Replying to LO26744 --
Dear Organlearners,
Leo Minnigh <l.d.minnigh@library.tudelft.nl> writes:
>THE 7 steps?! Are there always seven steps?
>And always the same in the same order?
>Seven?! Or eleven, three, ten?
>
>Is Hua Ming referring to something that I am not aware of?
>Or is it you, Rick?
Greetings dear Leo,
I am still smiling at the way in which you responded, although this very
way caused me a long time to decide whether I should respond or not. It
seems as if you are shocked, but also as if you want to encourage fellow
learners to think seriously whether there is not a deeper problem in what
has been written.
I myself ought to respond to the SEVEN steps of problem-solving, but I
want to respond to the deeper problem which I am aware of. I did a lot of
research and publications on problem-solving. It took me many years to
develop an algorithm having three major steps and several minor steps in
each major step. Today, knowing how the seven essentialities are related
to each other, it would be easy for me to reorganise that algorithm into
seven major steps.
This algorithm helped students a lot in solving "rote (artificial)
problems". With rote (artificial) problems I mean problems which have been
solved before by others and which the students have to solve once again as
if original problems. My publications have also been cited in several
other publications on problem solving. But what ought to have been a
source of pride, gradually became a source of frustration to me. The
"solving of rote problems" soon became the "rote solving of problems".
Let me explain it somewhat further. The algorithm was presented as a
"flexible procedure" for solving any problem, whether authentic or solved
previously by somebody else. By "flexible procedure" I mean a process
(becoming) which had to be adapated from problem to problem as the problem
requires. But far to soon students began to use the algorithm as a "rigid
prescription" guaranteed to solve any problem. By "rigid prescription" I
mean a structure (being) which will always ensure success. In a "flexible
procedure" the content of the problem determines the form which its
solution will follow. But in a "rigid prescription" the students want only
problems of such a content that their solutions will follow a rigid form.
To prevent this perversion of the "flexible procedure" of the algorithm
into a "rigid prescription" I began to design problems very difficult to
solve by the "rigid prescription" way of thinking. Many students became
increasingly annoyed of having to solve these latter problems. Meanwhile
the difference between "rote problem solving" and "authentic problem
solving" became clearer to me. I began to understand that whatever the
algorithm given for problem-solving, the worst which could happen is when
this algorithm is taken as a recipe for solving problems.
Leo, I wonder if it is this lack in the creativity of problem-solving
which made you write in such a distinctive manner. What toubles me is the
word "skill" in the title of the topic. Etymologically it is related to
words like "scull" and "sc(h)o(o)l", coming via the old Norse from an
Indo-European word which meant cranium. (In Afrikaans and Dutch we still
find this word in "skedel" while the word "skool" is usually related to
the Latin "scholium" rather than the Norse "skol".)
The general meaning of "skill" was, if it is not any more, to use all the
powers of the mind to produce something creatively. Art, science and
technology involved skill. However, it nowadays seems to me that skill
means something different, namely to do something without involving any
more all the powers of mind. As soon as an attempt is made to link skill
with its present meaning to the idea of creativity, the person needing a
skill often gets upset.
I am not sure at all how other fellow learners think about this issue. But
I am reasonably sure that the "marketing, whether for money or academical
status" of many a problem-solving procedure gives the impression that
little power of the mind is required to execute that procedure. In other
words, as the skill in marketing increases, the skill of that which has
been marketed, decreases proportionally. What a shocking problem do we
have here!
I can only say in terms of my own experiences over many decades -- solving
problems authentically has never been simple and easy for me. This is why
I seriously question the "skilled marketing" of any articulated
problem-solving procedure, including my own algorithm. If I ever have to
present it again as if never having done it before, I would stress that it
is the most complex and mentally exhaustive procedure available -- many
have tried it, but few have survived it.
But I wonder how long this will work since "survivor shows" are making
their appearances increasingly on the media. Furthermore, even the selling
of complexity is becoming a lucrative business. The art of Homer which has
inspired the world for 2500 years has finally been perverted into banal
commodities to reap off the poor so that the rich can even become more
richer.
Dear Leo, I know that I have been judgemental above. But I want to cry out
that the marketing of any becoming as "seven easy lessons" (including
growing in the the seven essentialities!) rather than "one endless hard
lesson" is becoming to heavy for me to bear without the indignation which
it deserves. I believe we should take utmost care of our mentality and
creativity, otherwise we may lose them forever in a world having gone mad.
It is for me far better to be mentally rich and materially poor rather
than the other way around. Whether I have gone mad or those marketing for
lower order gains have gone mad, somewhere madness is involved.
>Please could you inform me somewhat more.
>I have some ideas about problem solving, but
>don't know how to match this with your question.
I would very much like to "hear" your own ideas.
I should have written "read", but having to read rather than to hear is
another authentic problem for me in any written dialogue when the
commuting of information is slow and erratic.
With care and best wishes
--At de Lange <amdelange@gold.up.ac.za> Snailmail: A M de Lange Gold Fields Computer Centre Faculty of Science - University of Pretoria Pretoria 0001 - Rep of South Africa
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.