remainder of the hour.
I have some theories as to why I don't see this happen in my science lessons. The dark possibility is simply that kids who don't like riddles for the reasons you suggest just don't sign up again.
I wonder, though, if there are other aspects this doesn't happen — aspects I didn't include in the above pattern, because I hadn't consciously connected what I do to my distaste of experiences like that math-knot-thing. To wit:
1. I try to make the riddles straightforward questions about the world (that is, not-gnomic): this week's is "what is a cloud?". I give kids chances to guess, and then (typically) tell them they're missing the big picture.
2. I immediately give (maximally strange!) clues to pique interest. (This week's: "leaping sea mice", "everyone in China and India", and "a runny nose = Mountain Dew".) This sort of promises that something interesting is coming.
3. The way that I do it (at least in my online Science is WEIRD classes — less so when I'm in person), most of the class is still me talking — telling stories, asking for their nonsense answers to questions, and so on. (I'll be posting more of these patterns in late summer, but look for "10 Second Answers", "Finger Code", "Quick Thumbs", and "Estimating Your Understanding". Suffice to say, it's still very interactive, even though I'm the one doing most of the talking.) So "hitting a wall" doesn't really happen with these, since I'm always adding in more information.
Thanks for unearthing this "what could go wrong", and please point out more! I lumped together that section with "Open Questions", because I wanted to bring back the snarky voice of the "Imaginary Interlocutor", now that I'm doing more patterns than anything else. I'll try to find a way to make it more obvious that we want to zero in on premortems.
Ah! I think what I find lacking in these Patterns is an explicit "diagnosis." The implicit diagnosis seems to be:
> The reason schools are like this is teachers simply don't understand the value of engagement enough to prioritize it. Therefore, to fix this we need to preach Egan hard and creatively enough until people take his insights seriously.
Is that your underlying thesis?
The closest I can find to a "here's some gamification that works" is Nicky Case: https://blog.ncase.me/curse-of-the-chocolate-covered-broccoli-or-emotion-in-learning/ For example, I really like their gamified introduction to ... game theory: https://ncase.me/trust/
I've heard some people say that duolingo (gamified vocabulary/grammar for learning languages) works great for them, but I've also heard it described as "gamifying staying at beginner level forever" which I wouldn't count as a success.