Dabbling in some Systemic Thinking

Here I have experimented with some Systemic Thinking. I chose to look at Palm Oil as it is an issue in which I have some knowledge. I also believe it is an issue where, if consumers were systemic thinkers, the demand for palm oil production would be low and therefore as a result we would not have the loss of habitat and biodiversity we are currently experiencing. A great tool that can be used with any age group.

Reflection on workshop experience

In class for GSE 827 we were required to develop a workshop and enact a session from the workshop. I was in a group of three and within this group we decided to focus on the processes of Critical Thinking and Reflection for our session. Our session involved using de Bono’s (1995) Six Thinking Hats to look at Australia’s Carbon Tax.

My impression of how our enactment went was that it was not overly successful. Having said that, I know from my experience as a teacher that having unsuccessful lessons is not necessarily a bad thing. Having unsuccessful lessons is apart of learning to be a better educator, as long as you reflect on the process and what you will do different next time. As such here is my reflection on the process of our session and what I would do better next time.

Description of Session

Our session was one component of a workshop that looks at the processes of Education for Sustainable Development (EfSD) through examining Australia’s Carbon Tax. The session involved learners being split into pairs with each pair having one of the six thinking hats. Learners were required to jot down their thoughts of the Carbon Tax while only operating under their given hat. We then asked for responses and wrote some of these onto a white board next to a picture of their appropriate hat. We were then supposed to use these responses to start a discussion about the way we as individuals think and how this thinking can influence the way we view a situation, like the Carbon Tax.

While this was the intended structure of the session, all did not go according to plan. Unfortunately the room was not set up as we had planned which meant we had to adapt how we were going to use resources like the white board and projector. Personally, I felt we could have done this better. We needed to be more flexible and work within the constraints better. This is what educators have to do on a daily basis.

At the orientation of our session, we gave learners a brief overview of the workshop and I explained the six thinking hats. While I think I explained the hats somewhat sufficiently, for this activity to have been successful in developing deeper understandings participants needed to have more time to learn about each hat and digest the information about each hat. We also forgot to mention the session objectives, which was a large oversight on our part, as this would not have allowed for explicit criteria (DET 2003) to be known.

Following the explanation, hand outs were given to each pair. Each handout was tailored to the pair’s hat with a description of their hat’s way of thinking. With these hand outs learners wrote down their responses. This part was okay as from going around a engaging in dialogue with participants, they appeared to have understood the concept.

However, following this part of the session, we asked learners to give us their responses and we wrote these on the white board. This process was rather slow and not engaging enough. It would have been better to ask participants to share their responses with the class and engage in dialogue about their experience.

We were supposed to use the responses that we wrote on the white board in the conclusion/reflection part of the session. However, we did not follow our session plan. Instead of questioning learners about thinking and using the hats to gain different perspectives about the Carbon Tax while using the responses as prompts, we told participants what they should have learnt. This did not allow for the development of understanding, nor did it allow for Critical Thinking or Reflection which is what we wanted to achieve.

Analysis

Prior to commencement of the session I thought our ideas were good. Particularly about using the Six Thinking Hats as they are a tool that I use in everyday situations to be aware of how I am thinking and reacting to a particular event that is occurring. I assumed that this may then be a tool learners could be use to develop an awareness of how they think and perceive situations thus create critical and reflective thinkers. However, the activity was not appropriate for the use of the hats. It was clear from participant feedback that we were not clear enough with what we were trying to achieve thus the creation of understanding was not achieved.

Our activity was also not appropriate for the 20 min time slot. If we wanted to develop reflective thinkers participants needed more time to engage in the activity as well as swap hats around. I also think participants needed more time to engage in dialogue about how they perceive their thinking processes and the effect this might have on how they look at the world around them. Although it was suggested through feedback that the Carbon Tax was possibly not an appropriate subject to use the Six Thinking Hats with, I tend to disagree as it is a contentious present subject that appears to be coloured by people’s biases towards the issue. I believe these biases are influenced by the way an individual looks at their world and this in turn is influenced by their thinking. However, to develop this idea that individuals’ perception of issues is influenced by the way they think requires activities that enable deep analysis and I do not think this activity was suited to that outcome. Through my experience as a teacher I know through the interaction between participants and us, as educators, this was not a deep learning experience.

