> On Jan 2, 2014, at 12:36 AM, GS Chandy > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > Have you (RH) ever thought that the philosophy > > underlying your 'pedagogy of mathematics' - namely, > > that "Children must be PUSHED to learn math!" - is > > extremely shaky? That it is based on a complete and > > total misunderstanding of how human beings (and in > > particular, children) 'learn?? > > No, it isn?t shaky at all. > > My theories are always based on observation and > reality. How things are, not how I want things to be. > And is that why you claim that "OPMS is empty list-making and nothing else?" What was the "observation and reality" you used to come out with this lie?
The 'real reality' (if I may coin a phrase containing some redundancy) is that OPMS uses the elements articulated in various lists in order to create 'graphical representations' of the mental models (belonging to the individuals or groups involved) of various dimensions of the chosen 'Mission'). The dimensions involved are: -- THINGS TO DO that "MAY CONTRIBUTE" to accomplish the Mission; -- BARRIERS, DIFFICULTIES and THREATS that may "PREVENT" or "HINDER" accomplishment of the Mission; -- STRENGTHS (available/required) for accomplishment of the Mission; -- OPPORTUNITIES arising that may help (i.e. "CONTRIBUTE TO") accomplishment of the Mission; -- WEAKNESSES present or developing that may "PREVENT" or "HINDER" accomplishment of the Mission;
and -- EVENTS or MILESTONES that may occur during progress towards the Mission.
ONLY in this single last-noted dimension do we we ever use your much-advertised (and much-vaunted) PERT and Gantt Charts using the transitive relationship "PRECEDES" in order to help further clarify understanding of the system's other dimensions noted above.
However, we note that it is NOT ever useful to construct these PERT and Gantt Charts UNTIL some understanding of the systems has been gained of the systems under study. Such understanding often develops when the earlier dimensions, noted above, have been studied (via the transitive relationships "CONTRIBUTES TO", "HINDERS"/ "PREVENTS".
This 'premature evaluation' of the sequence of possible EVENTS and MILESTONES in a complex 'Mission system' is, in fact, the single greatest failure of the management 'sciences' in the past 100 years or so - with due apologies to the keen minds of various US agencies* who originated Critical Path Analysis based on PERT Charts and to Henry Gantt who developed the Gantt Chart from PERT. (*Operations Research Department of Booz, Allen and Hamilton; the Evaluation Office of the Lockheed Missile Systems Division; and the Program Evaluation Branch, Special Projects Office, of the Department of the Navy).
However (for people able to see beyond PERT, which is admittedly not everyone) those 'graphical representations' of models of other dimensions than EVENTS/MILESTONES in the OPMS do demand a little intellectual work of a 'somewhat different kind' in order to construct (and rather more intellectual work in order to interpret and put to use in the real world). And it does take some practical doing to properly interpret them. Which is why some live interactive work relating to those models (and what they may mean to the user) is required.
(I've not yet been able to help users do any of this interactive work except during live workshops. Hopefully, the OPMS website should be up and running during 2014 - and it should help tackle this current deficiency in the presentation of OPMS. Let us see).
I observe, by the way, that a 'phony reality' is, apparently, where you are living much of your intellectual life today - this weird place where "Children must be PUSHED [or even GOADED] to learn!"; where "OPMS is empty list-making and nothing else!" > > Only after I understand why things are what they are, > can I then make a determination as to if they can be > changed. > And that, no doubt, is why you lie that "OPMS is just empty list-making and nothing else"? You simply haven't understood (how or) "why things are what they are" !!! ?? Amazing! > > I made that very clear when I first joined this > forum. > > I am a realist through and through. > Indeed? See all above. > > Asking ?why?? first, before ?what if??, will always > yield better results. > Yes, indeed. You may someday come to understand that construction (and interpretation) of an 'Interpretive Structural Model' (ISM) helps clarify both the "HOWs?" and the "WHYs?" of every element in such a model - this occurs because of the relationships "CONTRIBUTES TO" and "HINDERS" or "PREVENTS" (to begin with in weakest form "MAY CONTRIBUTE TO", etc, etc). We simply cannot *effectively* understand the 'WHYs?' of things via PERT! (Or you may NOT come to understand).
[As observed earlier, such construction and interpretation of ISMs do demand a tiny bit of learning and a fair bit of 'unlearning' on the part of users. Many people are unable to go through the intellectual discipline of 'unlearning' their long-held, cherished false beliefs.
Minds that have been hermetically sealed against the ingress of new and different understanding may NEVER be able to perform the needed 'unlearning'. Alas!]
By the way, such needed clarification NEVER EVER occurs using your much-advertised PERT Charts, which can ONLY respond to/ help clarify the question "WHAT IF?" (See, for instance, the documentation put out by the keen minds promoting PERT and CP/M etc. > > Never asking ?why?? and only asking ?what if?" will > yield no results. > Yes, indeed. See above. > > People the world over literally push their children > through school. > Yes, they do indeed. You may observe that this is EXACTLY in line with your underlying philosophy:
"Children must be PUSHED in order to learn math!" (and presumably everything else). > > Why? > Why? indeed! > > Because children do not like school. > At least partially false.
Yes, children DO dislike 'conventional schools' (except for playing with their school-mates). However:
If you ever happen to visit a *genuine* Montessori school, you will find EXACTLY the opposite. Those children simply LOVE attending Montessori school! (And NOT in order to play with their school-mates, but in order to work performing various learning activities - which is, in fact, their major *work in life*).
However, please do observe the *adjective "genuine"* above: in India, most schools claiming "Montessori education" are not genuine Montessori schools at all! (It appears that most parents are easy to fool: just show them some shiny Montessori equipment and claim "This is a Montessori school"... and they're convinced!!
I don't know how it is in the USA. > > I would have more chance of convincing the Irish to > call themselves ?English? than you would have > changing the nature of children. > > Bob Hansen > You may observe the following:
-- The Irish are NOT in fact English - and so they are entirely correct not to be convinced about their 'Englishness'. The Scots are not English either. (Refer any history book covering that area of the world, and see any map of the British Isles).
-- I absolutely do NOT ever try to "change the nature of children"!
The OPMS process merely helps develop the 'question-asking frame of mind' (which, by the way, is inherent in every child's mind - and which is forcibly suppressed in 'traditional teaching', where children are commanded to "HUSH UP! -- OR ELSE!!" - Check out the attachment "How a Child Learns" for more on this).
(By the way, are you now about to add this new one to your already fairly long list of falsehoods here at Math-teach? I sincerely do hope not - for your own sake, not for mine).
GSC ("Still Shoveling! Not PUSHING!! Not GOADING!!!")