Below is a short film of a recent TED programme talk by a teacher – Diana Laufenberg. It has a number of different messages.
A mapping of the transition from a knowledge poor community to a present day surfeit of information. (We too remember the power of a printed version of The Encyclopedia Britannica).
How using their own voice in learning and the outcomes of it is a powerful tool for student learning itself. Finally, Diana Laufenberg makes a telling case for the power of failure.
The one answer, and only one answer is right – the prescriptive model of going to a single building to be ‘given’ knowledge, these Diana argues are outmoded paradigms.
In a world of web technology, laptops and mobile devices – with the clamour of data and image, how best should we learn, reflect and filter?
We have many clients who use the web to allow the leaners voice to emerge, to post the creative works of students online. Others are less well developed in this area, perhaps missing an opportunity to maiximise learning.
What is interesting in this short talk, is how, even in a community that is highly affluent with clearly pervasive use of technology, that the debate still rages. Inspiring.
We have been doing a lot of work recently on the creation of good governance structures for a variety of charitable and social enterprise organisations.
Policies and process play a large part in this delivery, but so do relationships. How boards or committees relate to one another, how their vision of what it is they think they are doing as individuals all temper the outcome of organisational development exchanges.
The video below from EQmentor places stress on emotional safety as a facet of healthy organisational development.
A nicely put argument about the wealth of resources that organisations offer to health and safety of the physical kind, but highlighting the meagreness of consideration often given to enotional support.
We are not totally won over on the office as home concept, which is not really a part of the argument, but the illustration of how at home we feel safe because we talk to each other, know each other very well and have permission to fail does ring a chime.
Governance within the board room is also about emotional safety and should operate along these lines too, we would argue, for an organisation in our sector to be fully functioning.
A group who operate on this ‘home’ principal can be more effective and dynamic. Is this what happens in governance development situations?