October 2000

Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000
Subject: Autumnal Paradox
From: Tim Joy <tjoy@pps.k12.or.us>
To: K12 k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu

Salutations to all.
For your consideration . . .
Mike and Sara will work for about two weeks on a history project, an idea they
have about why McCarthyism appeared and then went away. They will read some
articles, peruse their textbook, view old movie reels, maybe even talk to their
grandparents. As they take all this in, they will talk to each other and likely have a
number of questions--some they will ask of their grandparents, some their
teachers, and some may not ever get answered. They will keep daily logs (journals)
of their research and thoughts. In the end, they will tell their peers and teachers
what they found out.
Two Threads of queries:

What specific system tools, and in what specific ways applied, might help them?

How might we assess their effort? What evidence might Mike and Sara offer that shows they learned something? Or, more pointedly, shows they learned something beyond what might traditionally be learned?

Let's think and talk and respectfully question each other, and I will do my best--once we're worn out--to capture it all in some kind of narrative.
Tim Joy

-----------------------

From: HKaiser770@aol.com
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000
Subject: continuous improvement
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu

Hi everyone.

I've been watching this list for several months now. I am a
first grade teacher and have been interested in and training in "quality" for
2 years. Much of what is posted here seems theoretical rather than
"real-world". I'm wondering if anyone else is trying to practice the study
of system dynamics and continous improvement in their elementary classrooms.
If so, I would be interested in sharing experiences with you.

Thanks.
Heather Kaiser

----------

Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Standards & Accountability

From: sthompson@foundation.panasonic.com
> Subject: Re: Standards & Accountability
>
> Marion,
>
> On September 18 you wrote: "The whole standards movement, in my opinion, is
> a farce, a dead end, a catastrophe, dreamed up by people driven by
> extremely simplistic notions of what educating is all about."
> What strikes about this sweeping indictment is that it presents a near
> perfect negative example of something you eloquently warned against in your
> KAPPAN article: namely, polarization......
Scott, I'll grant that that's strong language. I'll grant also that the
standards movement has pushed many educators to do a much better job.....of
doing
what they had always been trying to do. But let me try to explain where I'm
coming from in a way that I hope won't be seen as merely defensive.
A decade ago, when this whole standards and accountability movement was
getting off the ground, I wrote to some of its promoters in Washington
attempting
to make what I felt then and still feel is a point sufficiently important to
warrant strong language. (Incidentally, no one replied.)
At the time, SUNY Press had just published a little book of mine in
which I
had said, in essence, that schools were in the knowledge business but were
promoting a notion about the nature of knowledge that was so seriously
flawed it
would, in Buckminster Fuller's words (perhaps even stronger than mine),
"lead to
the undoing of American society."
What was being promoted, and what has since been implemented, were
standards for math, standards for history, standards for physical science,
standards for this, standards for that. I contended then and I contend now
that
by reinforcing the perception that (this time in Clyde Kluckhohn's words) the
familiar "fields of knowledge [are] laid out like a series of formal
gardens with
walls between," they were freezing in place an idea so counterproductive it did
indeed have the potential for undoing American society.
(In an article in the KAPPAN [2/93] that elaborated on an earlier article
[10/66], I said "If we are to survive as a society, we and our students need
comprehensive answers to the question, What's going on here? We are not
going to
get those answers from the random, ethnocentric images of reality provided
by the
traditional disciplines. We need to look at reality freshly, and, if we are to
put what we see in perspective, we need the means for seeing it whole.")
In my letters, I reminded that scholars had for centuries insisted that
knowledge was all of a piece. I explained why I thought that the more than a
century-old attempt to integrate knowledge via interdisciplinarity could never
succeed. I told them that I thought it was critically important that students
see all knowledge as part of a systemically integrated whole. And I told them
that even if they didn't yet see how that was possible, they ought at the very
least to say something in their promotional documents that would
acknowledge the
desirabiility of viewing all knowledge as systemically integrated.
I didn't ask them to accept my approach, just to acknowledge that the
goal
was legitimate and desirable. As I said, none of my letters were answered.
Maybe what I was saying was seen as evidence I was so out of touch with
reality I
wouldn't know whether they had answered or not.
> In the article you noted that "Polarization gradually turns complex, 'gray'
> issues into ever simpler 'black and white' ones . . ." Exactly. If
>anything on
> the contemporary
> educational landscape is gray and complex it is surely standards-based
> reform........
True. My position, articulated in longer posts and in articles, is that
standards and accountability are essential -- standards that emphasize maximum
performance. However, when one is driven as am I by the conviction that
even the
best of current efforts are missing the point, it's hard to find language that
seems up to the task of jerking thinking across the gap from standards
which help
us do better what we're trying to do and standards that pull us toward doing
something radically different.
> In authentic standards-based school systems that I have observed, standards
> are not imposed from on high, because teachers, administrators, parents,
> community partners, and students collaboratively participate in writing,
> reviewing, or adapting them.........
And that, of course, is a very good thing. I've even written something
called "A Guide to Community Dialog" for that purpose. But that collaborative
work, I contend, is right now further reinforcing a fragmented view of
knowledge. I wan. Éz‰#l.. Éz‰#ÿÿÿ`á:NVþØHç©_pple.ComàLàKŽKÝÐTEXTosaòH©ÈÂÿÿû©_AppleComDesktopDESKTOPjLKlKû¤„FNDRERIK°©ÈñÿÿþDESKTOP November,KDLàNKlKû¤„W6BNMSWDÿÿÿ°©²…°©È§ÿÿüNOVEMBER Trash<é`TRASSÿÈ•0KoÆ\a„TEXTdosaÿÿûRASH failure IBMBIO COIBMDOS COMUªis with kids, see #5 below.)
> I would argue that the fundamental intent of authentic standards-based reform
> is the transformation of public education from factory-model schooling into
> communities of learners where all students experience a rich and challenging
> curriculum that holds the possibility of preparing them for the demands and
> opportunities of life and work in the 21st Century.......
We all want that. But meeting the demands of the 21st Century requires, I
maintain, an ability to select, organize, integrate, manipulate, and generate
knowledge, and that ability can't be satisfactorily developed unless
knowledge is
viewed holistically.
Again I say, it's hard to find soft language for a hard, disturbing idea.
> In a genuine standards-based system nothing is static -- neither the
> standards themselves, pedagogical practice, the curriculum, nor district
> structures and processes. It's about continuous systemic improvement
> around the focal-point of high quality teaching and learning.
True again. But I'm inclined to think that "static" comes closer to
describing the present thrust of the standards movement than "dynamic." I've a
different approach to dynamism that I try to get across in #1 below. I've some
work to do on the site -- a few more explanatory sentences -- but I think the
essence is there.
Scott, thanks for the long and thoughtful post.
Marion
-------------------------------
From: KCStarguy@aol.com
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2000
Subject: ejaws sheet
To: k-12sd list
I have a metacognitive alternative assessment sheet that uses multiple
intelligence strategies to assees what students are thinking about problems,
projects and computer and non computer activities.
I developed it for use in my computer camps and have been porting it over to
use with my gifted and other teacher assignments and even my graduate
multimedia class.
Those who want a copy and instructions etc should email me directly and not
place on listserve.
I look forward to hearing from some of you.
Dr. Eric Flescher (KCStarguy@aol.com)Gifted education consultant- Kansas
City, KS schools
Dr. Eric Flescher, (KCStarguy@aol.com)- Educational Technology
Consultant-Multimedia- Adjunct Faculty, Lesley College-Technology Magic and
--------------------
From: sthompson@foundation.panasonic.com
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000
Subject: Standards & Accountability

