TACTics Journal
A Publication for and by TOC for Education Practitioners
March 31, 2000


CONTENTS
                POOGI POOL
                                (1) Thoughts on Kathy's Learning from Teaching,
                                      TACTics 3/17/00, Beverly Brown
                NETWORKING
                        (2) News from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, Eleanor May Brenneker
                                (3) The Never Ending Story. The Continuation of Last Week's Discussion from TACTics, 3/24/00,

        Kathy Suerken
 CONNECTIONS                    
                (4) 4th Annual TOC for Education International Conference
            (5) TOC for Education in Action
            (6) Cloud Training
 
QUOTES
            (7) Eleanor May-Brenneker
                (8) Mahatma Gandhi
                (9) Beverly Brown
WIZDOM
                (10) Francis Su
EDITORS' NOTE
            (11) Kay Buckner-Seal and Cheryl Edwards

POOGI POOL
(1) Thoughts on Kathy's Learning from Teaching, TACTics 3/17/00,

From Beverly Brown, Ashland High School, Ashland, Ohio, USA

My TACT Support Group discussed Kathy's article from the March 17 newsletter.  Some of our thoughts:
. We found it interesting that Kathy mentions she was teaching to a large class which resulted in her having a dilemma.  How ironic that "class sizes are too large" was an obstacle to the teachers as well.
. Our complaints, such as "class sizes are too large" often mask the real obstacles, such as diverse learning modalities, individual attention, etc.
. The reasons helped break down the problem so they could see the real obstacles.
. The more specific the obstacles and IO's, the more one feels they are achievable and "I can do this."  General obstacles seem overwhelming at times.
. The more specific obstacles didn't seem as negative.

To me the greatest learning moment was this:
. The ambitious target was "All our students are empowered to learn."  The obstacle was "class sizes are too large."  When you look at the two together, the ambitious target is about students- the obstacle as written is about teachers.  They don't match.  When the general obstacle was broken down to reasons/specifics, the obstacles started to be worded to fit the students' needs.

At this point my students went back to one of our obstacles that posed a problem and realized something very interesting.  Our ambitious target has narrowed from "Have time to do everything" to "Have time to do all
schoolwork within the school day."  One of our obstacles was "Teachers have too many responsibilities."  We overcame this obstacle with the one IO-"Teachers' responsibilities are reduced."  We discovered from Kathy's
example that there are teacher responsibilities related to the job of teaching and teacher responsibilities related to the students' needs.  Then we realized that even this was too general and we started to break our list down to specific "teacher jobs" and "student needs."

Even though we are getting clarity on our problem, I guess my question is "At what point are we specific enough?"

Our TACT group meets again next week- I will let you know if we have any "TOC moments."

P.S.  Your examples and experiences really do deepen my thinking.  Keep sharing.

NETWORKING
(2) News from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands
From Eleanor May-Brenneker, UK

. I intend to work on clouds and branches with my colleagues at the Institute (Montessori for Further Education) and I will spread the word that I've found this brill instrument to work with.
. During a working lunch, I told my colleagues about TOCFE.  We did a tree on this point in our discussion: whether to work in groups or not. They found it very interesting and useful.
. The mother of one of my students approached me with the problem. she could not understand her daughter's needs.  By doing a cloud with her she eventually realised that by asking her child what is needed and by listening to her girl expressing her needs, her daughter was perfectly capable of working things out for herself.  This opened up a new world (insight) to the mother.
. Session 2 of the MSW/TACT manual has been translated into Dutch by Petra Pouw and I've received the e-mail copy to check it.  The other sessions are being worked on, I understand, and will soon be coming, I hope.
. The future for TOCFE/NL looks bright and promising and a new group of candidates is on the waiting list to commence training.

(3) The Never Ending Story. The Continuation of Last Week's Discussion from TACTics, 3/24/00
From Kathy Suerken

We know in TOC, as so often in life, there usually isn't one right answer.  Clouds can be verbalized in different ways. The test is: does it make sense and lead to win/win for those who are in the conflict?  After all, what is
the objective in writing clouds?

In TACT, we define the objective as effectively resolving conflicts, which we identify in session one as day to day conflicts.  What do we mean by day to day?  Do we mean that we should learn first to think through and solve
problems that are simple and not complicated?

If so, is it preferred to define and resolve problems by where they lead or by where they first begin?

Yes, but, it's not so simple??!!  Perhaps that is because sometimes we don't identify the conflict itself (D and D') in a simple and concrete way.  When test marketing Cheryl's and my workbook with a group of 36 students at Purcell Middle School last November, one student commented that her problem as written in D and D' just looked too complicated.  She was trying to resolve too many conflicts in just one cloud.  We guided her to pick one dilemma and to write it very case specific, very concrete- not theoretical, not generalized, not abstract.

