TACTics Journal

A Publication for and by TOC for Education Practitioners

October 3, 2003

In this week’s issue:

Reader’s Response

(1) TOC, Diversity and Poetry, Judy Holder

Editors’ Notes

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

READER’S RESPONSE

(1) TOC, Diversity and Poetry— Part 1

From Judy Holder, United Kingdom

In TACTics, 9/5/03, we published an article by Mike Round entitled, “Poetry and the Theory of

Constraints.” This week, we our featuring an article by Judy Holder, who was inspired by Mike’s

contribution. Due to the length of Judy’s article, we will publish it in two parts. This week will

focus on “diversity and poetry.” Next week, we will publish part 2, which focuses on

“demystifying poetry.”

Mike with his strong background in mathematics is able to find understanding in poetry using

logical thinking. Judy, on the other hand, with her background in linguistics sees poetry’s

demystification differently. Let's look at poetry from Judy's perspective.

Poetry is a mystery to me” Mike Round

Introduction

I want to start by thanking Mike Round very much for his article on “Poetry

and the Theory of Constraints.” This is not because I agree with him! It’s

because he invited me to re-read a much loved and almost over-familiar poem

with fresh eyes, and because he provoked a long struggle with my own

thoughts about issues of language, logic, and learning.

Many years ago I studied English Literature, and I have from time to time,

taught it too. I had never before thought about using TOC in relation to

poetry, probably because TOC is for solving problems. And while I too have

often found poems profoundly mysterious, unlike Mike, I’ve never found that

an obstacle.

Poetry is a truly democratic form. Anyone can read it, nobody has to read it,

everyone has their unique experience of it and everyone is entitled to their

opinion. No one, however much skill and experience they have, not even

Robert Frost, can tell you what to think of, how to think of it, and how you

may or may not use it. If we want to use a poem to develop logical thinking,

or teach the evaporating cloud, we can feel free to mind it for content

relevant to our needs. If we genuinely want to use TOC tools to teach

poetry, it will be a bit more difficult than that.

Diversity

Sometime last century, the psychologist and educator Howard Gardner

proposed a theory of multiple intelligences. This was the idea that

intelligence is not one global quality, but comes in distinct strands. He

originally identified 7 intelligences: physical, musical, visual-spatial,

mathematical, linguistic, interpersonal and intrapersonal, if I remember

correctly, and later went on to add a couple more. He pointed out that these

varieties of intelligence are unequally valued and developed in our schools:

and also reminded us of what we all know anyway: very few of us are equally

good at everything! If anyone wants more detail here are a couple of links:

http://www.ed.psu.edu/insys/ESD/gardner/menu.html

http://www.pz.harvard.edu/

My own strengths were in language. Logic and mathematics came a very poor

second. And as it happens, I think the two things are connected.

I vividly remember the first time I fully understood that people who do

Maths inhabit an alien and incomprehensible universe. I must have been

about 8, and we were doing word problems. You may even remember the one:

“If it takes 5 men 10 days to dig a ditch, how long will it take 10 men?

Twice the number of men, half the number of days. Easy, right?

Well wrong. Not easy. Not easy at all if what you are doing is paying

very close attention to the meaning of the words. Because after all, if you

have a ditch to dig, then you need to factor in how strong the extra men are,

and whether or not they are keen to do the work, and whether or not they

take the same number of breaks, and whether or not it rains during the dig,

causing sandy soil to collapse and clay soil to become claggy. To name but a

few of the dazzling possibilities. It wasn’t that I didn't know which sum the

teacher wanted me to do. It was that I couldn't believe I was supposed to

accept this as a true account of how the world works.

By the time I got to TOC, it should be fairly obvious that I have had a fair

few obstacles of my own to deal with.

· hang-ups about logic and science

· all those little boxes with their mysterious little arrows and their even

more mysterious siblings the bananas

· learning to create branches without holes so big an elephant could slide

through them

· above all resisting the temptation to get caught up in the words. What

do you mean the words don’t have to be perfect—they just need to be

good enough? And what do you mean, don’t put words into the students’

mouths when I have so many brilliant, precise and expressive ones I’m

just bursting to teach!

I still find it hard to settle for words that are just “good enough.” On the

other hand, without a sharp nudge from my son, imperfect logic may well just

slip past me.