Marion Brady's September 30 post included the following: "let me try to
explain where I'm coming from in a way that I hope won't be seen as merely
defensive."
Marion, It seems to me that your response succeeds on both counts: 1) it
helpfully explains where you're coming from; 2) it doesn't come off as
defensive, but as interested in substantively engaging some points I
raised. I would also say that many of the questions and issues you raise in
this and other postings, in the KAPPAN article, and elsewhere are genuinely
thought provoking and worthy of serious consideration.
You note that "the standards movement has pushed many educators to do a
much better job . . . doing what they had always been trying to do." I see
what you're saying, given your singular focus on revolutionizing
curriculum, but in some other fundamental ways I think that the standards
movement is pushing educators and schools in directions that depart
entirely from the way things have always been done. What we have seen in
public education up to this point is a system that operated like a factory
for sorting and tracking kids -- providing access to all and success to
few. The authentic standards movement is aimed at enabling ALL students to
perform at high levels -- to reach something of their enormous,
intellectual, social, and civic potential as individuals. In the factory
system, time is the constant and results vary (some kids pass, some fail,
some are fast tracked and other remediated.) In a standards-based system,
the standard is the constant and time becomes the variable; this recognizes
that students are individual with very different developmental needs and
learning styles; students who need additional "time and opportunity" to
master challenging content or skills must be provided that time and
opportunity or there is simply no valid claim to the name authentic
standards-based reform. And here's another way in which standards seek to
revolutionize public education: standards-based reform aims to abandon the
carnegie unit, seat-time approach of inputs and replace it with a results
orientation: looking at the quality of student work as the measure of
educational success.
I don't argue that this movement is designed to take public education where
you believe it must go. But it seems to me that authentic standards-based
reform holds the potential of improving the quality of student performance
according to system-wide standards. It is an approach that is designed to
make schools accountable to the communities they are meant to serve, and do
so by focusing on high quality teaching and learning, not test scores. It?
s an approach that could stand up to the threat of privatization. It?s an
approach that aspires to something that this nation has never achieved
through its systems of public education: a high quality education for all
students, regardless of socioeconomic background. But authentic
standards-based reform, and arguably public education itself, is seriously
threatened when high standards get confused with high-stakes, standardized
tests. On this final point, perhaps, we could agree.
I am not opposed to the notion of rethinking curriculum to better reflect
the wholeness that we call knowledge. But I would say two things: 1) the
best examples of performance standards are about the "ability to select,
organize, integrate, manipulate, and generate knowledge" and not about
memorizing discrete facts within isolated subject areas (while the content
standards get organized according to subject areas, the more important
peformance standards tend to focus on the sort of intellectual abilities
that you describe); 2) public education is a political business; if the
mobilization around standards can produce more districts like the ones I
identified in my last message, that I believe is an important start; a
complete rethinking and reordering of human knowledge may be more
achievable once the initial aims of authentic standards-based reform have
been realized.
Please note, I persist in using the term "authentic, standards-based
reform" because I believe it is crucial to distinguish this movement from
its "evil twin" -- high-stakes, standardized test-based reform. The
latter, I believe, is more worthy of the strong language you used on
September 18th.
-------------------
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Eileen Riley <rileye1@massed.net>
Subject: Autumnal Paradox

Tim,
Great to hear from you and great to have something that relates to the
classroom to think about. A great scenario and good questions - as a
business manager and life long learner, I can think of some comments
already. Especially like your comment about respectful discussion.
As most of you know, I went back to school "later" and in the required
college "government" course, which was excellent, the subject of the
Japanese internment camps was raised. I had never at 40something even
heard of it. In high school needless to say we did not cover this in
American history. My fellow students (19-22) were horrified that the
"people" then didn't DO SOMETHING, and I'm sitting there thinking - that
would be MY PARENTS and right about that time, they got married, had me,
then two sons who were very ill, one died, my Dad got called back in the
service, Hearst basically controlled the news distribution, etc. And I
thought, "my parents are very moral people, they would have been outraged."
I went home and asked my parents and we had quite a discussion - there were
rumors here and there, but noone believed them; there were no news reports,
daily life absorbed all their energy. Bringing this back to the class
discussion was very interesting.
My point is that I think the students would gather some amazing information
from their grandparents and might be able to use Inspiration to map the
facts and connections. They should be able to draw causal loops and/or
stock flow diagrams to illustrate some of what happened. These physical
things might demonstrate their faciity with the tools, but surely their
explanations of the loops and diagrams they constructed would show the
influence of systems thinking - the inter-relationships and connections
between seemingly unrelated happenings. The bonus would be the growth in
the connection between the students and their grandparents - a precious
gift.
Thanks, you made my day.
Regards,
Eileen Riley, Carlisle Public Schools
-------------------
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: continuous improvement