Conclusions

Through this experience and other experiences teaching, I think I tend to develop learning experiences that set out to create reflective thinkers and develop deep understandings, however I think I make the process too complicated leaving participants disengaged and confused. Reflective Thinkers cannot be created in one 20 min lesson, it can however, build the foundations to develop reflective thinkers. I think I need to be aware of this when I am developing lessons and try to ‘unmuddle’ my thoughts so I do not have a complicated learning experience.

Action Plan

If I were to do this activity again it would not be for a 20 min time frame. I think an hour would be needed where participants can engage in longer dialogue with their pairs about their hat and following this engage in dialogue with other pairs about the type of thinking that happens under the hat they are using. Following this I think a whole class discussion would be required, where sitting in a circle, participants share their experience, how they perceive their way of thinking. Perhaps, then as small groups participants are given a scenario where each hat has to be used. Participants share findings with whole class and discuss how using all the hats may change the perception of a situation rather than just using the one.

Community Engagement as a learning tool for Education for Sustainable Development

Observation

To help me understand why having the community involved in decision making is a form of learning I read through the reference provided in GSE 827, Effective Engagement: Building relationships with community and other Stakeholders, Book One, An Introduction to Engagement (2005) by the Department of Sustainability and the Environment, Victoria. I also read the journal article by Martha C Monroe, Annie Oxarart, Lauren McDonell and Richard Plate (2009) entitled Using Community Forums to Enhance Public Engagement in Environmental Issues.

After reading these two texts I have discovered the following about ‘learning’:

• The process of learning outside the formal sector of education is different. Within the formal sector the educator has a captive audience, education within the community involves the educators seeking their intended learners.
• Although the term ‘Community Engagement’ does not immediately provide visions of learning, the processes involved in ‘community engagement’ are processes of learning. For example, as mentioned in previous blog, the NSW Quality Teaching Framework (DET, 2003) sets out three elements of learning and within these elements there are dimensions of the type of learning that should be occurring in schools. Some of these dimensions involve accessing background knowledge, participation of all learners, conversations about concepts are sustained, criteria is explicit, learners are engaged, strong support is offered by the teacher and learners direct their activities . Similarly, if we look at what the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Vic (2005) suggest is involved in effective Community Engagement, they state for a project to be successful it must have clear objectives, build consensus, be transparent, have information appropriate to audience capabilities, foster collaboration, build trust with community, foster participation, and build a feeling of ownership of decisions amongst community members. Although they use different language, the concepts are similar.
• Being aware of community knowledge and building upon community knowledge is important (Monroe et al 2009). This is similar to Friere (2003) of ‘problem-based’ learning. Learners are seen to bring with them to new learning experiences background knowledge. Through my learning to be a teacher, it is important to be aware of background knowledge and how to build from background knowledge as it makes the difference to whether or not understanding is created. If community knowledge is not known and acknowledged, I would suggest there is a great chance of community members becoming disengaged due to lack of understanding as well as a feeling that those who are trying to engage the community are not serious about the community being involved in the decision making process (Department of Sustainability and Environment Vic 2005).

Implication

I have realised that although the concepts of learning are similar in Community Engagement as they are in teaching in the formal sector, the role of the educator is vastly different.

In the formal sector the development of understanding within learners is the main goal. However, with Community Engagement, the main goal is coming to a decision about an issue within the community (Department of Sustainability and Environment Vic 2005) and as a result of the community being involved in the decision making process, community members gain new knowledge or knowledge is built upon (Monroe et al 2009).

Action

I think I need to learn more about how to be a community educator. While the skills I have are suited to an audience of five to twelve year olds they are not suited to an audience of community members. Below I have placed the models provided by the Department of Sustainability and the Environment, Vic (2005) and Monroe et al (2009) . I have adapted the model from the Department of Sustainability and the Environment Vic (2005) to show how it is a built upon process.
I believe by referring to these models I will be able to see how I can use the skills I already have and adapt them when working with communities.

Figure One: IAP2, adapted from Department of Sustinability and the Environment, Victoria (2005)

Figure Two: Taken from Monroe et al (2009) Shows the process of using a community Forum.

