Replying to LO30652 --
Dear Dr. Dash,
Thank you first off for your kind words and encouragement! I am impressed
that I have received more comments of the encouraging kind than of the
disparaging kind. Thank you!
The problem of coercion seems to me to be again, between the type one and
type two models. Type one models, at least in theology and other
pedagogical areas as well, point toward a traditional stance. For
example, the teacher in a traditional classroom with the teacher in front
and the students all facing her. By its definition, a traditional model
but yet it seems that a transitional model is in order.
There seems to me to be a helpful step in the right direction in the area
of Action science. This double loop approach allows for the Type one
model to be utilized but for alternatives to be laid out upon the table.
For example, The group agrees to do someting in progressing toward a set
of goals. The leader/teacher/learner is constantly in the process of
laying out alternatives while still helping the group the process some of
their "traditional" thinking. It limits the coercion by masking it.
Once masked, the teaching that is taking place "plants" suggestions, as
alternatives, toward the actual creative event planned by the
leader/teacher/learner in the first place.
Again, thank you for the help that you have been here. Your discussion
affirms my own thought also. This has worked for me but I was unaware
that it was codified in action science.
Yours,
Rev. E.W. Rogosky
Western Pa. Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church
--"Edward W. Rogosky" <ewr51@adelphia.net>
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.