Thanks for another thoughtful post, Faith. I feel like I’m becoming a bit of a groupie. I think you hit on something I never really made it around to saying in my post: that improvement of our processes and think is not really a wholesale change, although some sure act as if it is.

I feel like we may actually be *swinging back* toward the type of learning that seemed to occur in the 1930’s and ’40’s (albeit limited to certain people who had access to the appropriate resources) in the trying-failing-re-trying mindset (what is now referred to as a ‘growth mindset’) and in the tinkering/making culture that is reemerging (now that many kids/parents don’t have access to a garage full of tools). I don’t mean going backward, but often I am engaged in conversations with educators who talk about the pendulum on teaching methods/fads/thinking swinging back after a swing forward when a new way/method/fad has faded from view.

I think your students are lucky to have you. It is wonderful to meet a thoughtful, willing Educator who is open to the possibilities that change can bring.

Since I cannot tell who you are (by name), I am going to refer to you as Minister herein. First and foremost, thank you for such a profoundly well-written and thoughtful blog post in reflection of your reading of ‘A New Culture of Learning’. I appreciate the angst you express over the “how” of being an effective Educator. It is truly a frustrating endeavor. And these are particularly frustrating times to learn how. I’m trying to keep my comments brief, so I want to focus on two points here:

1. A learning based approach = student centered learning

I addressed this in one of my posts for this week. The shift is a cultural one to make: adults must not only be aware of the difference, but must establish learning environments where student success is the objective. I want to say that it is up to Educators, but I think the philosophical shift must come from a collection of administrators, parents, community leaders, etc.

2. In response to one of your thoughts:
“focusing on classes that inspire students, is dangerously close to classes that entertain students”

I suggest that inspiring students is not the same as entertaining them, but if learning can be entertaining and inspiring, then why not? Of course class objectives should not include entertaining students (humoring them, per se) but what is the downside to finding analogous humor in the learning that is to be had? Why does it need to be dry and serious? Is that the way the best minds in society think? I argue they don’t (Richard Feinman is my favorite scientists with a famous sense of humor). If more inner city kids in the 1950’s, ’60’s, 70’s were ‘inspired’ in their learning would the social structures of inner cities today be as impoverished as they are? If students were excited about their learning opportunities in math and science courses would we have the perplexing problems we do today with not enough students pursuing studies in STEM fields through college?

I’m gonna’ stop there because I feel like I’m getting on a roll.
And, if you’re interested, I’d love to take this up as an in-person conversation at some point.