cisa schools

SOFT SYSTEMS APPROACH TO HIGHER EDUCATION 

ROOT DEFINITION & CATWOE MODEL

 By 

VIKRAM KARVE 

 

ROOT DEFINITION

 

The first step in Soft Systems Methodology ( SSM ) is to formulate the Root Definition of the System you are studying, analysing or designing. 

A Root Definition is a structured description of a system. It is a clear statement of activities which take place (or might take place) in the organisation being studied. 

A properly structured root definition comprises three elements [what, how, why] and is of the form: A System to do X, by (means of) Y, in order to achieve Z. 

X – What the System does

Y – How it does it

Z – Why it is being done 

The ‘what’ is the immediate aim of the system,

The ‘how’ is the means of achieving that aim,

The ‘why’ is the longer term aim of the purposeful activity. 

CATWOE analysis helps in proper formulation of a Root Definition. CATWOE is a mnemonic which helps identify and categorize all stakeholders [people, processes, environment, entities] of the System being analysed for formulating the Root Definition.

 

CATWOE MODEL 

 

C = CUSTOMERS OR CLIENTS

A = ACTORS OR AGENTS

T = TRANSFORMATION PROCESS

W =WELTANSCHAUUNG or WORLD VIEW

O = OWNERS

E = ENVIRONMENT

 

To elaborate a bit: 

C:   The ‘customers of the system’ , clients or System Beneficiaries. In this context ‘customers’ means those who are on the receiving end of whatever it is that the system does. Is it clear from your definition of “C” as to who are the beneficiaries of the system? 

A:   The ‘actors’, meaning those who would actually carry out the activities envisaged in the notional system being defined. Actors transform inputs into outputs.

T:   The ‘transformation process’. What does the system do to the inputs to convert them into the outputs? 

W:   Weltanschauung – The ‘world view’ that lies behind the Root Definition; the perspective from which the Root Definition if formulated. Putting the system into its wider context can highlight the consequences of the overall system. For example the system may be in place to assist in making the world environmentally safer, and the consequences of system failure could be significant pollution. 

O:   The ‘owner(s)’ – The person(s) who has commissioned the system and who has sufficient formal power over the system to stop it existing if they so wished (though they won’t usually want to do this). 

E:   The ‘environmental constraints’. These include things such as ethical limits, regulations, financial constraints, resource limitations, limits set by terms of reference, and so on. 

 

SYSTEM CHARACTERISATION 

CATWOE Analysis yields a more elaborate all encompassing Root Definition of the form:

A System owned by O to do W by A by means of T given the constraints of E in order to achieve X for C. 

[A briefer version – a T system in which A do W for C] 

Here is a CATWOE Model of a hypothetical Higher Education System [a University or College: 

C – Students

A – Teachers

T – School Pass Outs are transformed into Graduates [Degree Holders]

W – Graduation [a Degree] is a means of assurance to potential employers that the Graduate [Degree Holder] possesses a specified standard of proficiency and skills in the domain of qualification.

O – The University or College Governing Body or Top Management

E – The Prescribed Educational, Academic Quality, Assessment and Accreditation Standards and Requirements.

 

EDUCATION SYSTEM ROOT DEFINITION

Now this CATWOE Analysis may yield a Root Definition that this particular Higher Education Institution is a university owned system to award degrees to students (X) who successfully qualify assessment (Y) in accordance with prescribed standards in order to certify assurance (Z) to potential employers that the students possess the requisite proficiency, capabilities and skills.   

 Is this Root Definition accurate and all encompassing or is there something amiss? 

Suppose we define Potential Employers [or Industry] as CUSTOMERS [C] and include students as ACTORS [A] along with teachers – won’t we then get a more apt Root Definition and consequently realise a better Educational System in keeping with current needs and ground reality? 

 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT 

At a recent alumni meet of a prestigious Engineering College I asked a few recently passed out alumni [who were working for a leading IT company for just over a year] as to how much of what was taught in the four year graduate Engineering Degree Course in his college was useful in his work.