Monroe M C, Oxarart A, Mcdonell L and Plate R 2009 Using Community Forums to Enhance Public Engagement in Environmental Issues Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 3(2): 171-182.

Department of Sustainability and Environment Victoria 2005 Effective Engagement: Building relationships with community and other stakeholders- Book One: Introduction to Engagement The Community Engagement Network, East Melbourne.

Summary of Tools for Public Participation

World Café -    Informal process involving participants sitting in groups discussing an issue of importance. Each group has a leader who is stationary, the rest of the group members move from group to group. Group discussions are built upon as each new group conversation is initiated. At the end, after three or so rounds, each group forms as a whole to discuss findings and emerging themes. (The Co-Intelligence Institute 2008 The World Café http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-worldcafe.html)

Participatory Rural Appraisal- PRA- PRA is a process in which communities help to make decisions on how to manage resources. It does not involve the use of high technology and allows the community to share their knowledge. It is a bottom-up process.

Open Space Technology – Conferences that allow for capacity building. Open Space Technology is initiated online. At the end of the conference a report is developed and is made available to the community. (Herman H 1998 What is Open Space Technology? Open Space World. http://www.openspaceworld.org/cgi/wiki.cgi?AboutOpenSpace)

Planning for real – Involves the community contributing to the needed changes in their area. A 3-D model is developed. This may be done by a local school. Community members are then asked to write or draw on a card what changes they wish to occur and place this on the model where they would like to see it occur. The process is anonymous and does not require literacy skills.

Citizen Juries- Involves the discussion of a randomly selected group of citizens about an issue regarding policy/planning. Citizen Juries sit for four days and are helped by a facilitator. Their conclusions are submitted to a commissioning body who choose to or choose not to implement recommendations. If they choose not to, they must explain why to the citizen jurors. (Carson L, Cole-Edelstein L and Hardy M 2000 Citizen Juries in Australia- A Discussion about Protocols  www.activedemocracy.net/articles/protocol.pdf)

Asset Based Community Development – Looks at the different skills embedded in a community and how these skills can be used to achieve a community goal.

A useful website for Asset Based Community Development http://www.abcdinstitute.org/

Reflection on the above Tools
The above tools were looked at in GSE 827, I have accessed information for some of the tools so I could further clarify my understanding.
At first I found it difficult to understand how the above tools are a form of learning. I assume this is to do with my background knowledge coming from a formal education context, where collaboration is important for learning but the result of collaboration is the development of deeper understandings and social skills, not a community decision.
I need to find out how the above tools are education and how they relate to Education for Sustainable Development.

The Earth Charter Principles in Action

Taken From http://milgistrust.wildlifedirect.org/category/samburu/

I believe this image and the episode from the BBC Series entitled Human Planet- Rivers, could be used to discuss the Earth Charter. This image and an excerpt from the Episode Rivers shows tribes men from Milgis Lugga waiting for elephants to dig up water from a dry river bed. Once the elephants have left, the tribes men dig the water into wells and drinking troughs for their animals. Once their animals and themselves have had their share of water, the men fill the troughs for the elephants and other wildlife. Truly inspiring. It shows how we as humans can work not only with but in harmony with our world instead of against it. Many lessons to be learnt about sustainable development through this image and the excerpt from the Human Planet series. Certainly shows the first principle of the Earth Charter.

Imagine all the People… Living life in Peace (John Lennon- Imagine) – Values Clarification and The Earth Charter – An achievable goal or are we dreamers?

I am attempting to answer my cognitive dilemma of which I mentioned in my blog on The Earth Charter. Following this dilemma of my cynicism towards the Earth Charter of it being too ‘idealistic’ I have read two articles: Earth Charter Education for Sustainable Ways of Living by Rick Clugston (2010) and The Way and What of ESD: A Rationale for Earth Charter Education (and Naming some of its difficulties) by Noel Preston (2010).

Through reading these articles I have not only come to question my assumptions about ‘idealism’ but have learnt much about the values clarification process.

To start I will first discuss what I have learnt from the values clarification process. Firstly, the values clarification process is a metacognitive process. Preston (2010) alludes to this notion when he mentions human’s ‘ability to think about thinking’ (p.188). Although I do not have a reference for the meaning of metacognition, from my learning to become a teacher in my undergraduate degree, this is what metacognition means.

