TACTics Journal

 A Publication for and by TOC for Education Practitioners

March 24, 2000

CONTENTS

            POOGI POOL

            Thoughts on Kathy’s Learning from Teaching

                  (1)            Thoughts from Denise Meyer

                  (2)            Kathy’s Response to Denise Meyer

                  (3)            Thoughts from Cheryl Edwards

            NETWORKING

                  (4)     The Never Ending Story… Chapter 6, Kathy Suerken and Cheryl Edwards

            CONNECTIONS

                  (5)     4th Annual TOC for Education International Conference

                  (6)     TOC for Education in Action

                  (7)     Cloud Workshop

                  (8)     Cloud Training

                  (9)     Michigan Reading Association Annual Conference

            EDITORS’ NOTE

                  (10)   Kay Buckner-Seal and Cheryl Edwards

POOGI POOL

Thoughts on Kathy’s “Learning from Teaching,” TACTics, 3/17/00

 (1)          From Denise Meyer

You talked about breaking down an IO into smaller ones to get something achievable.  I talked about breaking down an IO to make it something other than just the opposite last year when I gave the example of “Students aren't motivated.”  “Why?” I asked.  They listed ten smaller problems that made up why students aren't motivated: things like the lesson is boring, I don't understand, etc.  Same strategy, different reason.  But I do see that your reason was probably mine too.  I just couldn't see the solution to "Students are motivated."  It was too general a problem based on self-esteem, interest, and too many other things.  <Denimeyer@aol.com>

 

(2)        Kathy’s Response to Denise

“I agree, Denise (and thanks for sharing).  In TOC, we are constantly striving to simplify the solution.  In both of these examples, I note that our TACT students started by first simplifying the problem.

 

Last week I asked what was different when my TACT class changed the verbalization of the “problem” (obstacles) from “class sizes are too large” to things like: “I can't provide as much individual attention,” “there are many diverse learning modalities to accommodate.”  When the later obstacle was raised, some in the class noted that problem exists regardless of class size! Nevertheless, as they began to create new IOs, I noted that the IOs were much more feasible because these insightful teachers realized THEY could fix the problem (albeit not easy, but much more feasible than having to start by getting someone else to fix it: to change the policy).  In other words, they went from "it's someone else's problem" to "I can impact the problem!"  SELF-EMPOWERMENT!!!  WOW!  Take another look at Denise's example and see if you can identify the same result.  <suerken@nwfl.net>

 

(3)            Thoughts from Cheryl Edwards

As I continue to work on my TrT for my presentation “What is this thing called TOC?” which is to be given at the Michigan Reading Association’s Annual Conference, I ran into an obstacle that sounded very familiar.  In education we all have the unspoken ambitious target of “All students will successfully pass the standardized tests given by the state.”  Obviously the obstacles to reaching this ambitious target are often overwhelming just like “class sizes are too large.”  I went back to your article in TACTics and found yet another learnable moment.  What I learned based on my prior knowledge and new (to me) knowledge: When an obstacle is seemingly too big- almost overwhelming- we tend to shut down.  We can’t imagine WHAT it would take- what Intermediate Objective could possibly overcome this (chronic?) obstacle.  Clarifying the obstacle by surfacing, “WHY it prevents us from achieving our target,” seems to bring the solution within our sphere of influence.  Breaking it down brings sanity, even hope.  The Intermediate Objectives now become “doable.”  Knowing that we have probably addressed some of the obstacles in already verbalized IOs helps even more.  Have we grounded some flying pigs/elephants?  <redwards@sault.com>

 

More thoughts are welcomed!

NETWORKING

(4)        The story never ends, but where did it begin?
By Kathy Suerken

In Cheryl's and my student workbook on the cloud, the following is the way we model writing a story-line of a day to day conflict based on the situation which has been unfolding through THE NEVER ENDING STORY (and previously published in the last several editions of TACTics):

"Jim comes in to his class and finds a vacant desk by his friends.   When he gets up to go talk to Cindy, Joey comes in and sits in the same desk where Jim has been sitting. They both want the same desk and neither will give up what they want.   As they get angrier, Jim blames Joey for the problem and demands that Joey give him back the desk."