> From: HKaiser770@aol.com
> Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:31:51 EDT
> Subject: continuous improvement
>
> Hi everyone. I've been watching this list for several months now. I am a
> first grade teacher and have been interested in and training in "quality" for
> 2 years. Much of what is posted here seems theoretical rather than
> "real-world".
I'd remind you of the observation "There's nothing as practical as a good
theory."
Everything you're presently doing in the classroom is based on theory.
It's just
been in place for so long that that fact tends to be overlooked.
> I'm wondering if anyone else is trying to practice the study
> of system dynamics and continous improvement in their elementary classrooms.
I'll attach a link below to some sample pages of a middle school level
course
of study. If you check them out, I suspect that you'll be able to see ways of
translating them into "first grade versions."
Marion
--
5. SAMPLE PAGES, INTEGRATED COURSE OF STUDY:
http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady/sample1.html
--------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000
From: David Wheat <dwheat@wheatresources.com>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Autumnal Paradox
Tim Joy asked, with regard to Mike & Sara's McCarthyism project: What
specific system tools, and in what specific ways applied, might help them?
First, Tim, let me say thanks for injecting a "real world" issue back into
this forum. As you know, while consulting is my day job, I teach a
political science course at a local community college, and
this year I'm trying to give it a distinctive system dynamics flavor. I'm
still enough of a novice at this appliction of SD, however, to caution that
I may learn more from thinking about your request
than I can teach by suggesting answers. Also, since they're on a 2-week
leash, you need something to chew on right away. Therefore, just to start
the ball rolling, here are some immediate questions that
come to mind that might provide some focus to their research:
1. What are the historical patterns regarding „witch hunts‰ in times of
national stress in the U.S. (before & since the 1950s)? Why was it likely
that such an issue would arise in the 1950s?
2. How did the structure of the U.S. government in general, and the Senate
in particular, put McCarthy in a position to exploit the issue?
3. What reinforcing loops, both inside and outside of govt, provided
momentum for McCarthy?
4. What balancing loops, both inside and outside of govt, eventually
checked his momentum and restored a balance?
I'm so intrigued by your request that I'll find it hard to avoid going
overboard with questions. So, I'll stop here, give the questions some
thought myself, and look forward to what others toss into the
dialogue.
Good luck and thanks again.
Dave
David Wheat
President
Wheat Resources Inc.
Roanoke, VA
http://www.wheatresources.com
---------------------
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000
From: Harry Forster <hforster@strato.net>
Reply-To: harryforster@alum.mit.edu
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: continuous improvement
For years I have been interested in and used linear graphics techniques. The
most competent form of linear graphics is System Dynamics which I still
think of
as Industrial Dynamics. It is the only concept that demonstrates how to
analyze
the complexity of real life. The problem I have is that I have had to
live in
a world with a population of 1 with only occasional intercepted messages from
other parts of the universe. All efforts to introduce linear graphics requires
that I return to ground zero and start to redevelop the world of math and
analysis. Because higher education has produced creatures of my ilk I get just
enough encouragement from sources such as this list to keep on going.
A few years ago I had the opportunity to reconsider a post secondary math
curriculum. It was obvious that changes had to be made in the k-12
structure if
there is to be a smooth transition from secondary to quality post secondary
thought and process. I started by thinking of direct translations of thought
that could be introduce in secondary education. It became obvious that all
I was
doing was moving the hurdle from my field to the next guys field. There still
was no preparation in the k-12 system for this new thought transition. If this
problem is going to be overcome then we must move the thought restructuring
down
to your first grade level and below.
I started looking at ideas that could be introduced at these early ages and
found
that there are many readily available and often used children's tools that only
have to be conceived in a new context to be used at these levels. The only
problem is that most of these ideas go far afield from what has transpired here
in the past. If the list is willing to make this diversion I will be very
pleased to participate. There is only one additional caveat. I am considering
producing most future work under the open systems philosophy. You are
likely to
hear more from me about this as I am thinking of suggesting to this list a
project that is directly related to a past topic. I will do this under open
systems concepts. I have some additional ground work to do before this project
can become a reality.
My question: Does this list wish to go far afield in an effort to build a
Firmer foundation for the teaching of system dynamics as we now know it?
------------------------
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000
Subject: Autumnal Equinox
From: Tim Joy <tjoy@pps.k12.or.us>
To: K12 <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
----------
Forward by Tim From: Barry Richmond <brichmond@hps-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:52:51 -0400
To: tjoy@pps.k12.or.us
Tim, you asked:
What specific system tools, and in what specific ways applied,
might help them?
First, I think a Reference Behavior Pattern graph or two would be useful. A
question they'd be asking here is: What was it that was
increasing/decreasing/oscillating/etc over time that let people know that
"McCarthyism" was alive and well, and what let us know (expressed as a graph
over time) that it had evaporated? A question that comes to mind for me,
here, is: Did it, in fact, evaporate, or did it simply become less visible?
By constructing a RBP Mike and Sara will be "operationalizing" the concept
of McCarthyism--something that's often useful to do in order to get traction
on understanding a phenomenon.
Second, pirouetting off the second question above, what are the
accumulations (stocks) that gave rise to the phenomenon that they charted in
their RBP? The magnitude of the accumulations (buildups or depletions) are
what created the "pressures" that led to the manifestation that has been
labeled McCarthyism.
Third, what actions (flows) did the pressures generate? The ensemble of
those actions produced the states (stock magnitudes) that constitute the
thing we have labeled McCarthyism.
Finally, can they identify the reinforcing feedback loops that caused the
upward spiraling of McCarthyism? Can they identify the counteracting loops
that "popped the bubble?"