Example of case specific:         I want desk X.
Non-example of case specific:  I want people to quit taking my things.

But what about the needs?  Should they be specific or generalized? In my experience, writing D and D' very specifically helps us to identify more concrete needs as well.  But sometimes people resist doing so.  I have noted
this phenomenon more when people "speculate" about the needs of others, which they have a tendency to want to generalize.  And in so doing, perhaps they are trying to meet a legitimate need of their own!  Here's the cloud on
this problem which I shared last week for your scrutiny:
A: Effective solutions to day to day problems
B: Solutions must be tangible and concrete
D: Write needs concretely and case specific
C: Solutions must be long term
D': Write deeper (more generic type) needs

Writing generalized (more encompassing) needs does make problems more relevant to others and are good, therefore, for getting "groups" of people to relate both to the problem and the concept of the cloud.  It also makes us think of the conflict as part of a bigger problem that may be impacting the person.  And we assume that if we don't fix the bigger problem, the little ones will come back.

However, in my experience when we write deeper, more encompassing needs, the assumptions are more generalized as well.  Therefore, it is not as easy to come up with simple, tangible and practical solutions (especially solutions that don't lead to negative branches).

In my experience, we are not as likely to implement complicated, intangible solutions.  Therefore, we may not experience the win/win and if we don't experience the win/win, we may not use the cloud in the future.

Well, of course we want to solve day to day problems between two people not only now but also in a way that leads to long term results.  Let's explore a version of an assumption shared by Francis Su of Taiwan (her complete analysis is under WIZDOM, in this issue of TACTics).  In order to have long term solutions, we must write deeper (more generalized) needs because using concrete solutions will not address long term problems, prevent fire-fighting etc.

Let's consider Jim and Joey.  Do you agree that if Jim and Joey can fix the problem when it is simple and through identifying concrete needs that it will lead to: (1) open communication between them? (2) a better
relationship? (3) a better classroom environment.?

Are these long term impacts?

Yes, but?????  Send them to: suerken@nwfl.net

We'll address them next week.  By the way, thank you to those who are answering my questions by responding to me personally.  I will not use any of our discussion (your thoughts) in TACTics without your permission.

CONNECTIONS
(4)
4th Annual TOC for Education International Conference
Sheraton Ambassador Hotel
Monterrey, Mexico
August 9-12, 2000

(5)
TOC for Education in Action
Netherlands
TOCFE POOGI Workshop.
Eleanor May-Brenneker
May '00.

Philippines
10 TACT Workshops hosted by the Makati City Division of the Department of
Education and Sports and Culture
April 4-10
April 11-15

Russia
Avante Garde Conference in Moscow
Galina Doyla and David Higgins
April 18, 2000

Singapore
TACT Facilitators Class taught by Kathy Suerken
Hosted by The Singapore Centre for Teaching Thinking (of the National
Institute of Education)
June 19-23

Nanayang Technological University
Public Address given by Kathy Suerken
June 24

USA
Session 1
University of Liggett School, Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Mary Ellen Bourbeau and Doug Roby
April 7

Session 2
University of Liggett School, Grosse Pointe Woods, MI
Mary Ellen Bourbeau and Doug Roby
April 15

(6) Cloud Training
Los Angeles Unified School District, CA
Denise Meyer, Remedeas Kelly-Weekes
April 28, 29, May 5

QUOTES
(7) "I've noticed that I ask myself far more often what the other person wants/ needs and what our common goal really is.  TOC structures your thinking processes." -Eleanor May-Brenneker, from one of her TACT Workshops

(8) Keep your thoughts positive, for your thoughts become your words.
Keep your words positive, for your words become your actions.
Keep your actions positive, for your actions become your habits.
Keep your habits positive, for your habits become your values.
Keep your values positive, for your values become your destiny. -Mahatma Gandhi

(9) Perhaps the Seneca quote Kathy shared could be written another way:
"My joy in learning is partly that it enabl!!es me to teach." -Seneca
"My joy in teaching is partly that it enables me to learn." -Bev Brown

WIZDOM
(10) From Francis Su, Director, Taiwan
Editor's Note:  Frances Su has generously allowed Kathy to share her insights.  A helpful reminder: It was pointed out in last week's discussion that Joey's need has not been given in the story.  In real life, therefore, he must provide this information.

Dear Kathy,
How are you?  I have thought of many of you since returning from the conference last year.

