This book makes some good points about the disconnect between schooling and learning that increases critical thinking, etc. I agree that much can be learned from games like Minecraft, and that gamifying learning makes things more engaging and less abstract for the students. And it’s true that rote memorization is becoming less relevant, now that we all have a computer in our hands that can tell us everything we need to know. It’s more important to know how to recognize incorrect information than it is to recall random facts.

However, I’m not sure if I agree with his solution of introducing games to the classroom and removing standard instruction. Much of what he was saying about games, I think, also applies to creative projects (which schools do implement: think science fairs, writing projects, arts). You approach an issue that you want to solve, or a result you’d like to produce, and then you whittle down the details of how to execute it effectively. There’s trial and error, personal interest, and more space for repeat iterations until you “get it right.” I guess I agree that less focus on grading and more attention on fixing mistakes would be good. Rather than giving someone an F and moving on to the next lesson, we could take time to see where the students went wrong, what skills they missed, and give them a chance to try again and catch back up at their own pace. Maybe someday in the future, virtual schooling will allow students to learn at their own rate, rather than being lumped in with peers.

Personally, as a librarian, I think the skills he’s desiring to see are best formed through independent learning and life experience. Everyone should have something they care about that they spend time investing in and improving on. Libraries have a lot more flexibility in how we teach skills to people; there are no grades, games are welcome, and everyone moves at their own pace. I think it’s possible to teach these skills outside of a school environment, to people of all ages. I’m open to the idea of schools including more opportunities for this exploration, but I do think it requires personal motivation from the student, which isn’t always going to be there in a child who was forced to wake up and get on the bus that morning. Games might help engage those students, but how much effort a kid puts in to whatever they’re doing is going to vary wildly, regardless.

He makes some good points and brings up some interesting questions, but the writing in this book is really holding it back. Much of it is repetitive; the first five chapters could’ve been summarized in an introduction. He occasionally mentions research that is highly contestable (like left and right brain differences) and just expects you to go with his point rather than providing any real evidence that his position is the correct one. It’s like he just forgot to mention all of the counterarguments to his argument. There are lots of little anecdotes, but not many arguments tying the points together. I just don’t really know what all his points are, or what exactly he wants people to do, or why anyone should attempt it. The writing style is a bit of a slog to get through, too, so it’s hard to stay focused. Had I not been reviewing an ARC, I would’ve given up on the book a few chapters in.

I think if the book was organized better, it would’ve done better. More examples of the actual games he thinks children should be learning from, and the specific skills they would gain from those games, would be much more useful than this abstract philosophical meandering.

In his book Wisdom Factories, Tim Dasey offers that we need to create a new educational model that focuses on teaching wisdom skills, such as critical thinking, creativity, and big-picture thinking. He believes that AI will soon be able to do many of the jobs that are currently done by humans, and that the only way for humans to stay ahead of the curve is to develop these wisdom skills.

With my own limited experience with AI, I think Dasey makes a compelling case, and I found his book to be thought-provoking and inspiring. I would definitely recommend it to anyone who is interested in the future of work and education.

In his book, Tim Dasey writes something that few authors are self-aware enough to admit: he's a poor writer. Near his book's end, he writes:

"I turned to writing, but that exposed a major deficiency--I wasn't a good writer."

He admitted that he "received no writing instruction" throughout his education, even though he has a Ph.D.

Sadly, it shows in this book.

His PR agent helped him hone in on his message of schools teaching wisdom since he struggled to articulate it. Luckily, his PR agent decoded his cryptic, disjointed writing.

My favorite section of the book was when he wrote about the Quest to Learn (Q2L) school, which serves grades 6-12. It is designed around games. It emphasizes 7 principles:
1. Everyone is a participant.
2. Challenge is constant.
3. Learning happens by doing.
4. Feedback is immediate and ongoing.
5. Failure is reframed as "iteration."
6. Everything is interconnected.
7. It kind of feels like play,

This may be the future of instruction.

It's a pity this book didn't tackle the AI subject since that will utterly transform education.

He implies that AI will never have wisdom. I disagree. It can already do something that many humans cannot: articulate both sides of an argument and not be dogmatic.