The students said: “Less than 5% (five percent)” – which means that his employer had to invest heavily [almost 95%] in induction training and the rest the students had to learn on the job.

Maybe the educational institution needs to introspect and have a relook at its CATWOE Model and reformulate its ROOT DEFINITION and restructure its curriculum and revitalize its pedagogic methodology to seamlessly meet the challenges of current needs and times and bridge the disconnect between the education system and the industry / employers and the other Customers of the Education System.

 

VIKRAM KARVE

Copyright © Vikram Karve 2009

Vikram Karve has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 to be identified as the author of this work. 

http://www.linkedin.com/in/karve 

http://vikramkarve.sulekha.com 

vikramkarve@sify.com

I had some school problems. I was terrified of some teachers, I was shy and I was bullied and mocked as well. In spite of all that, I was a good student and got great results and prizes although I would describe myself as a plodder. I was still able to grow up to be a happy well adjusted adult despite a very unpromising start!

Here are some tips for parents in dealing with school problems. The first one is all about collaborating with the school. I remember one couple who just went berserk when their darling son got into trouble. There were a hundred and one reasons why it was all the school’s fault. Needless to say, their son never did well at school and was a dropout at a fairly early age.

If you discover that your child has school problems which prove that he is acting violently or aggressively, towards other kids, then you have to explain that there are verbal ways which are much more acceptable.

You have to set up consequences for that sort of behavior so that no video games are allowed on the day this happens. Make sure that the consequence is given immediately after the incident rather than the weekend which is too far ahead.

But what happens when you discover that your child has become a bully? The whole problem of bullying and being bullied is one of those school problems which can be difficult to handle.

If you do discover this or even have observed it yourself when picking up kids from school, you may have to get the help of the teacher to solve the problem. Sometimes it is the teacher who alerts the parents.

Then you have to deal with it and talk to your kid or get him to attend some psychotherapy sessions where the child can feel much freer to talk about the whole problem.

I was very interested to read the book Strike One! by Andrea Prostko which deals with this specific issue. It talks about growing up, baseball and bullying and is great read for younger teens. It also provides a platform for talking about this problem. It may be a way to approach it if your kids read!

The best way of all of getting help with school problems and other behavior issues is to look for a really good behavior program. The best one that I have come across is the one written and devised by James Lehman. It is no surprise that it won the Media Parent Tested Parent Approved Award and that it has brought happiness and harmony to many homes across the nation. Why not discover more about this great program by clicking on the link below.

com/articles/10637-creationism-schools

http://www. defendingthetruth. com/articles/10637-creationism-schools-unethical-approach. Html

Science and religion are apparently still at odds with each other. Confronted by the theories of Galileo, the arguments on medical ethics today, science and religion have taken the opposite party. The debate over whether creationism and intelligent design should be taught in schools is an example. These theories have no basis in reality are forced on schools as a strategy to “teach the controversy”. In this paper showed that creationist thinking is not only contrary to the scientific theory, but also the legal and educational standards of the public school system.

Many creationists and evolutionists also claim to teach “the controversy” simply because of an education fair and balanced, but in the concept of this argument is wrong. For example, we should not support the teaching of Holocaust revisionism and conspiracy theories 11:09 to school as “different views” because we can not afford the absurdity of classroom (Scott 3) in force. In perhaps the best known and most famous line, “said Bobby Henderson, a science student of 25 years, science, a letter to the Kansas State Board of School (Education recently approved” alternatives “to the evolution), he approved the decision, but worried whether or not their views are represented. He said he believed a Flying Spaghetti Monster has the universe in a mocking religion and went to a schema summary, it shows the story of the creation of the new religion to send conspicuously marked “Pastafarianism “. By this argument ad absurdum, he proved that we not really teaching all alternatives, so that only the religiously neutral point of view, the development is acceptable (a boxer). It is impossible to take all views into a program, but it is logical to use a view that has generally neutral attitude on personal beliefs.