If logic is a mystery to me

And I’m afraid of what’s mysterious

Then I must manage my fear:

the tools require it.

If what we fear we don’t learn easily

But use breeds ease

Then I must practice:

the tools inspire it.

Since logic improves with use,

And I’ve spent time using it

I’ve earned what I have learned:

this poem proving it.

Poetry

If Robert Frost had written a letter to an advice column asking for help in

resolving a rather unusual boundary dispute with a neighbour, then

knowledge of the evaporating cloud would indeed have been a great boon.

Using it (as Mike has done in his analysis) throws a clear light on some

important elements of this poem. What’s more, the joy Mike finds in using

the TOC tools to explore the poem is palpable.

And yet…and yet.

Robert Frost chose to write a poem.

Why?

Mike’s goal is to understand great poetry via the TOC thinking processes.

Did he achieve his goal? Could he have come closer to it if he had used the

tools some other way?

Let’s step back a minute. Mike himself describes his goal as an “ambitious

target,” and perhaps that’s the clue. The first tool for achieving an

ambitious target isn’t clouds, or branches. It’s thinking systematically about

the obstacles.

The ambitious target tool is so user friendly, so straightforward, so intuitive

that sometimes it doesn’t get quite the respect it deserves. As a tool for

thinking about what we need to do to help our students understand, or for

working out what it is we need to do to help ourselves to learn, it can

sometimes, in its own way, be as much of a challenge as a branch.

As it happens in this case, we know about some of Mike’s obstacles, because

he shared them with us:

· poetry is a mystery

· I rarely understand what’s being said

· I don’t know what the poem is about

· I don’t know if the words are meant literally or metaphorically, or a

combination

· I don’t know why the poet has written the poem

· I don’t know the significance of the poem

· I don’t know how to use the poem in my daily life

· I don’t know how to use TOC to study poems

I’m going to make an assumption. Lets assume that Mike’s obstacles are not

unique to him, but fairly widely shared. What would an English teacher need

to do?

· provide knowledge, experience and support to help demystify poetry

· support close attention to the words

· support a focus on meaning

· support and develop understanding of metaphor

· support exploration of the purpose of the poem

· support focus on the significance of the poem

· support personal reflection on the relevance of the poem

Even before I try to sort this out with sequencing tools, I can see there’s a

key decision I have to make. As a teacher, do I start with

demystification, or is it the end point?

A Enjoy and understand poetry

B Develop “technical” understanding

D Start with some demystification

C Develop motivation to read poems

D’ Start with some stunning experience

I think I have one of many possible variants of a generic developmotivation/

develop-skills cloud where the specific injection and which side

of the cloud you decide to break will depend on the exact circumstances.

I’ve read poems with difficult boys who “hate poetry” despite never having

read or listened to any, and where I have to provide fast positive experience

if I don’t want to risk the classroom furniture.

But that’s not the case here. Anyone still reading must be a volunteer. And

they’ve probably already read “Mending Wall.” So let’s start with

demystification…

…We will continue with “demystification” in next week’s TACTics!

EDITORS’ NOTES

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

I have a new perspective on poetry: It’s a democratic form. What a unique

description! Judy Holder, thanks for contributing to this week’s TACTics.

It may interest you to know that there are 15 new recipients of our

newsletter this week. They are TOC business people who represent the

countries of Finland, India Japan, Poland, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan,

United Kingdom, and 6 states in the United States: Illinois, Iowa, Oklahoma,

New York, Tennessee, and Texas! Kathy said there may be more coming as

she continues to follow up on contacts from the Cambridge event (TACTics,

9/26/03). So, welcome new TOCFE readers! We hope that you enjoy and

feel free to share your ideas with us.

If you would like to contribute responses, applications of the thinking

processes, lessons, announcements, and etc., then send by mail to: Cheryl A.

Edwards, 2253 S. Hill Island Rd., Cedarville, Michigan 49719, USA. Or send

hyperlink to cedwards@cedarville.net or bucknek@earthlink.net.

Please note that the pdf version of TACTics is attached. You must have

Acrobat Reader to open the file. It is freely available for download from:

http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep.html. If you have the

Reader installed but still can't open the file, drag it from this e-mail to your

desktop, launch the Reader, and open from the FILE menu.

You may also view TACTics in its intended formatting, by visiting our web

site at www.tocforeducation.com. Click on “What’s New.”