I'm struggling with the use of the word "lying" here. For kids who struggle to feel secure and emotionally safe and understood in a classroom community (and I know several such kids quite well) the idea of a teacher intentionally lying repeatedly to students is a bit of a trigger for me.
Similar to Ernest's comment I'm questioning the relational foundation, maturity (of student and teacher) and mutual trust that would be required for this to be effective and constructive, rather than the opposite.
But mostly, I just keep coming back to "what is the goal and objective here?" or put another way, "what is the problem you're trying to solve?" and I wonder is lying the best and only way to accomplish this? If it's the critical thinking/analysis/don't just believe everything you hear skill, I can think of other ways to do this that might be as effective but wouldn't risk damaging the student-teacher relationship. A teacher could play "two truths and a lie" and let the students first, then research/discover the lie. This wouldn't undermine the relational trust but would still exercise and develop these skills.
Yes! A game is exactly what this is — and a game is only a game when the participants are taking it on willingly, can leave, and (typically) are enjoying themselves. Maturity and trust are key — and this can deepen trust.
The objective is to sharpen reasoning skills by making the student consider whether something is actually too weird to be true — that is, to feel out the boundaries of their conceptual world.
This pattern (obviously) isn't the only way to do that, but in my experience (and I've been doing this for years) it's a danged effective one. But, crucially, the devil is in the details: a teacher who's not properly devoted to helping kids feel emotionally safe could get this wrong. I think I usually assume a certain level of maturity in people who implement these (because if I didn't, I don't know how to write), but all these patterns need to be applied wisely (and this one more than others).
Or not applied. Just to reiterate: I'm not suggesting that everyone do this!
There's more to talk about with this, but I think it's too nuanced to do via text. Lemme know if you'd like to chat on the phone.
"a game is only a game when the participants are taking it on willingly, can leave, and (typically) are enjoying themselves." Yes, those are important components for sure. I think another key attribute of a game is that it has a starting and an ending point -- it doesn't go on all the time for eternity (or at least most games I'm aware of don't).
Yes, the details seem to be especially important in this pattern. I have additional thoughts , but not the time to type them out in an articulate fashion. Happy to chat more in real time if you'd find it helpful.
I'm struggling with the use of the word "lying" here. For kids who struggle to feel secure and emotionally safe and understood in a classroom community (and I know several such kids quite well) the idea of a teacher intentionally lying repeatedly to students is a bit of a trigger for me.
Similar to Ernest's comment I'm questioning the relational foundation, maturity (of student and teacher) and mutual trust that would be required for this to be effective and constructive, rather than the opposite.
But mostly, I just keep coming back to "what is the goal and objective here?" or put another way, "what is the problem you're trying to solve?" and I wonder is lying the best and only way to accomplish this? If it's the critical thinking/analysis/don't just believe everything you hear skill, I can think of other ways to do this that might be as effective but wouldn't risk damaging the student-teacher relationship. A teacher could play "two truths and a lie" and let the students first, then research/discover the lie. This wouldn't undermine the relational trust but would still exercise and develop these skills.
Yes! A game is exactly what this is — and a game is only a game when the participants are taking it on willingly, can leave, and (typically) are enjoying themselves. Maturity and trust are key — and this can deepen trust.
The objective is to sharpen reasoning skills by making the student consider whether something is actually too weird to be true — that is, to feel out the boundaries of their conceptual world.
This pattern (obviously) isn't the only way to do that, but in my experience (and I've been doing this for years) it's a danged effective one. But, crucially, the devil is in the details: a teacher who's not properly devoted to helping kids feel emotionally safe could get this wrong. I think I usually assume a certain level of maturity in people who implement these (because if I didn't, I don't know how to write), but all these patterns need to be applied wisely (and this one more than others).
Or not applied. Just to reiterate: I'm not suggesting that everyone do this!
There's more to talk about with this, but I think it's too nuanced to do via text. Lemme know if you'd like to chat on the phone.
"a game is only a game when the participants are taking it on willingly, can leave, and (typically) are enjoying themselves." Yes, those are important components for sure. I think another key attribute of a game is that it has a starting and an ending point -- it doesn't go on all the time for eternity (or at least most games I'm aware of don't).
Yes, the details seem to be especially important in this pattern. I have additional thoughts , but not the time to type them out in an articulate fashion. Happy to chat more in real time if you'd find it helpful.
[Trying to be more positive and less Sea Lion]
What level of relational trust, self-awareness, and psychological safety would you think is necessary for teachers to be able to do this wisely?