I have read, thought about and tried to analyze the Jim vs. Joey cloud that was printed in TACTics Journal, March 24.  The purpose of this exercise is mainly for my understanding and learning, which I want to share with you and
I would appreciate your comment.

My thinking path started at your D and D', and in order to convince myself that I understand and can interpret the cloud, I tried to add and come up with my versions of stories for Jim and Joey and then write clouds from your
D and D', as follows:
(1) The first set:
 A: Have a happy class.
 B: Joey must be comfortable at his desk.
 D: Joey wants the desk.
 C: Jim must be close to his friend.
 D' Jim wants the desk.
Then,
(2) The 2nd set of D and D' presents a different problem scope, so I tried again to write a cloud:
 A: Have a happy class.
 B: Joey must be comfortable at his desk.
 D: Joey wants the desk.
 C: Keep the "first come first take" order.
 D': Jim doesn't want Joey to have the desk.
Next, I tried to change D and express a cloud from Jim's point of view:
(3) The 3rd set:
 A: Have a happy class
 B: Keep the class harmony
 D: Jim wants Joey to have the desk
 C: Keep the "first come first take" order
 D': Jim doesn't want Joey to have the desk

Then, I interpret the clouds in a more conceptual (generic) way, in order to cut off fuzzy images.  So, the 3 clouds basically say:
(1) The first one (external conflict):
 A: goal
 B: b you need
 D: you want
 C: I need
 D': I want
(2) The 2nd one (external conflict):
 A: goal
 B: you need
 D: you want
 C: system needs
 D': I don't let you
(3) The 3rd one (internal conflict);
 A: goal
 B: system needs
 D: I let you
 C: system needs
 D: I don't let you

Here, the Jim vs. Joey case is a day-to-day conflict, and is also an external conflict.  Actually, in order to have a happy class, both Jim and Joey must be happy with solutions; so this case needs to be handled as an external conflict problem.  Thus, the 3rd cloud will not be further discussed.  I will continue with the 1st and the 2nd clouds, and try to express them in terms of the local vs. the global.
(1) The first one:
 A: goal
 B: local (personal) optimum
 D: you want
 C: local (personal) optimum
 D': I want
(2) The 2nd one:
 A: goal
 B: local (personal) optimum
 D: you want
 C: global (system) optimum
 D': I don't let you

Here, to resolve the 2nd cloud can produce better result than the 1st one because it takes care of local (personal) and global (system) needs.  The goal can be reached by having both the local and global needs satisfied.  It can be interpreted as aligning the personal need with the system's need.

The 1st cloud takes care of the 2 local (personal) needs, the 2 personal needs are not necessarily adding up to the system's need.  Now, looking at the 2nd cloud and the cloud from the TACTics, March 24.
 A: Effective solutions to day to day problems
 B: solutions must be tangible and concrete
 D: needs written concretely and case specific
 C: solutions must be long term
 D': write deeper (generic type) needs

These 2 clouds basically describe the similar concept: Effective solutions to day-to-day problems must be able to solve problems which are current, short-term needs, directly related to personal needs, and also must be able
to provide solutions for long-term needs, system needs that might not be able to be seen directly and immediately.

My Assumptions for the above cloud are:
B-D:
In order to have tangible and concrete solutions, needs must be written concrete!!ly and case specific because to solve local, current, short-term needs, directly-related to personal problems

C-D':
In order to have long-term solutions, needs must be written in a deeper (generic type) sense, because don't fire fight to solve long-term needs, system's problems.

Therefore, do I agree this is the problem?  => Yes, we are always in this kind of dilemma- do something good for now or for the future.

Here is my direction for the solution:
Solutions should be able to, at least, not create new problems (side-effects) for the system in the predictable future, and also solve the current case to produce personal satisfaction and then positive feedback.

I feel that this direction for the solution is also good for the 1st cloud, as long as it has the bigger goal- "a happy class", not a smaller goal- "2 happy people".

How to find such solution.?  I think, teachers should explain the goal and give guidelines/scope for students to find their own solutions.  Encouraging them to be creative within the guideline/scope, solutions must be more than
one, and they must be happy with their own solutions.

After students implement the solutions, review them with students; by doing so, students learn the whole cycle of problem solving skills.

EDITORS' NOTE
(11) Enjoy positive thoughts!  As always, your contributions are what make this TACTics Journal.  Please continue to share so that we all may maintain our POOGI.  Thanks!

Send HYPERLINK to:
            bucknek@resa.net
            redwards@sault.com  NEW E-MAIL ADDRESS!!!

Send mail to:
            Cheryl A. Edwards
            2253 S. Hill Island Road
            Cedarville, MI 49719 USA