TACTics Journal

A Publication for and by TOC for Education Practitioners

July 20, 2001

 

Elementary/Secondary TACTics

  (1)     The Measure of Success, Kathy Suerken

Connections

  (2)  News from Singapore, Kathy Suerken

   (3)   Conference Feedback:  Summary of TOC and Brain-Based Learning,

            Larry Till

Editors’ Notes

  (4)   Kay Buckner-Seal, Cheryl A. Edwards

 

Elementary/SecondarY tactics

(1)        The Measure of Success

By Kathy Suerken

 

As an educator, do you ever find yourself caught in the dilemma of whether to teach to individual academic needs or teach to the academic needs of the majority?  This week I shared with a local high school principal a list of obstacles and intermediate objectives I had written as part of an Ambitious Target Plan (PrT) on:  Disruptive students cooperate in class.  Although written while still in my middle school classroom, the principal and I both took note that the first obstacle on the list I constructed 6 years ago was:  Individualized teaching and discipline strategies for all students require time and energy beyond that available to a regular classroom teacher.

 

I then shared with this principal one of my favorite quotes, “The measure

of success is not whether you have a tough problem but rather if it is the

same problem that you had last year.” (John Foster Dulles)

 

Would you agree that differentiated instruction is one of the most daunting, frustrating and enduring undesirable effects for every teacher?  Even tracking students doesn’t eliminate the problem.  We still have varying levels of skills (even in TOC classes!) and tracking leads to other problems as well.

 

In my mainstream teaching experiences, if I taught to a middle level of skills, the more advanced students were bored and those with less advanced skills didn’t understand the lesson.  The resulting boredom from both groups can easily lead to disruptive behavior.  Lose/lose for everyone and leading to problems with parents and administration as well?  A holistic problem?

 

And thereby hangs this tale!  For the last year I have had the challenging opportunity to try some TOC lessons on an ENTIRE class of 28 students considered being “at risk of failing.”  Some had even been in jail.  And, even though they are “tracked” as a group into one class, their academic skill levels are all over the place.  Please note that I purposely say skills, not abilities because I fervently believe that they all have the ability to learn to improve their skills.  Our job is to lead it out of them, starting with the motivation obstacle/IO.

 

In addition to disparate entry-level skills in this class, I had some additional, unusual obstacles as well.  As a volunteer, I had no authority over the kids.  Because of my intensive travel schedule, there were huge breaks in my one hour visits / instruction.  Sometimes as many as half of the class would be different.  And in teaching TOC as a “life skill” to this group, I encountered an obstacle that is not always at the surface level.  Although they had bought into my visits as a way for me to do research to help others, they had COMPLETELY given up on helping themselves.  They said they are the cause of their own problem because they are just simply “BAD.”  For them, this was a “hopeless obstacle” and therefore an excuse not to change.

 

Although the Ambitious Target tool (my first lesson) went down well, the class was not especially responsive to learning tools needed to achieve the IOs: to cause the change in themselves (cloud, nbr).  One injection was to support my lessons with some small group interventions (or one-on-one TOC counseling sessions) but, given my own time constraints, I couldn’t make myself so available.

 

Teaching through the personal application just wasn’t Socratic enough for this particular and large class.  I revisited the first prerequisite IO on my 6 year old PrT and decided to try another action to achieve it.  “Would you allow me to teach a content lesson, I asked their teacher?”

 

The book she gave me to “teach” is entitled Pinballs and is about three children who have been taken from their homes and put into foster care.  Although I expected the subject matter (especially since it was about middle school children) to be highly relevant, I found that only two students had read the assigned book.

 

It just “happened” that before diving into the book I did some riddles as a classroom activity with them to get their attention and focus.  (This is no small feat in this class where about 1/4 of these students usually have their eyes closed).  Kids love riddles!  Additionally, my riddles were focused on the concept that if you don’t understand what is meant by a word, you can easily go astray in the solution.

 

I then asked one of the students who had read the book to give a one-minute summary of the book’s plot.  And then I jumped in with one of the specific dilemmas in the book, which I thought would be of high interest.  At this point I deviated from my usual method of having students write the cloud on their own because I was afraid that some of their literacy skills were so low that I might lose some of them (they would get stuck in the writing process and tune out).  Too risky!  So contrary to my usual approach, we did the cloud orally which meant a very astute student answered for all of them. 

 

The dilemma under discussion involved the situation in which one of the foster children wanted to run away to be with his Mother who had left the family to join a commune.  The problem as defined by this student:

 

A:    Be happy.

