I thought the lecture was pretty interesting. In particular, what stuck out to me was the need to minimize the threat of condemnation/failure in a learning environment. I agree that when students are not afraid of their mistakes, then they will be more likely to engage themselves in the classroom. Also, in connection to what we've been talking about in class, students will be more likely to think in new ways as opposed to trying to find the exact right answer. Something else that stuck out to me was the need to put education into context, using the questions "what does it say, what does it meant, what does it mean to me." Personally, when something in class is applied to something practical, I remember it better, and it is also more interesting to me. For example, one time in chemistry, we were learning about supercritical fluids, and I was listening, but then the teacher told us that supercritical fluids were used to decaffeinate coffee, which stuck in my memory and allowed me to recall more about supercritical fluids later.
However, I was beginning to think that many of the learning techniques described just sounded good, but often were not actually carried out. For instance, Dr. Wentzel explained the need to engage in dialog and embrace tension, especially when it applies to the mission of a university. This sounds like a good thing and something most everyone would support in theory, but when tensions do arise, I think some are hesitant to discuss them for fear of upsetting others. Still, if tensions cannot be discussed, then the purpose of a mission statement is almost negated, since it means people must passively accept the mission without talking about and understanding what it does and does not mean.
