[From Rick Marken (991223.0815)]
Me:
So could you tell me what it is about PCT that would lead one
to expect that asking the RTP questions in a calm, respectful,
curious tone would lead a kid to quiet introspection; and why
that is where the real change in human beings takes place?
Bruce Nevin (991220.1813 EST)--
I think it's what we've been calling "going up a level."
I can't believe that the teachers are supposed to do the
method of levels (MOL) on the spot, in class with disruptive
kids by asking pre-canned questions. But if this is the case,
I would like to see evidence that these rapid MOL sessions
are actually taking place. Transcripts of some of these
in-class MOL sessions would be very interesting to see.
I believe that's what Ed and Tom think, but I don't know.
Why don't you ask them?
Because 1) I am having this conversation with you 2) Ed and
Tom are not on CSGNet and 3) as far as I know, Tom doesn't
want to hear from me.
Bruce N.
Would you like it if people were not defensive and
aggressive when you talk or write to them, but instead
stopped and thought?
Me:
Of course!
I want to know the secret, of course.
Is this a Masonic thing?
Bruce N.
Empirical observation and test might verify whether kids are
in interpersonal conflict with a coercive teacher or are
going up a level and resolving conflict of other kinds.
This still doesn't tell how I can get people to stop and think
rather than be defensive and aggressive when I talk or write to
them. But it does lead me to wonder why the RTP people themselves
are not doing the empirical observation and testing to determine
whether kids are in interpersonal conflict with a coercive teacher
or are going up a level and resolving conflict. I've seen no
data on this. All I've seen are reports of lower violence rates
in schools where RTP is implemented. This is very nice to hear
but I've seen the same kinds of data reported for many other
programs -- behavior mod programs, cognitive behavior therapy
programs, etc. In fact, I think you'd be hard pressed to find
_any_ program that has _not_ found data that prove itself to be
a huge success.
Critique of pedagogical texts and of RTP philosophy
statements has little or no scientific value.
Why not? Isn't RTP an application that is supposed to be based
on a scientific theory with a pretty strong empirical base?
Can't we critique, say, an applied physics text (such as a
satellite operations manual) in terms of the relevant science
without having to watch the satellite operations center in
person? If the manual says to calculate a state vector in
the wrong way, then the manual is wrong. If the satellites are
actually staying on orbit then we _know_ that the orbit ops
people are _not_ calculating state vectors in the manner
described in the manual. I think this is precisely analogous
to the situation with RTP. The RTP ops manual tells teachers
to control disruptive students in class. I'm questioning
this aspect of the RTP ops manual on the basis of PCT science.
My guess is that observation of actual school ops (where
RTP is working) will show that teachers are not following
the ops manual.
The data I need are not data that can be easily obtained
from a single school visit, since there is no guarantee
that I will witness any teachers dealing with disruptive
students. The data I need can only be obtained from
people who are observing RTP ops in many classrooms over
long periods of time; I need to see how teachers are
_actually_ dealing with disruptions.
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken Phone or Fax: 310 474-0313
Life Learning Associates mailto: rmarken@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~rmarken