Stop and think.  How would you define the problem ("In TOC, a problem is not defined until presented as a conflict between 2 things.").  By the way, I realize Joey's need is not even hinted at in the above story-line.  In the workbook story, we used the missing information as a teaching point that often we jump to conclusions (assumptions!) on what the other side needs.  Who is the most reliable source for identifying the other side's need?

For now, let's just think about the conflict arrow.  Did you write:
D: Joey wants the desk
D': Jim wants the desk

Or did you write:
D: Joey wants the desk
D' Jim does not want Joey to have the desk

I have always encouraged people to write direct opposites at least when they are first learning the cloud. ( Reason? Because it seems to help prevent people from writing one side as a want and the other side as a need) Therefore, when we were first developing this story-line-- in order to practice what I preach--Cheryl and I first wrote the conflict as:
D: Joey wants the desk
D': Jim doesn't want Joey to have the desk

And then we realized (lightning bolts AHAS), that if we do that, Jim's need changes from what we had planned when we outlined the story. If the conflict reads, 'Jim doesn't want Joey to have the desk,'  we thought Jim's need would deepen. Do you agree and, if so, why?

Is one reason because, if the problem is not solved when it first begins as a simple situation, it rapidly begins to take on the characteristics of a chronic 'situation?'  Is this because we are reminded of previous problems like these--problems with other people which were resolved in a way that compromised needs and led to perceived win/lose?  The accumulation of those bad experiences tends to cause us to become defensive and make assumptions
without checking them first. (in this case, Jim thinks, ' Joey is trying to take something of mine?')

Almost everyone agrees in 'theory' that we should resolve conflicts where they begin and when they are simple.   Yet, putting theory into practice means we 'need' to keep the whole cloud simple and uncomplicated.(my assumption)  From my experience I have encountered obstacles in getting people to write 'simple' needs (by simple I mean: immediate, concrete,
specific--not general or deep).    Does the following cloud clarify this problem?

A: effective solutions to day to day problems
B: solution must be tangible and concrete
D: want needs written concretely and case specific
C: solutions must be long term
D': write deeper (generic type) needs

Do you agree this is the problem?    If you think not, please discuss with me and if you agree, please write some assumptions and share with me (suerken@nwfl.net).  Next week, a discussion on the direction of our solution!
CONNECTIONS

 

(5)     4th Annual TOC for Education International Conference

Sheraton Ambassador Hotel

Monterrey, Mexico

August 9-12, 2000

(6)     TOC for Education in Action

Russia

April 18, 2000

Galina Doyla and David Higgins

Avante Garde Conference in Moscow

 

South Africa

March 18-22

Sedgefield

Pat Huddy, Louise Huddy and Francois Moll

 

Republic of South Africa Regional Upgrade Mini-Conference

March 21, 2000

George, RSA

 

(7)     Cloud Workshop

Los Angeles, California, USA

March 15, 17

Denise Meyer, Remedeas Kelly-Weekes

Participants (SCLC) Southern Christian Leadership Conference

Community Outreach Parent Educators

 

(8)     Cloud Training

Los Angeles, California, USA

April 28, 29, May 5, 6.

Denise Meyer, Remedeas Kelly-Weekes

Participants: Teachers, Administrators, Parents.

 

(9)        Michigan Reading Association Annual Conference

Detroit, Michigan, USA

March 25-28, 2000

TOC for Education Presentations by:

Mary Ellen Bourbeau, Doug Roby, Larry Till, Tricia Till and team,

Cheryl Edwards

QUOTE

From Cheryl Edwards

I saw this quote and couldn’t help but think of all the hard work and effort delivered with passion that all of our TOC for Education folks contribute in hopes of making this a better place for the world’s children.

 

“Nothing great in the world has ever been accomplished without passion.”

—G. W. F. Hegel

(10)      EDITORS’ NOTE

We would like to thank Denise Meyer for contributing to this week’s journal.  Our readers’ contributions are always welcomed.  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