March 24, 2000
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
(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!
(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
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
Los Angeles, California,
USA
March 15, 17
Denise Meyer, Remedeas
Kelly-Weekes
Participants (SCLC)
Southern Christian Leadership Conference
Community Outreach Parent
Educators
Los Angeles, California,
USA
April 28, 29, May 5, 6.
Denise Meyer, Remedeas
Kelly-Weekes
Participants: Teachers,
Administrators, Parents.
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
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
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