You also asked...
How might we assess their effort? What evidence might Mike and Sara offer
that shows they learned something? Or, more pointedly, shows they learned
something beyond what might traditionally be learned?
Assuming Mike and Sara accomplish some of what I've outlined above, they
could compare their hypothesis for the genesis and dissipation of the
phenomenon with other hypotheses that have been advanced.
Another test of their learning would be their ability to identify
"transferabilities." Where else has "McCarthyism" manifested, and under
what names/guises has it appeared?

Hope this is useful...
--
High Performance Systems, Inc.
45 Lyme Road, Suite 300, Hanover, NH 03755-1221
Tel. 603-643-9636 - Fax. 603-643-9502 - http://www.hps-inc.com
--------------
From: John Spence <John.Spence@VirtualClassroom.CRC.CA>
To: "'k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu'" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Intro: new member
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000
Hi all
My name is John Spence, I am an educator and presently working at the Communications Research Centre www.crc.ca in Ottawa Canada. I work closely with Dr. Martin Brooks of the IIT at the National Research Council www.nrc.ca and other educators and researchers in Canada. There are two projects that we are presently working on. The first is the CRC/NRC Virtualclassroom program The site for this project is www.virtualclassroom.crc.ca. The second is the LearnCanada project www.learncanada.ca. Essentially what we are exploring is the research and development of a broadband learning environment to support teaching and learning. Prior to coming to CRC I was exploring a systems approach to learning and development of a new architecture for K-12 learning. I am intrigued with the topic of system dynamics and its application to education and hope to learn more from all of you as I start to read and respond to the postings.
----------
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Standards & Accountability
> From: sthompson@foundation.panasonic.com
> Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 15:54:57 -0400
> Subject: Re: Standards & Accountability
> Marion, It seems to me that your response succeeds on both counts:....
That's reassuring.
> You note that "the standards movement has pushed many educators to do a
> much better job . . . doing what they had always been trying to do." I see
> what you're saying, given your singular focus on revolutionizing
> curriculum, but in some other fundamental ways I think that the standards
> movement is pushing educators and schools in directions that depart
> entirely from the way things have always been done......
The differences in our views may just reflect the "standards" at which
we've
looked, and the conversations with implementers we've had. Within reach of
where
I'm sitting are hard copies of Florida's standards, and (at least to me)
they're
pretty dreary. Along with them I have copies of e-mails from teachers
around the
state and country in various states of despair about them. One is from a
middle
school teacher in Washington state (a PhD, and one of the best teachers
I've ever
watched in action) telling me she just flat quit before this school year
started,
and simplistic state "standards" were the reason.
I could speculate that, when external pressures are applied, and as a
consequence good people get together, engage in substantive dialog and produce
something, the benefits will almost certainly be considerable. The schools
with
which you work surely fit that pattern. For every school like that, I'll bet I
can find a half dozen where standards have made no discernable difference in
instruction.
> What we have seen in public education up to this point is a system that
> operated like a factory for sorting and tracking kids -- providing access to
> all and success to
> few.
And that, sadly, by and large, is what I believe I'm still seeing. When,
very casually. I asked a high school teacher in a group with which I sing about
the stadards movement, he gave me a blank look. When I elaborated a
little, his
response was, "This too shall pass."
> The authentic standards movement is aimed at enabling ALL students to
> perform at high levels -- to reach something of their enormous,
> intellectual, social, and civic potential as individuals. In the factory
> system, time is the constant and results vary (some kids pass, some fail,
> some are fast tracked and other remediated.) In a standards-based system,
> the standard is the constant and time becomes the variable; this recognizes
> that students are individual with very different developmental needs and
> learning styles; students who need additional "time and opportunity" to
> master challenging content or skills must be provided that time and
> opportunity or there is simply no valid claim to the name authentic
> standards-based reform. And here's another way in which standards seek to
> revolutionize public education: standards-based reform aims to abandon the
> carnegie unit, seat-time approach of inputs and replace it with a results
> orientation: looking at the quality of student work as the measure of
> educational success.
Yes, yes, of course. But I could dig back through some of my old 1960s
files and find paragraphs the wording of which is interchangeable with the
above. I'm convinced that, in order to REALLY operationalize all this that we
all want, deep-seated, firmly implanted assumptions in the minds of teachers
about what they're doing and why have to brought to the surface and
examined. I
don't see the standards movement as doing that. Its bottom-line message comes
across, I think, as "try harder."
> ....I am not opposed to the notion of rethinking curriculum to better reflect
> the wholeness that we call knowledge. But I would say two things: 1) the
> best examples of performance standards are about the "ability to select,
> organize, integrate, manipulate, and generate knowledge" and not about
> memorizing discrete facts within isolated subject areas.....
Again, yes. But where in our recent past has there been extended dialog
about what are surely absolutely fundamental questions: What is the aim of a
general education? and what upon what criteria are decisions being made about
what knowledge to teach and which to exclude?
> .....(while the content standards get organized according to subject
>areas....
.... thereby perpetuating the very problem to which the couple of dozen
respected scholars I quote below refer. Thanks for the good dialog.
Marion
----------------

Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000
From: Fidela Robertson <frobchen@earthlink.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Standards & Accountability

I am familiar with the theory of system dynamics and have dabbled in
developing simple systems using Stella and Vensim. Clearly, system
dynamics opens up thinking and can be a powerful tool in the hands of
teachers.
I am interested in finding out if there are teams who would come to a
campus to train a small group of teachers in the use of system dynamics.
I am a member of a special team of teachers. We teach classes within a
four-year curriculum that focuses on math, science, technology and the
arts: Millennium Project 2001. Our school serves kids who are minority,
and this curriculum is enhancing their learning. We are gathering the
data. This is our third year and will add the Engineering class next
term. In 2001-2002, we will add an earth/space science course. We are
developing partnerships outside of the high school.
I would appreciate any references you may be able to give me.
Sincerely,
Della Robertson
Norwalk High School
Millennium Project 2001 Co-Coordinator
-------------------
From: sthompson@foundation.panasonic.com
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000
Subject: Standards & Accountability

