Problems as Homework (2)
In our last episode, our imaginary parent, P. A. Rant, was demonstrating how to use Semi-Structured Brainstorming to work with a child on the problem of homework. You will recall that there was a big sheet of paper on the wall with 3 boxes.
The name of the first box was “PROBLEM : What’s wrong with homework?” It had a list of about 5 specific problems that the child wrote to go in the box. The name of the second box was “GOAL: How I could tell if the problem is fixed?” The child was going to provide at least one goal that matched a problem in the first box. (Lesson 1. of problem-solving: Watch the goal, not the problem.)
That was last week. Fortunately, Semi-Structured Brainstorming is a method for persistent problem solving. So the paper can stay there till the problem is solved. As P. A. expected, the child’s initial description of the goal was not clear enough to work on. It had the usual load of value terms.
Value terms, as P. A. wanted to explain to the child, are expressions that carry a judgment about how the speaker evaluates something. Since they do not provide a clear identification or description of that something, they confuse problem-solving by mixing ambiguity into the goals.
P. A. did not bother to try that pompous explanation on the child. The child would have responded with a value term such as, “That’s confusing.” Fortunately, people (except academics) can function quite well without pompous explanations. P. A. divides the GOAL box into two compartments and modifies the labels: The top part gets the label, “MY GOALS.” The bottom part gets the label, “HOW I EXPLAIN MY GOALS TO ANYBODY.”
The child can try out several candidates for ANYBODY. They can be the teacher, the principal, a favorite superhero, a favorite fictional character, or anyone else who does not know the child well. The purpose here is to break away from mind reading. Parents are skilled mind-readers. That lets children talk to them in value terms. Children can say things like:
“They should make it easier.”
“They should make it more interesting.”
“This stuff shouldn’t take so much time.”
These statements sound like goals. But you see immediately that they are not much help in problem-solving. In fact, since you don’t know the child, you could not interpret “more interesting.” The child can recognize what is interesting (or confusing). But the child does not know how to give a verbal description of what it takes to meet that goal. The purpose of the second box is to give the child practice in tuning subjective values into objective goals.
And, by the way, this is not something that the child can do easily the first time. P. A. will have to play the role of a slow-witted ANYBODY. Fortunately, P. A. is using a method suited for persistent problem solving. And willing to model the power of persistence for the child. And ready to point out that nobody could learn a sport if they had to do it right the first time.
The name of the first box was “PROBLEM : What’s wrong with homework?” It had a list of about 5 specific problems that the child wrote to go in the box. The name of the second box was “GOAL: How I could tell if the problem is fixed?” The child was going to provide at least one goal that matched a problem in the first box. (Lesson 1. of problem-solving: Watch the goal, not the problem.)
That was last week. Fortunately, Semi-Structured Brainstorming is a method for persistent problem solving. So the paper can stay there till the problem is solved. As P. A. expected, the child’s initial description of the goal was not clear enough to work on. It had the usual load of value terms.
Value terms, as P. A. wanted to explain to the child, are expressions that carry a judgment about how the speaker evaluates something. Since they do not provide a clear identification or description of that something, they confuse problem-solving by mixing ambiguity into the goals.
P. A. did not bother to try that pompous explanation on the child. The child would have responded with a value term such as, “That’s confusing.” Fortunately, people (except academics) can function quite well without pompous explanations. P. A. divides the GOAL box into two compartments and modifies the labels: The top part gets the label, “MY GOALS.” The bottom part gets the label, “HOW I EXPLAIN MY GOALS TO ANYBODY.”
The child can try out several candidates for ANYBODY. They can be the teacher, the principal, a favorite superhero, a favorite fictional character, or anyone else who does not know the child well. The purpose here is to break away from mind reading. Parents are skilled mind-readers. That lets children talk to them in value terms. Children can say things like:
“They should make it easier.”
“They should make it more interesting.”
“This stuff shouldn’t take so much time.”
These statements sound like goals. But you see immediately that they are not much help in problem-solving. In fact, since you don’t know the child, you could not interpret “more interesting.” The child can recognize what is interesting (or confusing). But the child does not know how to give a verbal description of what it takes to meet that goal. The purpose of the second box is to give the child practice in tuning subjective values into objective goals.
And, by the way, this is not something that the child can do easily the first time. P. A. will have to play the role of a slow-witted ANYBODY. Fortunately, P. A. is using a method suited for persistent problem solving. And willing to model the power of persistence for the child. And ready to point out that nobody could learn a sport if they had to do it right the first time.
posted by Selby Evans at 2:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home