Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by reading_hermit
Changing Our Minds: How children can take control of their own learning by Naomi Fisher
5.0
Actual rating:4.5 stars
Best book I've read so far about self-directed education/unschooling/homeschooling. The writing is very easy to listen to and not dry like some non-fiction books can be. I found myself listening a lot of the time because it was just genuinely interesting to hear and Fisher's writing doesn't ever drag or slow down too much. The stories and research she gave were written at appropriate times in the book, just when you need a laugh or are listening intently to the information she gives. A great author.
The only chapter I, if not disagreed with, then was confused by, was chapter 7. It was basically the author's parenting philosophy and it seemed as if it didn't line up with the rest of her research and opinions in the book, especially her chapter that was all about motivation (chapter 4). In chapter 4, she gives a lot of research and information about intrinsic motivation, how to develop it, and how using rewards and punishments undermines and thwarts motivation and curiousity.
Then in chapter 7, she seems to be advocating more for an authoritarian approach to parenting, which relies heavily on exactly that. Rewards and punishments are used to control children in authoritarian parenting, but this seems to be exactly what the author abhors.
She heavily critiques what is her definition of "gentle parenting" or "child-led" parenting. The definition she gives seemed to be defined as parents using their connection with their child as thinly-veiled manipulation to control and guilt them into obeying them or doing what they want. That sounds horrible to me too and I wouldn't advocate for that either. However, that is an extreme take on gentle parenting/child-led parenting/natural parenting/peaceful parenting/whatever you want to call it. I think that if the author knew what it really was - setting boundaries and limits for safety, (but empathizing with the child during that), prioritizing connection, respecting the child and their opinion, and working through problems collaboratively - then they wouldn't come to that extreme definition and would actually agree with it instead. I wondered if perhaps her own bias was speaking more through that chapter, then anything else
Best book I've read so far about self-directed education/unschooling/homeschooling. The writing is very easy to listen to and not dry like some non-fiction books can be. I found myself listening a lot of the time because it was just genuinely interesting to hear and Fisher's writing doesn't ever drag or slow down too much. The stories and research she gave were written at appropriate times in the book, just when you need a laugh or are listening intently to the information she gives. A great author.
The only chapter I, if not disagreed with, then was confused by, was chapter 7. It was basically the author's parenting philosophy and it seemed as if it didn't line up with the rest of her research and opinions in the book, especially her chapter that was all about motivation (chapter 4). In chapter 4, she gives a lot of research and information about intrinsic motivation, how to develop it, and how using rewards and punishments undermines and thwarts motivation and curiousity.
Then in chapter 7, she seems to be advocating more for an authoritarian approach to parenting, which relies heavily on exactly that. Rewards and punishments are used to control children in authoritarian parenting, but this seems to be exactly what the author abhors.
She heavily critiques what is her definition of "gentle parenting" or "child-led" parenting. The definition she gives seemed to be defined as parents using their connection with their child as thinly-veiled manipulation to control and guilt them into obeying them or doing what they want. That sounds horrible to me too and I wouldn't advocate for that either. However, that is an extreme take on gentle parenting/child-led parenting/natural parenting/peaceful parenting/whatever you want to call it. I think that if the author knew what it really was - setting boundaries and limits for safety, (but empathizing with the child during that), prioritizing connection, respecting the child and their opinion, and working through problems collaboratively - then they wouldn't come to that extreme definition and would actually agree with it instead. I wondered if perhaps her own bias was speaking more through that chapter, then anything else