Several of us at TWI been looking at how the interplay between thinking and feeling leads to effective (or ineffective) action.  For the most part we have looked at this anecdotally.  

Here is an interview with Harvard Kennedy School Professor, Jennifer Lerner. She is the director of the school's new Laboratory for Decision Science.  Professor Lerner studied this phenomenon in the lab, and then nationally after 9/11.

Some snippets: 

In our early laboratory studies, we found that experimentally induced fear and anger did indeed have these opposite effects on risk perception. However, this lab research was not a sufficient test of our hypothesis...

In the aftermath of September 11th, we realized that, tragically, we were presented with an opportunity to find out whether our lab research could predict how the country as a whole would react to the attacks and how U.S. citizens would perceive future risks of terrorism. We did a nationwide field experiment, the first of its kind....

The results mirrored those of our lab studies. Specifically, people who saw the anger-inducing video clip were subsequently more optimistic on a whole series of judgments about the future--their own future, the country's future, and the future of the world. In contrast, the people who saw the fear-inducing video clip were less optimistic about their own future, the country's future, and the world's future....

Again, the entire interview is HERE.

Perhaps the most insidious change is with the rare but spectacular risks. The sensational tales of brain-eaters and sand killers. Such stories have always existed, of course, but something is different now, and that's the Internet. Ubiquitous access combined with the bazaar potential publishers means the freakiest event can be shared by millions of people. Anyone can read about it, blog about it, link to it, forward it in e-mail, and post it as a Flash video, but there's no impetus for them to disclose the risk responsibly or reasonably. Their agenda may even call for them to twist the truth, make the risk seem more or less serious than it is.

Here's the paradox that rises from all of this: As an individual and consumer, I like disclosure. I want every corporate and civic entity I place trust in to be accountable. I want journalists and scientists to unearth the risks I'm not being told about. At the same time, while any one disclosure of a threat may be tolerable, or even desirable, the cumulative effect of so much disclosure is, frankly, freaking me out.

Reach is an innovative teacher training and credentialing program that grew out of the work of On The Move (also a Whitman grantee). This new teacher development process turns the whole notion of teacher training on its head. Instead of traditional training where new teachers spend most of the year studying about teaching and then practice a few weeks at the end of the year, Reach teachers spend the majority of their time in their classrooms actually teaching supported by mentors and other subject matter experts (SMEs). What makes this process so unique? Well for one thing these new teachers designed it themselves.

Read all about it here.

A week ago, TWI began a weekend retreat that brought together board members, staff, grantees, and one of our funders' reflection partners. Our idea was to create a space for a great group of people to come together and cross-fertilize questions, ideas and experiences. We hoped that providing this opportunity might lead to new connections, deepened relationships, and dialogue that would inform our respective work going forward. We also wanted people to have fun and leave feeling both refreshed and energized.

Speaking for myself, those aims seemed to be realized in a big way.  It was wonderful to witness all the different connections being made and to experience "the whole" of the Institute in such an engaging, informal way.  We had some structured time, of course, but as Edd Conboy described it afterwards (I hope I'm paraphrasing correctly!) the weekend resembled a series of self-organized world cafes.  I was reminded once again of the value of not over-scheduling; of having an expansive pace that allows people time to breathe and just be - either by themselves or with others.  In those times some of the richest and meaningful discussions bubbled up.

The Reach Institute, part of Whitman grantee organization, On The Move, was granted accreditation for its teacher credentialing program. One of the hallmarks of this program is that 15 new teachers from throughout the Bay Area created the design and implementation process themselves.

Read what Reach's director, Page Tomkins, wrote in a letter of thanks to their many supporters and sponsors after the jump...

Another creative use of video and other media similar to the interesting work by the Whitman grantees at JustThink.org

Details about the Action 7 Newsroom here.

In the paper she addresses these three important questions:

1. How do digital media influence what and how youth learn, and what they should learn?

2. What, if any, public responsibility do we have to provide these media as tools for learning?

3. If there is such a public purpose, how can it best be met?

What may be most interesting is that she focused her research specifically on one aspect of digital media - video games and gamers. Here is a peak at some of her conclusions.

What skills games teach, how they might be used to build content expertise, and how to use them effectively in both formal and informal learning and work environments is a series of questions to which researchers are approaching answers. How games matter - framed as a more complex issue than merely their relationship (or not) to violence - is a conversation that we can move toward, both in the general public and among policymakers. Games that are both fun and educational - either in the creation of them and/or while playing them - may be successfully introduced into the marketplace, if certain deliberate investments are made.

There are both public and private interests at stake in this work...

How about interviews from think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, or Brookings, the Commonwealth Clubs and the Carnegie Endowment? And then how about tapes of leading authors on book tours around the country would also be great to have? And then maybe transcripts of the videos with word search capability so you don't have to watch the whole presentation to get to the most interesting bits.

Well of course after that pitch such a site is already up and running on a desktop near you. Just go to fora.tv and browse around for a bit. But be careful, before you know it an hour will have gone by as you become engrossed in watching a conversation unfold that you wish you had been to in person.

.

The video very effectively captures a model for intergenerational sustainability. It is 16 minutes in length, and well worth the time investment. Here's the link.