Besides the fact that theories such as creationism are simply inappropriate in an educational institution. First was the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States is a purely secular government, and form a framework for teaching religiously neutral. By teaching the creationist thought, the principle of separation between church and state is not respected. In the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court reaffirmed this position has ruled that creationism is a religious concept and its teaching in schools is unconstitutional (NSTA 4). Worse, if the two ideas are presented, it blurs the line between reality and fiction. Much of what is considered legitimate in the eyes of the creationists remains very suspicious and prove, if not flat wrong. If it is taught in the classroom, students are a big disadvantage. In essence, they are fed lies disguised as truth. As such, they are not able to distinguish between scientific facts of the pseudo-science (AAAS 4) to determine. Moreover, they do not learn enough information about the facts. Time to learn creationism and Intelligent Design is not a time for learning development. It is also time exposed to ideas in direct opposition to everything that is science, which will be discussed later. On a practical level, students will not be ready for standardized tests, entrance examination to college, and higher education, which all agree on the validity of evolutionary theory (Scott 2). The classroom is a place of learning truth, which means that creationism is undeniable way.

Perhaps the best way to make the mistake of allowing these theories in schools is the error in the theories to show. First and foremost the scientific consensus that evolution is a fact and that the only debate is not whether it happened, but how it goes (AAAS 2). Intelligent design is simply not science at all. Essentially, intelligent design is the idea that the complex aspects of nature that are not written in chalk at random and are thus the product of a “first cause”, which is equivalent to a Supreme Being, who have mental capacity of the design is everything. There were no tests, and there is no evidence of intelligent design. Neither the issue of the scientific, but philosophical. As such, even if it brought from a scientific perspective on the market, is the label of “theory” is inappropriate for intelligent design. Instead, it is better than a hypothesis, a wild guess, essentially, that the reasons invoked with the facts yet. Once there are enough facts to support it, it’s a theory. Similarly, the secular is not the definition of “theory” on the scientific definition. In current terms, is a theory that the same thing as a hypothesis or conclusion. In a scientific context, however, are only theories, ideas, uniform and are not supported by sufficient evidence, but rather to prove the validity (AAAS 2). Creationism itself, the most common form of biblical creationism contradicts the scientific method as well. The science is to explain the world in purely empirical, without resorting to mysticism and superstition. Under the scientific theory that can tell if it’s there, you can explain how and why it exists. (Scott 2) Creationism is fundamentally flawed perversion of the scientific process. First, creationism uses a hypothesis assumed he was an intelligent designer, which essentially gives a hypothesis, the validity of a fact is that the worst thing that can make all the scientists and action would automatically discredit the theory of the scientific community. This is not a question of science but of religion and it is something you need to remain agnostic to the scientific method. Religious belief is more a matter of personal taste, but not for the scientific process. Second, the thinkers creationist selectively assembling a patchwork of ideas, both proven and unproven, to support their position, while ignoring the fact that is contrary. This “cherry picking” leaves much to be desired, if the theories on uniform data have been screened to critical examination of the market. Third, and perhaps more importantly, not creationism, the intellectual honesty of the scientific process. The goal of science is constantly evolving theories about discovery and experimentation of new knowledge. As such, the scientific reasoning improves with time. Creationism is intended to prove an implied condition that is easily recognized as a fact. There are no reviews in creationist circles, and no further assumptions, it is a hypothesis, it is the validity of a scientific law have given and can not be waived (NSTA 3-4). In principle, creationism and intelligent design can not be taught in science classes simply because they do not as a science not in every sense of the word considered.

Both “theories” of creationism and intelligent design are entirely inappropriate in the classroom. You can not qualify as science, are not confirmed, defeat the purpose of separation between church and state, an unfair preference for Christianity, and not to promote intellectual honesty. They are not acceptable “alternatives” to evolution, and they do not meet the fundamental goal of education as an institution that encourages critical thinking and independent reasoning. If you want to follow their own religious beliefs, then it’s good because that’s their business, but they have neither the authority nor the right to express their beliefs in public, wearing the same thing scientific facts.

