REPLY 1: EC
The lack of synergy amongst diverse elements within the closed system, the lack of control and the lack of output within the system may have contributed to the marginal results.
Identify and discuss instances of an aggregate mentality at work in this case.
Aggregate mentality is first witnessed amongst the subgroups recommendations within the task force whereby no new recommendations to the closed system are made. Whereas one group recommends the taking up of total quality management and another recommends a return to the basics, no effort towards the overhaul of the system is made.
Would Karen today describer her school or school system as relatively open or relatively closed? Why? Classify the new model as open or closed. Why?
Karen’s new school model can be termed as a relatively open system. An open school system interacts with its environment constantly and is made up of five elementary elements namely feedback, inputs, output, the environment and the transformation process. From the proposed new system structure the teachers who become guides, motivators, advisers and managers deviate from their traditional role of content disseminators as they interact with their learning environment in a whole new way. In their new role the guides interact in the system. The new system is equally interactive by involving videodisks, interactive computers, projects, learning labs among others. The latter system is a classic closed system which is diametrically opposite to Karen’s school system. A closed system is one that has limited interaction with other systems outside the environment and as such Karen’s model is an open system.
Discuss the feedback mechanisms that exist in the new school model.
In the new model, guides who are the teachers, motivators and managers are the major feedback points for the students. Other than the recording each student’s unique educational goals, feedback is obtained by equally matching the goals to educational resources made by the guides. Additionally, by this matching, students can be clustered and their progress monitored.
Does the new school model appear to invite chaos or amplify variety? Discuss why.
The new model is bound to augment student performance due to a shift from the traditional mode of instruction which is non interactive. However, chaos may ensue due to the lack of proper and clear metrics to measure performance of both the guides and the students as is the case with a closed system.
In what ways does the new school model apply the following systems concepts?
Input-throughput-output
Synergy
Leading part and emergence
Dynamic homeostasis
Equifinality
Reaching the end using numerous means such as changing the teachers roles to motivators and advisors helps the students pass through their developmental goals.
Negentropy
Order is achieved by grouping the students in clusters while monitoring their progress.
Karen's group has proposed an extensive revision of the traditional approach to the operation of schools. If her group is to function as a lead part of the school system in the effort to deal with its problems, what steps might it take to move the district toward their vision? What might help her group function as a lead part in the effort? What might impede her group's effectiveness? How might impedances be dealt with?
Karen should involve the relevant stakeholders and encourage them by presenting the gains made from their new approach. By presenting their documented feedbacks and student achievements through the four developmental stages, her team can take lead in the change process. However, the faced challenges such as difficulties in measuring the students’ progress other than using the developmental stages will prove to be challenging. By presenting suggestions of improving the four developmental stages within K–12 and also by proposing better suggestions of managing the student’s clusters, the impedances will be resolved.
REPLY 1
Additional research on school systems- Reply
According to Ahrweiler, (2011) schools form social systems that allow two or more people to work together in a concerted manner in order to achieve a common goal. Similar to Karen’s new school model, open systems are mostly applied to public schools systems. However, the degree with which such systems interact with the environment differs. Other than the environment, the four elements of open systems comprise of inputs, outputs, a feedback mechanism and a transformation process. In Karen’s new school model, albeit it was effective and emulated for the other subgroups, it was deficient in its feedback mechanism and as such, proper alterations are needed for the her model in order to offer an efficient feedback mechanism. However, in as much challenges were witnessed in Karen’s new school model, negative feedbacks from either the environment or output can be effectual in rectifying issues with the input or the transformation process of the system.
REPLY 2: JF
System theory considers organizations as interacting parts of a whole (Razik & Swanson, 2010). The school district in which Karen Avery worked faced a variety of problems from inside and outside the system. The task force was designed to divide the system into individual parts without considering the interaction between the parts and the problems. The subgroups found piecemeal solutions to different problems, but not a comprehensive solution that would initiate substantial positive changes in the school district. The solutions lacked synergy and would not be sustainable.
Identify and discuss instances of an aggregate mentality at work in this case.
An aggregate mentality existed in the formation of subgroups to develop solutions to different problems. Each group worked from an aggregate mentality by taking a different perspective and developing solutions from that perspective only. However, no group proposed a solution that addressed all the needs of the students, parents, school staff, and administrators. The groups addressed different issues and developed different approaches that were not compatible and would not enable the parts of the system to work together.
Would Karen today describe her school or school system as relatively open or relatively closed? Why? Classify the new model as open or closed. Why?
Karen would identify the school system as relatively open. Karen brought to her team information on systems theory from outside the system to develop a new structure for the school district. The new structure integrates outside resources and ideas from parents and the community. The district uses computer programs and videos to transfer information to students. Parents participate in developing learning goals. The system would be more open if teachers and administrators reviewed journals or other resources to find new methods and strategies for teaching. The case study does not include this information.
Discuss the feedback mechanisms that exist in the new school model.