On 10/5/2000 Marion Brady wrote: I could speculate that, when external
pressures are applied, and as a consequence good people get together,
engage in substantive dialog and produce something, the benefits will
almost certainly be considerable. The schools
with
which you work surely fit that pattern. For every school like that, I'll
bet I can find a half dozen where standards have made no discernable
difference in instruction.
Response: That may be. I freely concede that there are many examples of
worst practice being perpetrated in the name of standards. I also know
that some very promising progress is taking place in the name of standards.
To get a real grip on the proportionality is difficult in a nation of
15,000 public school districts with some 53 million students. My deep
concern is that the bad examples feed into the sort of polarization that
was evident in your earlier observations and this can lead too easily to
the sort of backlash that inclines toward throwing out the baby with the
bathwater.
By the same token there are many examples of dreary standards, and there
are performance standards that, in my view, are worth teaching to because
they require students to engage in higher order thinking in the development
of high quality work. Although we tend to talk in terms of standards-based
reform, I don't believe that standards themselves are at the heart of such
efforts, but rather it is about transforming school systems into
organizations that continually provide teachers and educational leaders
with the high quality support that they need in order to bring all students
to a higher level of learning. The standards themselves are necessary but
wholly insufficient to the task. What is all important is an
infrastructure for supporting the continuous improvement of teaching and
learning. In other words, the school system must become a learning
community where both students and adults are continuously engaged in
teaching and learning. For this reason, I cannot agree with the notion
that the bottom line message is "try harder" -- at least not where
authentic standards-based reform is taking root. In the case of
high-stakes, test-based reform the message seems to be "try harder or
else." It's an approach that ignores Deming's wisdom about driving out
fear.
Marion wrote: But where in our recent past has there been extended dialog
about what are surely absolutely fundamental questions: What is the aim of
a general education? and what upon what criteria are decisions being made
about what knowledge to teach and which to exclude?
Response: I am aware of a number of school districts who have engaged
hundreds of stakeholders in dialogues about what all students should know
and be able to do as high school graduates and have developed content and
performance standards, benchmarks, anchor papers, and rubrics (and in some
cases students are engaged in creating the rubrics that are used in
assessing their work). These dialogues are all about coming to consensus
on what knowledge to teach and to exclude and around the question: how good
is good enough?
Marion quoting and responding: (while the content standards get organized
according to subject >areas....
.... thereby perpetuating the very problem to which the couple of dozen
respected scholars I quote below refer.
Response: I think Howard Gardner's perspective is worthy of consideration.
Here's what he said in a dialogue with Peter Senge and Art Kleiner (SCHOOLS
THAT LEARN, p. 558): "What do I think the goals of education should be? I
concluded that the most important, irreducible, purpose of school -- from
elementary through high school -- is to help students better understand the
major disciplinary ways of thinking. This means establishing ways of
thinking in students that they haven't experienced yet: teaching them what
it means to think scientifically, historically, artistically, ethically,
mathematically."
It's not hard in schools engaged in authentic standards-based reform to
find classrooms where teachers combine standards in project-based learning,
so that students are bringing concepts and skills from math, social
sciences, and language arts to bear on single but complex project that has
relevance and application to the "real world."
Thanks for your thoughts.
------------------
From: "Gordon Kubanek & Carmen Hust" <chust@monisys.ca>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Autumnal Paradox
Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2000
This is a great chat about dynamics of witchhunts...
My spin on this investigation is that system thinking and associated tools
"surface" assumptions that we did not know we even had: we become aware of
all that "we didn't even know that we didn't know that!".
The key is to develop trusting relationships among people - young or old -
so they have the courage to investigate their unknown emotions and thoughts.
My bias is that it is the emotions that are the more powerful of the two.
That also means that systems research must never be done alone.
Until we can get System Dynamics to get to the root of the emotional drivers
that seem to control our so called logical decision making processes events
like McCarthyism, or worse, will keep on reoccuring.
I think a start has been made with Erling Moxnes paper on the fisheries [for
which he received the Jay Forrester award this year at the annual SD
conference in Bergen, Norway] where he said [to paraphrase]:
"To date we've successfully solved the incentive problem = logic, but not
the emotional "power of the situation" ...
perhaps "flight simulators" could be used to invoke a more emotional
involvement that focus on emotional identification of the learner with
delays & feedback
we need double-loop learning to change mental models via creating a
discrepancy between what you know & what you do"
Happy Thanksgiving [in Canada anyway!]
Gordon Kubanek
Ottawa, Canada
-----------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
From: Alan Ticotsky <ticotsky@rcn.com>
Subject: project about McCarthyism

Thank you to Tim for sharing this endeavor and to the responders
for their thoughtful replies. I hope Tim will share the ideas explored and
tools used by the students and teachers during the project. What Behavior
Over Time Graphs can be derived from research about the period? What
Causal Loops were drawn and puzzled over?
I work in a K-8 school system (Carlisle, MA). We find the use of
systems tools growing more slowly at first in history and social studies
than in science and math. We have used interdisciplinary projects, for
example Fishbanks and Epidemic game simulations, in which the social
consequences of the behavior being observed often makes for a lively,
enlightening "debrief" with the students. How did Tim's students proceed?
We have found application of systems tools to our history
curriculum coming from our search for examples of growth and decline with
feedback. Did Tim's students find any data to show the spread of
accusations and then a decline?
This year's election campaign has a lot to teach us in terms of
national attitudes interfacing with politics. After a debate, commentators
reflect upon performance and image rather than concentrating on what the
issues are. How did newspapers report Senator McCarthy's actions compared
to coverage today? It seems that high school students will have an
interesting viewpoint on that question.
Alan Ticotsky
--------
Della,
Just curious, where is your school?
Mike
---------------
From: HKaiser770@aol.com
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000
Subject: Introduction
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Della,
I have been trained in the Koalaty Kid methods of Total Quality Management.
This may be an avenue worth investigating. Check it out at
www.koalatykid.org (Koalaty Kid is an affiliate of American Society for
Quality)
We do training and I would be interested in discussing this further with you.
Heather Kaiser
Koalaty Kid Trainer
In a message dated 10/10/2000 1:10:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu writes:
<< I am interested in finding out if there are teams who would come to a
campus to train a small group of teachers in the use of system dynamics.
I am a member of a special team of teachers. We teach classes within a
four-year curriculum that focuses on math, science, technology and the
arts: Millennium Project 2001. Our school serves kids who are minority,
and this curriculum is enhancing their learning. We are gathering the
data. This is our third year and will add the Engineering class next
term. In 2001-2002, we will add an earth/space science course. We are
developing partnerships outside of the high school. >>
----------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Standards & Accountability

