What if Humpty did not have a great fall? Because happy Dumpty was saved in the nick of time by the pail of water Jack and Jill were carrying?

We are playing with rhymes for a reason. The thinking has always been repetition of good old nursery rhymes helps develop focus and vocabulary. Does that rationale extend to all learning by rote?

A report by The British Psychological Society cites research to state that most little children are “insatiably curious”, constantly questioning and exploring (young parents would concur, for sure). If the children were to remain in this state they can outlearn adults, but. It is a very significant but because “by about the age of six, their unbridled curiosity starts to wane” which hampers their ability to keep questioning and solving.
​
Now, a new work published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General has studied children aged three to six years and “found that simply varying the messages that were embedded in a storybook could make a difference”. 

There were 138 participants in the study in the US and, “to broaden the cultural background of the sample”, another 88 in Turkey.

The children listened to two versions of the same story of Sam following rules and instructions to search a group of islands for treasure. In the first version of the story Sam strictly went by the rules. At the end of it, when a participating child was asked a question, “the potential responses were always limited”.

The second version, the “strategic curiosity” version, lefts things rather uncertain. The children could pick which island to visit and also had to keep an eye on the time. Unlike the “obvious” questions that followed the first version, there were open-ended questions at the end of the second version.

Then came the application part. After the story, the children were introduced to a new game, which featured a virtual aquarium consisting of five fish tanks. Each tank had different hidden creatures, and the children had 15 minutes to find them.

For the group that had heard the “traditional” version of Sam’s story, this meant "following the rules and checking for all your clues". For the other group, it was about "staying curious and paying careful attention to everything around you".

While the two groups found about the same number of sea creatures, there were differences in performance. Those who were tuned to the “traditional” approach “often ran out of time to explore all of the tanks”. The “curious” group “prioritized visiting multiple tanks over deeply exploring individual ones and were more likely to get through them all”. The second group “spent a longer time searching tanks that appeared to contain relatively more creatures, even if it took some time to find those creatures”. This was a clear demonstration of greater “strategic persistence”, the researchers concluded. 

That “strategic persistence” is valuable in the corporate world. So, in the world of grown-up learning and development, should Sam be taught the rules by rote, or be encouraged to question and rethink? Would that sacrifice discipline and progress? Or yield rich rewards?

What do you think, my accomplished friends in the learning domain?

If I am in school, there is no room for questioning either Humpty or Jack. After all, my success depends on getting the answers expectedly right, to up-grade myself. That's what my young seven-year-old student had taught me all those years ago when I attempted to correct her homework. (“This is what my teacher wrote on the board…. Now, who gives me marks? Who gives me punishment if I do not obey?”)
​
By the way, I do wonder what you are up above so high. How come the rain does not put off your twinkle? Why don’t you fall if you are diamonds? Hey, are you really stars or high-flying drones?