In the new school model guides, parents, students, and the master guide provide feedback. Guides work together in clusters to give feedback and make decisions together. Parents’ feedback is in the form of goal setting and selection of the successful clusters. Students work together to help each other learn and participate in the success of the cluster by communicating their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the group. The master guide leads the cluster and provides feedback on performance. The model provides many opportunities for evaluation and a variety of ideas from different sources.
Does the new school model appear to invite chaos or amplify variety? Discuss why.
The model Karen proposed seems to be chaotic on the surface, but actually allows for organized variety. The concept of equifinality proposes that different methods could be used to reach the same goal and a single method could result in different outcomes. Karen’s model takes advantage of a variety of methods to reach each student’s goals. The guides carefully set goals and the strategies for reaching the goals. The system provides a variety of feedback mechanisms that guide the learning process. The result is an adaptive learning environment based on students’ needs.
In what ways does the new school model apply the following systems concepts? Karen's group has proposed an extensive revision of the traditional approach to the operation of schools. If her group is to function as a lead part of the school system in the effort to deal with its problems, what steps might it take to move the district toward their vision? What might help her group function as a lead part in the effort? What might impede her group's effectiveness? How might impedances be dealt with?
Input-throughput-output- the input-throughput-output concept is a simple model that identifies the basic components of systems theory (Razik & Swanson, 2010). Inputs are the resources that go into the system including feedback from the system and outside the system. Throughputs are the transformations to the inputs. Outputs are the outcome of the inputs going through the process. The new school model has many inputs including teachers, parents, students, computer programs, and community involvement. Throughputs are the process the guides use to set goals and determine methods, parents selecting the best clusters, as well as the process of students learning cooperatively. Outputs include community and parent satisfaction with the school, academic success for the students, and job satisfaction for teachers, staff and administration.
Synergy- Razik & Swanson (2010) defined synergy as the parts of a system coming together to accomplish more than they could individually. The interaction of the parts adds energy and value to enhance the outcome. Karen promoted synergy in the new model by developing opportunities for teachers, parents and students to interact. In the school model, the guides, students, and parents worked together to increase the outputs of the system. The school achieved a higher level of performance by working together than they would have as a traditional school with classes working in virtual isolation.
Leading part and emergence- leading parts stimulate change (Razik & Swanson, 2010). The leading part will emerge when the system is ready for change. Karen was a leading part as she brought new information into the school system and stimulated change. The parents are leading parts when they select the best clusters and eliminate the unsuccessful groups. Parents initiate a process that changes the system and allows it to grow. The school could become a leading part in the community if it stimulates change in the school system.
Dynamic homeostasis- the stable process of change is dynamic homeostasis (Razik & Swanson, 2010). Leading parts initiate change in response to feedback, which guides the system to make positive changes to accomplish goals. Inputs from outside the system and feedback from within the system provide for consistent growth.
Equifinality- equifinality states that a variety of processes could lead to the same outcome and different outcomes could result from one process (Razik & Swanson, 2010). Equifinality is apparent in Karen’s school through the collaboration and feedback of the teachers, students and parents. Guides of different clusters act on feedback from parents and students to decide how to help students learn. The system does not mandate a particular method to use but allows teachers to respond to the needs of students.
Negentropy- negentropy is the system’s resistance to decline that develops from feedback (Razik & Swanson, 2010). New inputs into the system are chosen based on feedback, which guides the system toward the most beneficial inputs and processes. The process keeps the system growing and prevents decline.
Karen emerged as a leading part when she learned to apply systems theory to her school. As other schools witness the positive changes at Karen’s school, they will realize the need for change in the whole school system. Members of Karen’s school could share their knowledge with other schools and become leading parts in the system wide change. Members of Karen’s school would need to be aware of the concept of equifinality and understand that other schools may develop systems that do not mirror their system. The teachers, students and parents in other schools may have different needs and goals. They could use a different process to reach the same outcome.
REPLY 2
Professional personal experience regarding systems-Reply
In order to successfully implement a system, four kinds of resources are essential which are obtained from the environment. These include a good finical backing, physical and human resources and the presence of information resources. Additionally, the input process in an open system requires technology and administrative functions in order for the transformation process to be effectively implemented. Consequentially, it is through the interactive process which occurs between teachers and students that enables the students to become learned people who can engage in meaningful activity in the society. Therefore, it is vital to measure student’s output in order to gauge the impact of a system. Output in this regard comprises of the attitudes, skills, capabilities or knowledge of the students. Finally, contributing energy into a system is effectual in forming a cycle which is vital in sustaining a system. For instance, inputs are effectual in instructing students who later on move to the outside environment of a system. These students who now graduate can then make meaningful contributions to the system by contributing with one or other forms of resources including information, human, finances or physical resources. These contributions to the system constitute new energy taken into a school system and it can lead to new cycles.
Reference
Ahrweiler, P. (2011). Innovation in complex social systems. New York, NY:Taylor & Francis.
