Hi Robin! I just want to share some random thoughts on our class last Friday. Instead of taking this as a feedback, treat it as some wild thoughts to read and think about for fun. ## The What, How, and Why of Teaching First, a quick rewind of the activities we did to startthe first unit (Langston Hughes's poems). Students are required to 1. Read "The Negro Artist and the Racial Mountain" & watch the Crashcourse Youtube video 2. Write a reflection question 3. Do a spider-web discussion of the article & their reflection 4. Background research in groups & gallery sharing These are the *what*s, the activites. Behind these *activities* is a common *goal* -- to make sure the students grasp a basic understanding of Langston Huges and the historical background he lived in, so that later it helps us better undertand his poems. The question I would ask myself is: how can we best acheive the goal of "giving students a basic understanding of the historical background"? What we did are the easy answers that most people can think of -- make them read an essay; make them watch a Youtube video; make them think about the essay and discuss it; make them research themselves. I will not dive too deep, but the question to think about is that are those the only ways? Are there better, more effective or interactive ways? Is it better to introduce the historical background before or after the student read the poems? What if context is a mystery the text provokes us to investigate? To think even deeper beyond "*how*", the "*why*" questions -- is historical background even important in order to understand the poems? Is it always true that texts are products of their contexts? Instead of introducing the cultural context to the students, can the cultural context manifest itself? ![[What, how, why, activites, and goal|500]] The intenion here is not to provide answers or alternatives; it's about showing a way of thinking. --- ## The Result-First Model I really appreciate the "read in your own time and then come to class later" flexibility we did on Friday. It echoes the idea of the "[result-only revolution](https://www.amazon.nl/-/en/Cali-Ressler/dp/1591842921)" advocated for Cali Ressler and Jody Thompson. Their idea is that in a result-only workspace, employers have full agency of how they spend their time, as long as they get their work done and produce the results needed -- No more pointless meetings, racing to get in at 9:00, or begging for permission to spend more time with family. Similarly, applying the idea into our classrooms -- I think the core idea is to ask why do we really need to come to class -- what is something that we have to do together in a classroom that makes me come here with passion and excitement? For the last lesson, I would say it's the spiderweb dicussion -- it would not have been possible to diuscuss and share our understanding, if we are not physically together in a circle. And I do think I learned something from other people's perspectives, especially Archit's pointing out of the inner contradiction -- something I have thought about but don't have the chance to formulate into words. On the other hand, if I come to the class just to read an article and write an reflection for 30 minutes, which I could have done in my own time, under the sunshine, or at a Cafe in Maastricht, that would not be a sufficient reason to give me motivation to wake up in the morning. It's the same idea as expressed in my essay "[No class unless necessary](https://jimmyzhang.org/think/no-class-unless-necessary)" -- alwasy ask yourself, why do we have this class today? Give me a reason to wake up in the morning to come to your class, otherwise don't blame me for being late. I understand tt might sound over the top, but I think the idea itself is clear. Extralopating the idea beyond a class to the entire semester, let's imagine a school where there are no class timetables, only a list of requred goals and skills -- for example: Having read 20 poems by Langston Huges; having understood the historical background and cultural context; being able to write a paper one analyzing his poems, etc. There are mandatory tests throughout the semester to check in on the progress; how can the students get there let them figure out. Teachers are available for time-booking, library is open, internet is free to use. Students do whatever they can as long as they're able to tick the required boxes at the end, which should be their goal because most of us are here with the goal to graduate IB with a good grade. This is also getting similar to most democratic education, where students seemingly have entire agency of their time. Most people see freedom; what people don't see is that under complete freedom there has to be clear goals and sense of motivation -- every student is bound by a greater goal that is relevant and important to their life, such as gaining a diploma, learning a skill, or whatever is important for that phase of their life. Unlike the model above, there, there are not even pre-determined list of things they have to finish like the in the example above -- instead, they have to figure out and define their own goals. A result-first model enables a goal-only mindset -- forcing students to be clear with what they really want out of their life and education, isntead of just going to calsses at 8:10 in the morining and checking off at 15:15. This idea has alwasy been massively inspiring for me. I hope it can also give you something to think about. Would love to hear your thoughts! Sincerely, Jimmy Zhang