Joe N. posted Jun 5, 2014 4:21 AM (http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=9479224): > > >(Robert Hansen): And you have to establish if the goal > > is an > > education system. Maybe the actual goal is jobs and > > standard of living. > > (Joe N.): That would be the job of a society, an even > larger animal than the education system. Though of > course, related, in a way that GSC would capitalize. > > Cheers, > Joe N > I had responded to this earlier (Jun 5, 2014 1:00 PM, http://mathforum.org/kb/thread.jspa?messageID=9479580?) but that response had I'm afraid 'wandered off' into trying to demonstrate that 'standard/conventional prose' tends to make 'system issues' incomprehensible - and the post may well have been incomprehensible as a whole. I'd like to emphasise that 'prose + structural graphics' (p+sg) generally enables us to handle most such inadequacies of 'pure prose' fairly easily.
Anyway, I am herebelow seeking to make amends as best I can:
As Robert Hansen observes:
> > "And you have to establish if the goal is an > > education system. Maybe the actual goal is jobs and > > standard of living".
Such are indeed some of the difficulties that people may encounter when they do not know how to 'think'/'speak'/'read; write' in terms of what I've termed as 'prose + structural graphics' (p+sg) [or, as Robert Hansen prefers to call it, "ps&g"].
Yes, the educational system IS indeed encompassed within (/intersected by) larger (/other) societal systems of various kinds (systems belonging to the community; systems of governance; economic systems of the society in question; and so on and so forth).
The goals in those encompassing (/intersecting) systems are somewhat different from "learning + teaching", which generally limit(s) the goals of the 'educational system'.
Of course, as the stakeholders in the systems for which we conduct workshops are in general reasonable thinking human beings (or at least we try to treat them as though they are such), no great difficulty occurs unless someone is being deliberately obtuse or quarrelsome. (An instance of the latter is discussed below).
We always ensure that we acquaint workshop participants with the grammar and syntax of p+sg, the language that, during our workshops, they will be learning to use. In general, I've tried to do that at my responses in my posts at the threads here; it is possible that I've failed to do that here on occasion. In general, no great difficulties ensue, as I've found in some hundreds of workshops conducted, for individuals and for groups.
Broadly, the rules and syntax of 'p+sg' are not vastly different in a linguistic sense from those of 'pure prose' - it's not really like learning to use a completely different language, it's only a slight extension of standard prose. (I note that I've generally conducted these workshops [mainly] in English; but I'm pretty sure our experiences with workshops conducted in English may readily be applied to workshops conducted in most other languages).
In any case, we find that:
"Effective learning MAY SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE to finding good jobs, which MAY in turn SIGNIFICANTLY CONTRIBUTE to getting to a comfortable living standard".
(Note: the CAPITALISATION in this prose translation above of a simple 'structural model' of an EXTREMELY complex issue is just to indicate that the capitalised words/phrases are actually represented by arrows in the models).
The models constructed in any real situation would generally reflect the above. We find we're usually able to 'decouple' the issues relating to different systems quite effectively, and it doesn't cause any hassles at all. Had the participants in OPMS workshops been machines or computers, I guess there would be problems of understanding. I must confess I've never conducted a workshop for machines or computers.
Of course, there may well be hundreds of different factors developing in the real model made by any group, some of which may involve personality traits of our professors/teachers; the money we have available to put in for fees; the personality traits of our work supervisors/ managers; the willingness of the spouse to support the person who is studying/working; whether our children have come down with influenza and have therefore got bad results in his/her/their examinations; the personality traits of the child's teacher; etc, etc, etc...
In seeking to develop any real-life model, there is really very little difficulty if we may assume that the modelers are able and willing to apply a minimum degree of common sense in their modeling (and I've generally found this to be true). Of course, I haven't conducted a workshop for Robert Hansen, and I do not expect to be confronted by any such opportunity/difficulty.
Given the willingness (and ability) to apply common sense, people are rarely ever troubled by whether the goals identified belong to the 'education system' - or to that larger beastie, society as a whole.
In general, during workshops I assume that the participants are adequately (indeed plentifully) endowed with all needed common sense to handle real-life issues such as those pointed out here about 'encompassing (/intersecting) systems', etc.
If they aren't thus endowed, I guess I'd apologise to them and call the workshop off. I do recall that, on one occasion, the No.1 and No.2 of an organisation were squabbling so intensely on some prior conflicts they had between them that we weren't able to complete the workshop. (No, I did not return the workshop fees - and the No 1 shamefacedly accepted the loss to the organisation).