I draw further attention to this posting as it is a good instance of 'developing a sound understanding of the underlying system(s)' WITHOUT (so far as I know) using a tool such as the OPMS.
I do believe this response from Anna Roys also provides further confirmation to my claim that the 'OPMS process' (about which I often write) is just a systematic formalisation of processes that are already going on naturally in our heads. However, I am pretty certain that active use of the OPMS process as a daily practice provides a great many significant benefits, amongst which are to:
i) help ensure that we don't go wrong in the long and sometimes quite arduous journey to achieve 'system understanding' (which I claim is essential in our world today). Robert Hansen and Haim are instances of individuals who have managed to take entirely wrong paths in this journey - and their errors are seen in almost each one of their postings.
ii) make the whole process (of arriving at 'system understanding') MUCH more systematic and, finally, rather easier to use and apply to daily life issues. (There IS a 'learning period' of about a month or two before one gets to the stage where one successfully uses the OPMS on any real-life Mission as a matter of ready habit).
(There are other benefits which I do not attempt to list here).
GSC Anna Roys posted Mar 5, 2013 7:29 AM: > > Hi all, > > As a teacher, I find myself wanting to constantly > assess, check for > understanding on the fly, as I go; I find it very > valuable, as this can > inform me on where re-teaching may be needed. My > educational philosophy is > for mastery of content, not just a lot of content > coverage at superficial > levels. Informal assessments are great, however, > there are times I think > the summative assessments may not reflect true > pictures of student > abilities and achievement levels. Notice I do not see > abilities as > achievement levels. To me the ability is the ability > to learn, the purpose > of life, which all humans are born with and may be > developed, whereas, > achievement levels are what we see on the summative > test scores. > > Anna > > > On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:06 AM, Joe Niederberger > <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote: > > > >I personally believe that the 'quantitative > techniques' (and > > tools/processes) are not really relevant or > appropriate to apply to human > > beings and their problem-solving or learning > processes. > > > > I'm sympathetic to your view, but I think some > amount of monitoring is > > essential to ascertain that kids are being given > what amounts to something > > like standardized treatment, i.e., they are getting > what we pay for. (Now, > > choice of what treatment is desired is another > matter, but you could hardly > > argue for choice if you don't know what is being > offered is the first > > place.) Another type of monitoring is needed to > determine, if, Johnny, can, > > in fact read. > > > > The article paints a picture though of monitoring > and data collection in > > clearly excessive amounts. So, digging deeper, I > would want to know can all > > that data gathering even be rationalized as > supporting one of the above two > > goals. If not, I would be immediately suspect of > its necessity. > > > > For the remaining data collection, I would ask > whether > > at what point it becomes so intrusive as to be > absolutely > > counter-productive. If one is in the hospital, > blood is drawn for testing > > and monitoring. But if its drawn every half hour, > it may start to > > counteract your healing. > > > > So, where I agree with you, is that in situations > like education that have > > been traditionally been based on close > relationships (though that now is > > slipping away) > > injecting a lot of data gathering can interact > negatively with what is > > going on. Another way of viewing the original > article's claim that in the > > past, the system was "loose". I think another way > of saying that is that it > > was based on trust. The more intrusive the > monitoring, the more trust > > leaves the scene, with negative consequences. > > > > Cheers, > > Joe N