It appears that it is our ability to be metacognitive that will allow us to clarify what our values are and question these values. It is only through the clarification of our values that we will come to see how they have become shaped and how they have an influence on the way we interact with our world. The Earth Charter is one way that we can learn to be metacognitive. Education has the ability to use The Earth Charter to teach values clarification (Preston 2010) and have individuals question the current world view.

To look at the notion of metacognition in another light, that of de Bono’s (1995) six thinking hats, it would require individuals to be wearing their Blue Hat.

Secondly, to be engaged in values clarification a learner is also engaged in systemic thinking. According to Clugston (2010) The Earth Charter ‘affirms the three pillars of sustainable development’ (p.160) and reveals how each one is interconnected. This is reaffirmed by Preston (2010) in quoting Martin Luther King Jr ‘We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garmet of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all’ (p.189). In other words, through clarifying our values through the Earth Charter we become aware of the interconnectedness of everything on earth.

Lastly, I have learnt that education is not, nor will it ever be value free. Therefore it is important to clarify one’s values. The Earth Charter gets individuals to question the notion of anthropocentrism and look at thinking about things through a notion of care for the ‘community of life’ (Clugston 2010)

I believe many would question this notion of caring for the ‘community of life’. The idea of clarifying ones values through a document that clearly has a hidden agenda. Yet if Preston (2010) is correct when he suggests that education is not value free, is it not a good thing to clarify ones values? And if we were to clarify our values, is it really that worrying to clarify them through a Charter that seeks to achieve a betterment of all Earth’s life?

In relation to questioning my assumptions about ‘idealism’ I have come to the conclusion that this notion of mine is not really my belief. It has been influenced through dialogue with others over the notion of sustainable development and their reactions to what it means. While I do believe the Earth Charter shows an ‘ideal’ world I do not think ‘ideal’ is such an unachievable goal. I have questioned myself of this notion through dialogue with others, but after reading these two articles I think we need some positive thinking. I am reminded of a quote that was used in a workshop I attended on Sustainability by Henry Ford ‘If you think you can you are probably right, if you think you can’t you are probably right too’. This notion of ‘idealism’ and it being unrealistic was revealed to me when Clugston (2010) quoted Rose Marie Inojosa  ‘The Earth Charter encourages everybody to search for a common ground in the midst of human diversity and to embrace a global ethic that is shared by an ever growing number of people throughout the world’ (p162). When I read this statement I was filled with the questions I had been asked about idealism by many when I talk about sustainable development and having a world of social, interspecies and intergenerational equity. Now I view this as too much of de Bono’s (1995) Black Hat thinking. If we all thought that it was too ideal we would never get anywhere.

I think people underestimate the power of one individual. I know through this notion of ‘idealism’ that many feel that they cannot make a difference. However, now I will ask those who question their ability to think in this way. ‘Imagine if everybody thought this way of thinking (The Earth Charter) was too idealistic, would we achieve sustainable development. Now, imagine everyone believed The Earth Charter could be achieved. What sort of world would it be?’

This power of the individual is supported by Fein (2003) in his article Learning to Care: Education and Compassion. He alludes to the fact that often environmental education forgets about personal change; that is the individual side of sustainable development. Perhaps we need more focus on the transformation of the individual not just governments and big industries.

Perhaps we can achieve a sustainable world, it just requires a different way of thinking.

Clugston R 2010 Earth Charter Education for Sustainable Ways of Living Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 4(2):157-166.

Fein J 2003 Learning to Care: Education and Compassion Australian Journal of Environmental Education 19: 1- 13.

Preston N 2010 The Why and What of ESD: A Rationale for Earth Charter Education (and Naming Some of it Difficulties) Journal of Education for Sustainable Development 4(2):187-192.

Some useful Resources for Values Clarification and the Earth Charter

We Value - This website provides an assessment framework to measure values. According to the website it makes values-based indicators easily accessible to as many organisations as possible. It may be possible to use this to assess the process of values clarification within education programs.
Guide for using Earth Charter in Education - Although the website would not let me download this file, it would be a useful tool in developing values clarification programs in education.
Earth Charter Virtual Library