> Subject: Re: Standards & Accountability
> .....What is all important is an infrastructure for supporting the continuous
> improvement of teaching and learning. In other words, the school system must
> become a learning community where both students and adults are continuously
> engaged in teaching and learning. For this reason, I cannot agree with the
> notion
> that the bottom line message is "try harder"......
As you note, it depends on what state or school system you're talking
about. I have a particular interest in Florida, since that's where I live.
Here, word for word, is a VERY typical example of a "Sunshine State Standard,"
(this from a state which, rumor has it, may supply the next head of the
Department of Education [Frank Brogan] should G.W. win):
"The student understands the world from its beginnings to the time of the
Renaissance."
> ....at least not where authentic standards-based reform is taking root...
OK. I give up. Next question: How do you go about explaining to all
those
standards writers and users the difference between "standards-based
reform," and
"authentic standards-based reform?"
> Marion wrote: But where in our recent past has there been extended dialog
> about what are surely absolutely fundamental questions: What is the aim of
> a general education?......
>
> Response: I am aware of a number of school districts who have engaged
> hundreds of stakeholders in dialogues about what all students should know
> and be able to do as high school graduates and have developed content and
> performance standards, benchmarks, anchor papers, and rubrics (and in some
> cases students are engaged in creating the rubrics that are used in
> assessing their work)........
Two or three years ago I began writing down statements of the purpose of
education that appeared on the listservs I was monitoring. I lost interest
after
I got the following:
Teach students to think. Achieve world class standards. Stay
economically competitive. Raise standardized test scores. Teach the academic
disciplines more effectively. Prepare students for democratic citizenship.
Help students become culturally literate. Teach „the basics.‰ Respond to
student needs. Facilitate self-actualization. Solve social problems. Surpass
other nations. Build self-esteem. Help students become informed consumers.
Enhance ethnic identity. Pose the „eternal questions.‰ Instill a love of
learning. Develop character. Increase ethnic pride. Teach the whole child.
Create thoughtful, caring individuals. Promote intercultural understanding.
Meet individual needs. „Know thyself.‰ Instill virtue. Explore broad themes.
Transmit societal values. Promote love of country. Prepare students for
useful,
satisfying work. Impart core knowledge. (Teach systems concepts didn't
make the
list at that time.)
Are you telling me that all of these options were thoughtfully considered
before consensus was reached that the purpose should be the fifth one on the
above list?
> These dialogues are all about coming to consensus on what knowledge to teach
> and to exclude and around the question: how good is good enough?
Dialog is fine. But if all who are engaged in a particular dialog come to
it with the same set of unexamined assumptions, consensus is of limited value.
> Marion quoting and responding: (while the content standards get organized
> according to subject areas....
> .... thereby perpetuating the very problem to which the couple of dozen
> respected scholars I quote below refer.
>
> Response: I think Howard Gardner's perspective is worthy of consideration.
> Here's what he said in a dialogue with Peter Senge and Art Kleiner (SCHOOLS
> THAT LEARN, p. 558): "What do I think the goals of education should be? I
> concluded that the most important, irreducible, purpose of school -- from
> elementary through high school -- is to help students better understand the
> major disciplinary ways of thinking......
I admire Howard Gardner's work, but when I put the fact that he happens to
think that knowledge comes in neat little disciplinary packages up against
dozens
of other scholars maintaining that it doesn't, his view doesn't impress me
much.
What we're talking about --- the systemic integration of knowledge --- isn't in
his field. I really doubt if he's given the matter much thought one way or the
other. When you're a product of a system that slices knowledge apart
arbitrarily, and you work in an institution the departments of which
reflect that
slicing, it's pretty hard to get outside that box.
As you might expect, our own dialog notwithstanding, I continue to
believe
there are two major obstacles in the way of significant education reform (1) no
agreed-upon purpose, and (2) denial of the integrated nature of knowledge
And I
continue to believe that, until those problems are addressed, telling
people they
ought to teach to "authentic standards" won't stop education's slide toward the
sewer.
Marion
--
1. THE ESSENTIAL REVOLUTION:
http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady/UltimateStandards.html
2. KNIGHT-RIDDER/TRIBUNE SERIES ON REFORM:
http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady/orlando.html
3. CURRENT JOURNAL ARTICLE (KAPPAN):
http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/kbra0005.htm
4. CURRENT NEWSPAPER COLUMNS:
http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady/recentarticles.html
5. SAMPLE PAGES, INTEGRATED COURSE OF STUDY:
http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady/sample1.html
6. SAMPLE PAGES, INVESTIGATIONS IN AMERICAN HISTORY:
http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady/am-hist-cover.html
7. INTEGRATING THE CURRICULUM
http://ddi.digital.net/~mbrady/page1.html
8. HOMEPAGE:
http://digital.net/~mbrady/
9. TESTIMONIALS:
http://digital.net/~mbrady/testimonials.html
---------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Autumnal Paradox

