The Provocative Clue

Today I read "Puzzling Problems in Computer Engineering", published in the February 2009 issue of Computer, the magazine of the IEEE.

Anyway, made me think ... when I was an assistant teacher in Philosophy at Adelaide University, I liked to employ a method which I called "The Provocative Clue". It was based on the Socratic principle that
* there's nothing new under the sun, or
* if I can think of it, so can you

I used this mainly because it's a technique that if employed correctly, really can set off a chain of associations and new pathways in someone's thinking. Usually, it means giving only the very barest minimum of information, in a scenario where the outcome is not crucial, for a situation that has not previously been questioned or rationalised. For instance, which is more morally reprehensible - killing one chicken for dinner, or genetically altering the chicken genome to produce unnaturally large, meaty chicken legs?

In order to answer that question, I would encourage my students to think about who is making the statement, how are they making the statement, and why are they making the statement. This gives a good map of the issue, of course with big gaps.

So, as the teacher, the idea is to show students how to go further with what they have. That's the process of analytical thinking - you can analogise it to a toolbox- If I have a hammer, some nails, planks of wood, a tree, but no saw, how can I build a good treehouse? It's also the basis of lateral thinking as well. I often think that the only difference between lateral and analytical thinking is that lateral thinking uses framing concepts or elements which are not habitually, or customarily, related to the problem at hand.

Back to the provocative clue. Once students are thinking in terms of who, how and why, and have laid out their thinking in this regard, then you have to present the clue. The clue is going to be different for every individual and for every group. It's easy to give lots of physical analogies for the clue - a rope dangling just outside reach where you have to jump to get it, a signpost pointing into the fog, a barely audible tinkling sound which seems to come from that little park over there, a perfume that drifts in the air after a lovely person has a passed you in the street ...
All refer to the horizon of perception, and in cognitive terms, I think this cashes out as a sensation whose range of possible interpretations is maximised, whilst still restricting itself to particular moment or thought.

The best kinds of provocative clues are the ones where both the students and the teacher become intrigued and discover something new. That's dialogue, that's the real deal, that's when it transforms out of a pedagogical relationship into one of equality.