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