Thinking Tools/Frameworks vs.Discussion
Thinking tools/frameworks improve thinking skill much more than discussion does. One reason is that in discussion it's very difficult to pay attention to the thinking process rather than the content (because the content is interesting).
Understanding vs Use (of the thinking tools)
Understanding will never lead to use. Use can only come from habit and habit can only come from practice.
Understanding vs Use (of the thinking tools)
Understanding will never lead to use. Use can only come from habit and habit can only come from practice.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Phil Bachmann on -
Good point raised by Dr de Bono. Now I suggest that we make thinking exercises more fun so that more people will attempt them.
It seems to me that just because thinking is open-ended doesn't mean that thinking exercises need to be. For example, here is a thinking exercise:
"How many very different uses for a pencil can you think of?"
This question is going to cause unnecessary stress, in my opinion. The student is going to wonder “How many is enough?”
Alternatively: "Think of three very different uses for a pencil."
... seems much better. When the task is complete the student knows it, feels a sense of achievement and is empowered to move onto the next question.
Now thinking is sometimes compared to skiing or playing tennis. A novice skier on an advanced slope is not going to have fun. Putting a professional tennis player in a kiddie competition is not much of a challenge for him. Putting people randomly into situations where they don’t know the skill level required is no fun either. Key to making an activity enjoyable involves organising tasks into various skill levels, and then allowing participants to choose an appropriate level for them.
APC Level 1:
"Think of two very different uses for a pencil."
APC Level 4:
"Think of seven very different uses for a pencil."
---------------------------
Perhaps members of The de Bono Society could contribute to a central pool of thinking exercises that are then graded. These exercises and then completed by members of the society and badges awarded for completing stages.
Because there are so many de Bono ideas one could well imagine that part of the requirement for earning badges would involve knowing what the various concepts and codes mean. Entry level students might only be required to know that OPV means "Other Peoples' Views" without actually having to do one.
-
Permalink Reply by Charlotte Fairchild on -
Limiting time and space for the pencil question meets what need?
A never ending story has fans.
-
Permalink Reply by Andy on -
Interesting post, Phil!
You said:
You can design practice items to be fun, as long as they are of the four types here.(...) I suggest that we make thinking exercises more fun so that more people will attempt them.
You said:
This can also be solved in another way than you suggest: Dr. de Bono says that a strict time discipline removes the anguish in thinking and also makes you focus better and not think about other things. 5 or 3 minutes or even 30 seconds may seem a short time at first but is not so when you have practiced the tools for some time. 'After all, complicated dreams are supposed to take place within seconds of real time'. (This was my reply to a post by Dennis Perrin)(...) just because thinking is open-ended doesn't mean that thinking exercises need to be (...)
"How many very different uses for a pencil can you think of?" This question is going to cause unnecessary stress, in my opinion. The student is going to wonder “How many is enough?”
You said:
Practice item can be too difficult for you, but not the other way around:In the CoRT Thinking Lessons (CD), section 2, teaching points (1), heading 'Shallowness', dr. de Bono writes:Now thinking is sometimes compared to skiing or playing tennis. A novice skier on an advanced slope is not going to have fun. Putting a professional tennis player in a kiddie competition is not much of a challenge for him. Putting people randomly into situations where they don’t know the skill level required is no fun either. Key to making an activity enjoyable involves organising tasks into various skill levels, and then allowing participants to choose an appropriate level for them.One teacher said that one group of students were so capable that they could do all the practice items in the lesson in five minutes. They probably could. But much more able thinkers might have spent five hours on each item - and in some cases a lifetime.
(...)
Much more common are the apparently simple situations which can be dealt with in a superficial way but which really require far more thinking if they are to be handled properly. Such problems may never appear difficult at all. Students who believe they have no career choice except to follow in their parents footsteps cannot see a "problem” in choosing a career. (...) No situation is too simple to think about in depth.
-
Permalink Reply by Phil Bachmann on
-
Anders,
You said that my post was interesting then proceeded to refute everything I'd written. What would you have done had you thought my post was stupid?
I know Dr de Bono has advocated the "see how much you can do in X minutes" approach in the past, but I am trying to make the introduction of CoRT etc. to newcomers as easy, painless and fun as possible, with tangible achievement steps along the way. Perhaps Anders you could explain your goals?
I appreciate your point about "No situation is too simple to think about in depth", it is a very worthwhile observation but has no relationship to what I am proposing.
Maybe experienced teachers/trainers could step in here to offer their assessment.
-
Permalink Reply by Andy on
-
Phil,
You're right - dr de Bono says:
For instance, the question "What is a good colour for a car?" is open-ended and the student cannot tell whether the answer grey is better or worse than green. The question "Which colour is easiest to see at night?" allows the students to tell themselves they have found a good answer when they say "red" (although in fact this is wrong). (CoRT Thinking Lessons)
Your suggestion about making the practice items closed-ended can be combined with dr de Bono's suggestion to use a strict time limit.
I wasn't trying to refute anything you said but simply didn't understand in what way you meant that this analogy of yours: 'Putting a professional tennis player in a kiddie competition is not much of a challenge for him.' is helpful (in this context) - considering the quote of dr de Bono on shallowness?
You said:
I appreciate your point about "No situation is too simple to think about in depth", it is a very worthwhile observation but has no relationship to what I am proposing.
I said that in response to the example about the professional tennis player above.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony Alexander on -
I thought he was agreeing, clarifying, and elaborating on what you said :S :S :S
Anyway, one way to sneak thinking tools INTO discussion is to point out when you're using them: e.g.
"Hmm... I wonder if there are other ways to do this",
"Hmm... I wonder if this can work for everyone",
"Hmm... I wonder if this can work in the long-run",
etc.
(It's a success if the other guy says: "Hmmm....")
-
Permalink Reply by Phil Bachmann on
-
Thanks for all comments.
Perhaps members could comment specifically on my stated goal, offering an alternative if they don't agree with it:
..we make thinking exercises more fun so that more people will attempt them.
Wearing my red hat I am irritated that there are teachers around the world being paid decent salaries by helpless taxpayers to teach Six Hats and CoRT, and of them only Kim Jones seems active here offering advice on how to deliver the material in practice.
-
Permalink Reply by tzujan on -
Dear Mr. Bachman, Po- sex, drugs, rock and roll, gossip, controversial topics, could be fun and we'ld have to balance it with attention on the process. Maybe? I love your idea about making the practices fun.
-
Permalink Reply by Andy on
-
You can design enjoyable practice items by making them consist of applying a thinking tool or framework to a situation that you like to think about - while still keeping to the four types of items (here).
-
Permalink Reply by Andy on
-
We can apply the tools to the task of making it as fun as possible to practice them (i.e., to do the practice items): We can do an AGO, and then a CAF on how fun it is to do to a practice item (What factors are involved in how fun it is to do to a practice item? What affects how fun it is to do to a practice item?) One factor is: how interesting the situation that you are applying a tool to is to you. (In the end there should still be a mix of the four types of practice items.)
-
Permalink Reply by Phil Bachmann on
-
Anders,
OK. Well with regard to the AGO I'm not sure what the Admins want from this site - maybe they want training to be done by trainers and this site used as a forum for practise - in which case the following AGO may not apply.
AGO:
For a particular de Bono Tool, make it easy for newcomers to:
- Understand what is required to complete a practise item.
- Make them want to do it.
- Feel that they can do it.
- Once they have done it, make them want to do more.
- Make them want to show others what they have done.
I know that Dennis Perrin did fine on some of the tasks you set him, but what about people who are not as well trained or initially motivated?
© 2013 Created by Administrator.
Powered by