> Subject: Re: Autumnal Paradox
> This is a great chat about dynamics of witchhunts...
> My spin on this investigation is that system thinking and associated tools
> "surface" assumptions that we did not know we even had: we become aware of
> all that "we didn't even know that we didn't know that!".
> The key is to develop trusting relationships among people - young or old -
> so they have the courage to investigate their unknown emotions and thoughts.
Gordon,
Trust is certainly useful, maybe even necessary, but, I'd suggest, not
sufficient. Most of us probably share, for example, assumptions about the
nature, shape, value, segmentation, etc. of "time," but trust
notwithstanding, we
might very well talk for months without the subject coming up. The same
could be
said for our assumptions about causation or ownership or objective reality or
other matters lying below ordinary levels of consciousness. Generally, it's an
awareness that others are behaving differently than are we, followed by the
generating and testing of hypotheses about possible reasons, that result in the
contrasts that lead us to surface our own previously unexamined assumptions.
> My bias is that it is the emotions that are the more powerful of the two.
> That also means that systems research must never be done alone.
But aren't emotions based on ideas, beliefs, values, assumptions, premises,
coming into play when we think they're threatened or desirable?
> Until we can get System Dynamics to get to the root of the emotional drivers
> that seem to control our so called logical decision making processes events
> like McCarthyism, or worse, will keep on reoccuring.
>
> I think a start has been made with Erling Moxnes paper on the fisheries [for
> which he received the Jay Forrester award this year at the annual SD
> conference in Bergen, Norway] where he said [to paraphrase]:
>
> "To date we've successfully solved the incentive problem = logic, but not
> the emotional "power of the situation" ...
I'm not familiar with your example, but might it be that "the incentive
problem" is only one of more than one or several problems in that particular
situation that logic might address?
Marion
----------------
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000
From: "P.S. Abode" <pxabode@fresno.k12.ca.us>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: systems thinking and dialectical thinking

Dear Colleagues,
I have been thinking lately about these two ideas and wondering what
similarities
and differences are there. With so much brain power in this forum, I
believe this
is the best place to pose my question. Please, as your sink your
intellectual jaw
into this bone, offer your definitions of key terms, they go along way to
help us
carry on the digestive process that you begin.
Philip Abode
-----------------------
From: "Paul Preuss" <ppreuss@borg.com>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Standards & Accountability
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000
Marion - My response is in regard to your statement contained in your e-mail
sent 10/12/00 which follows:
"As you might expect, our own dialog notwithstanding, I continue to believe
there are two major obstacles in the way of significant education reform (1)
no
agreed-upon purpose, and (2) denial of the integrated nature of knowledge
And I continue to believe that, until those problems are addressed, telling
people they ought to teach to "authentic standards" won't stop education's
slide toward the
sewer."
I agree with # 2.
Have questions about # 1 as I think it might be possible that there is no
one purpose for education, nor, perhaps, even one group of purposes. If
so - then there should never be an agreed-upon purpose - except to agree
that the purpose is always multi-dimensional.
I would add to your listing. For the moment one item would be stated
something like this: "The inability to "see" the system of education in any
other form than it is currently in." Take grade levels for example. If we
agree that there is general denial of the integrated nature of knowledge
(item 2) then can we also agree that there is general denial that learning
is a continuum uninterrupted by summers and grade levels? I am sure we can
find other issues to add to your list.
Paul Preuss
Plan2020.com
----------------------
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000
From: "P.S. Abode" <pxabode@fresno.k12.ca.us>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Standards & Accountability

My comments to Paul:
Like the proverbial elephant, various observers of the educational phenomenon
grasp the animal from different vantage points and propose a definition of the
trouble with education from that vantage of bounded rationality. However, upon
examination the various definitions seem all to bypass the nuclear point and
thereby leave a huge white space around which the core of educational malaise
revolve. It may be true that a lack of a common purpose and a variegated
view of
knowledge contribute to the problem, these are hardly the critical and
fundamental issues. I would only say that the trouble is a strategic one and
which can be addressed from a number of philosophical and methodological
dimensions. However, I lay my bias with organizational analysis of the problem
and assert that before we begin to even talk about the content of educational
curricula and problems associated with their production and delivery, we must
deal with the ecological problem of the apparent lack of fit between k-12
educational organizations (aka school districts) and the peculiarities of
the US
political economy. I believe this lack of fit has implications for what I view
as the pathological strategic orientation of these educational enterprises,
persistent violation of the logic (in the sense of Karl Popper) of productive
enterprise and their historical organizational under performance.
Philip Abode
------------
From: JnDLunsford@aol.com
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000
Subject: Standards & Accountability
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Paul and Marion,
I am enjoying your dialogue. Please keep it up. I would merely toss in the
Deming caveat that "Without an aim, there can be no system." I wished he had
said no "coherent system" or no "focused system."
I think there is a system of public education because there is an approach
that is deployed that gets results. Given our years of freedom and our
seemingly strong current economy, these results are not entirely
inconsequential. The question seems to be "Will this system (these systems)
be sufficient for the immediate future?"
I see a paradox operating here. While a more narrow aim (deriving from some
consensus) might bring more coherence and focus, there is an element of
learning that must not be confined to what is currently known or what some
"state" says students need to know and be able to do. As a customer of
public education, I do want a level of focus and consensus, but I do not want
learning confined to what is known or thought important by the government (or
measured by such a faulty and narrow assessment process).
Perhaps a force field analysis would be useful here? What forces are pushing
us toward consensus and what forces are pushing toward "no size fits all?"
Keep it going guys......
Jim Lunsford
4151 Whitney Place
Concord, NC 28027
jndlunsford@aol.com
------------
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2000
From: Marion Brady <mbrady@digital.net>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: Standards & Accountability

Paul,
Let a thousand flowers bloom? I really don't think that's a defensible
position. I'm trying, without much luck, to imagine another social institution
(an army? a hospital? the post office?) that could function effectively
without
a shared sense of purpose.
It seems to me you're looking at the status quo and seeking some
justification for it.
Do you really think public education got into its present state simply
because it lacked demanding standards? Are you old enough to remember the
last
time we went through this -- the "behaviorally stated objectives" fad?
That was
based on the same premise, that just tightening the screws on the system, just
requiring greater precision of action, would solve all of its problems.
It didn't happen. And neither has any other of the dozens of fads that
have swept the surface of the education establishment made a significant
difference.
Speaking of fads, isn't it just possible that an institution that had a
clear, shared vision of its mission, and held every action and every lesson
up to
that vision to determine its appropriateness -- isn't it unlikely that that
institution would be as subject to fads as is education?
I posted a long list of aims I picked up from listservs. Most of
them were
laudable. A thoughtful curriculum could probably pursue several of them
simultaneously. But not all. As I think I said, different aims call for
different instructional materials, different classroom methods, different kinds
of tests and evaluations, different kinds of teacher training and support A
system pursuing myriad aims isn‚t a system, it‚s a mess.
Once a school system is up and running, does it really need a purpose?
Can't it just do what it's supposed to do? I say no, that if an institution
doesn‚t know
where it‚s going, it can‚t put together a coherent program or monitor its own
performance. If those within it don‚t know what it‚s supposed to be doing,
they‚ll work at cross purposes. If an overarching social purpose isn‚t shared
and used as a criterion against which to judge the appropriateness of every
lesson, another purpose moves in to fill the vacuum -- inward-looking
self-preservation.
That‚s where we are right now. We‚re doing what we do primarily because
it‚s what we did last year. We did what we did last year because it‚s what we
did the year before. And the main driver of the whole affair is, "You'll need to know this
next year."
Marion
----------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000
From: Niall Palfreyman <niall.palfreyman@fh-weihenstephan.de>
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: systems thinking and dialectical thinking