B:     Have a better life.

D:    Run away to be with mom.

C:     Stay safe.

D’:    Don’t run away to be with mom.

 

All eyes were still open but it was when I ask WHY on the connections that I took note that not only were students engaged (interested, lesson was relevant) but in addition, they were ALL actively participating in the learning process.  Because?  No matter what their entry level of skills (or subject information) they all had sufficient entry level of opinions and conclusions they were sharing based on their **.

 

Why do you think I found that all of them were able to focus their brainstorming on the lesson content/objectives? (Which is not always the case)  In fact, THE most disruptive student (for me) in this class popped out with, “Well, it all depends on what you are assuming!”  At that point, I went to the board and said, “Brilliant conclusion and that is what these reasons are called:  ASSUMPTIONS!”

 

Likely you can draw some conclusions of your own to the impact on this student, the other students, and me!  Not to mention the teacher who was furiously copying the example from the board.

 

You might want to compare this specific example to the generic and systematic process to teach concepts which was created by Danilo Sirias and provided in last week’s article by Bea Kovacs.  Of special interest to me is the common thread that rests at the bottom of my 6-year old PrT.  The “entry level” IO reads:  Socratic questions enabling students to own solutions, not just problems.

 

The measure of our success to me is our TOCFE progress to make more concrete and systematic the questions within the applications so needed to address holistic obstacles to the learning process.  On a personal note,  I am “simply” overwhelmed by the privilege of being part of such a phenomenal goal-driven Process of Ongoing Improvement.

 

CONNECTIONS

(2)        News from Singapore

From Kathy Suerken

 

The National Institute of Education at Nanyang Technological University sponsored a Summer Institute on Thinking in June, which included a TOC TACT seminar taught by Dr. Ang Wai Hoong.  As a result, we are happy to welcome an additional 35 Singapore educators to our TACTics list-serve.

 

Additionally, a  TOC "TACT" chat room has also been established in Singapore to encourage local educators to share experiences.

 

(3)            Conference Feedback: Summary of TOC and Brain-Based Learning

By Larry Till

 

Professor James H. Berry, St. Clair Community College, Michigan, and Larry Till, Joy Middle School, Detroit, Michigan teamed up to share the research of Rita Smilkstein, Ph.D., North Seattle Community College at the 5th International TOCFE Conference.  They discussed how they felt using TOC “helped learners learn through the natural learning process,” which is based on Dr. Smilkstein’s research.  Following is a summary of their presentation written by Larry Till. 

 

The brain acquires new concepts/skills for empowerment in seven ways:

1.        Learning is physiological.  Learning is the growing of new brain structures.  Teaching makes it possible for students to grow these structures.  If these structures include the TOC tools, learning seems to go at a faster rate.

2.       New structures grow off the structures that each person already has.  The implication for learning is that the student must make the connection with something they already know.  In the case of the TOC Thinking Tool, the Cloud, that something is the “wants and needs.”  In the PrT, the “obstacles” make the connection.

3.       New brain structures grow with practice and grow for what is practiced.  In teaching TOC, we must allow time for this practice.  "It is good enough" is a way of allowing the student to make attempts at practicing without giving up because it is not perfect.

4.       New brain structures take time to grow.

5.       Basic foundation structures are needed before creative and critical thinking can happen.  The TOC tools seem to be these basic structures that can support learning.

6.       Structures grow when learners are active.  Students do a task individually, discuss it in small groups and then participate in a large group activity.  If we do this in teaching TOC our students learn faster and retain more.

7.       Emotions affect the growth and functioning of brain structures.  The learning environment must be supportive and positive.  The TOC Thinking tools seem to aid in keeping an environment that is positive and student centered.

 

I think that my students tend to learn more effectively when I use these seven principals with TOC.  Some of the dramatic results we have achieved at Joy, I believe, resulted because we have used these principals.

 

EDITORS’ NOTES

(4)  Kay Buckner-Seal, Cheryl A. Edwards

 

It’s always wonderful to hear from our colleagues, thanks for sharing.  Please feel free to share with us.  Send by mail to Cheryl A. Edwards, 2253 S. Hill Island Rd., Cedarville, MI 49719, USA.  Or, send hyperlink to <redwards@sault.com> or <bucknek@earthlink.net.

 

 

To view TACTics in its intended formatting and to read previous issues, visit the TOC website at: www.tocforeducation.com