k-12sd schrieb:
> Subject: systems thinking and dialectical thinking
I think of dialectical thinking as being a useful simplification of
systems thinking which comes from isolating a very small part of a
system but without losing the systemic character of the problem under
consideration. It's like the explosive rise and fall of spruce budworms
is certainly a phenomenon which involves many components, yet it's
useful to simply consider the dialectic between the budworms and the
birds which feed on them. Similarly, the fitness of a "gene" is
certainly dependent upon the entire genome and its environment within
which the gene is embedded, yet the dialectic between the gene and its
environment is still a useful simplification in many cases. I sum, I
think dialectical thinking is a dyadic form of systems thinking.
Niall.
-----------------------
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000
To: k-12sd <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
From: Linda Booth Sweeney <Linda_Booth_Sweeney@harvard.edu>
Subject: systems thinking and dialectical thinking

Dear Philip,
Thanks for this question. This one has had me thinking as well. Here's how I currently see the distinction:
I think of systems thinking as a perspective, language and set of tools... it involves the creation of abstract structures for organizing our thoughts about complex problems or situations.
>From conversations with and reading of Mike Basseches work, I think of dialectical thinking as having to do primarily with human meaning making. Dialectical thinking involves the notion that through "peturbations in the system" (e.g. encounters with something that confronts our way of making sense of the world) we experience reorganizations and so develop more and more complex ways of interpreting, interacting and making sense of environmental events.
I'm not sure of the exact relationship between dialectical thinking and systems thinking... but they do seem to be related... dialectical thinking views development as moving in the direction of more and more complex systems and both are interested in change or transformations over time.
Some initial thoughts... I'm curious to hear others thoughts.
My best,
Linda Booth Sweeney
---------------------------------
Linda Booth Sweeney
Harvard Graduate School of Education
e-mail: Linda_Booth_Sweeney@harvard.edu
75 Reservoir Street
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
tel: 617-354-1390
fax: 617-491-3496
------------------------
From: "ricardo balarezo" <balarezo70@hotmail.com>
To: k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Subject: Introduction
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000
Hello,
My name is Ricardo Balarezo,
I'm a Geographer from Perú, I'm very cocerned about education.
I teach in UPC university at Lima and now I'm writing four books
each for one year of secundary school grades(1º,2º 3º and 4º)
Here in perú we are in the middle of a educational reform and the books that
I'm writing should contain those new parameters and modifications that the
reform pretends, wich are based on the aducation through the developement of
Competences .Well that is a serious goal considering the general situation
of the education in a country like Perú.
I beleive that the System Dynamics aproach can give the core base for my
work and for the entire educational reform.
That's why i found very interesting this discussion group and I hope I cant
participate more actively.
thank you.
Ricardo Balarezo
Inside Perú
-------------
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000
Subject: Autumnal Equinox
From: Tim Joy <tjoy@jps.net>
To: K12 k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu
Good day to all . . . again.
What enjoyment for us to hear these thoughtful ideas: the dynamics of
hysteria from the point-of-view of those within it as well as those watching
it.
Gordon's comments brought a few things to my mind: what are the
intrapersonal dynamics that create pressures in my life which may lead to my
joining a cause . . . or fighting a cause . . . such as McCarthyism?
To borrow the trendy nomenclature, what's the tipping point in all this?
Is McCarthyism a take on the infection model? the escalation model? does
this defy archetypal casting?
I find it hard to deny connections with Lord of the Flies and the boys' fear
of the beast.
There has been a rather breathy conversation about assessment astride this
discussion. I wonder if some of you might join us here is this discernment.
Somebody is probably waiting for all this to finish just to have a lesson
plan!
Thanks again to all of you; is this effort, we add to our understanding and
ability. As Chaim Potok once said: "In the particular is the universal."
Tim
-----------
Reminder from the List Moderator:
As we indicated when this list was started, those who submit to the list
should fully identify themselves. Sometimes we are now receiving only the
first names of those who send material. Sometimes none at all.
We may return submissions for additional information if they do not include:
-Full name
-Institution and address (at least the city)
-Nature of participation in education (teacher including grade,
administrator including kind, or indication of some other interest or
activity in education.)
Thanks for your cooperation!

---------------------
From: "Gordon Kubanek & Carmen Hust" <chust@monisys.ca>
To: "k-12sd" <k-12sd@sysdyn.mit.edu>
Subject: cross curricular activity

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000
On a more down to earth note....
I was playing around in my Chemistry class trying to "get out of the box" and found these two activities complimented each other.
First you play the EPIDEMICS game with the students - they love it - I used an article from the paper about the recnet outbreak of Ebola virus as my pretext [If you need instruction email me]. The BOT graph it generates is teh classic "S-shape". We then did an acid-base titration experiment and drew the pH vs mL base added to the acid - the titration curve.
Lo and behold it too was an "S-curve". A discussion then ensued about what this "coincidence' could mean. I steered the conversation towards the idea that our concept of "subjects" is often too narrow and not helpful when we are trying to understand behaviour/phenomena.... seeing how things are RELATED is much more satisfying.
Enjoy!
Gordon
<mailto:chust@monisys.ca>chust@monisys.ca

----------------
End of October 2000