Literature Cited

American Academy for the Advancement of Science. “Intelligent Design is not science.” World Religions. 2006th Viewpoints opposing series. OpposingViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Databases. ClarkstownHigh School South Lib, NY. 15th May 2007. http://galenet. galegroup. com / servlet / OVRC? VRSN = 230 & & SU = = = SLB LOCID win16990rpa srchtp Basi & c & c = & a = 17 & Ste esign TBST ts_basic = & tab = 1 & TxB = smart + + + D X3010438219 unscientific and DocNum = & fail = 1 & CB = 1 HAVE

Boxer, Sarah. “But he is intelligent Spaghetti Out There?” The New York Times. August 29, 2005. New York Times. 16th May 2007. http://www. lemonde. com/2005/08/29/arts/design/29mons. html? ex = 1179460800 & en = & ei = 5070 6262e34a96254bc3

Eugenie Scott, interviewed by Leon Lynn. “Creationism should not be included in science programs.” Training. 2000th Viewpoints opposing series. Opposing ViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Databases. ClarkstownHigh School South Lib, NY. 15th May 2007. http://galenet. galegroup. com / servlet / OVRC? VRSN = 230 & & SU = = = SLB LOCID win16990rpa srchtp Basi & c & c = 4 & Ste = 17 & & tab = ts_basic TBST = 1 & = & d = ocNum creationism TxB X3010129231 and do = 0 & = 79 bConts

National Science Teachers Association. “Creationism should be excluded from science classes.” Formation. Opposite Viewpoints series. Opposing ViewpointsResourceCenter. Gale Databases. ClarkstownHigh School South Lib, NY. 15th May 2007. Http://galenet. Galegroup. Com / servlet / OVRC? VRSN = 230 & & SU = = = SLB LOCID win16990rpa srchtp Basi & c & c = 1 & Ste = 17 & & tab = ts_basic TBST = TxB = 1 & Creationism + + + Hould & s = X3010129260 be excluded and not be DocNum = 1 & bConts = 1

Under the television influence of prime shows like CSI: Miami, a lot of people’s imagination has been fired simply by the possibility of new professions in law enforcement. A lot of pupils are actually applying for forensics lessons in middle schools and high schools. The opinions in favor and against such programs are divided and a hot argument has been initiated.

The advocates of forensics courses declare that such programs keep kids and adolescents’ fascination vivid, but right now there are other critical voices that fear this may result in converting violence into something sensational. Furthermore, the actual ethical inquiries would be more or less disturbing and also the moral concerns are not to be overlooked at all.

The actual procedure for forensics lessons should be very careful and schools should primarily focus on training people for a good social and citizen life. Thoughts differ even amongst teachers. The creation of the subject within the curriculum has already involved the implication of two hundred United states teachers in forensics classes.

Regardless of the concerns involved, several very good results have been announced as well. Common biology will barely trigger the same kind of student involvement as forensics classes. Numerous parents will still object to the courses, and it appears that the controversy is not even close to over.

When science is the principal interest and not physical violence and the sensation it generates, then forensics lessons might have a future and prove pertinent to educational objectives. The actual pupils perception of these courses will undoubtedly be swayed by the teacher’s collection of didactic resources.

A further clarification is essential here also: forensics classes elective, not required. Students might not enlist for them if their mother and father have objections or should they be not enthusiastic about the topic. No matter the case, forensic courses are new stuff and not exactly progressive in terms of social impact.

To be sincere, it is very hard to assume an objective position in relation with forensics lessons, and even those who consider they could remain neutral, may have mixed emotions about such enterprises. On the 1 hand we may express concern about the future of schooling, but alternatively it is pretty obvious why such courses are appealing and interesting.

Science seems to receive much more focus when it is analyzed within the context of criminal justice, but who is to blame for the problem? The answer to these dilemmas is most definately not simple or easy, nevertheless one thing is for certain, alterations are taking place right before our eye balls and at times there’s nothing we can do about them. We could either agree to it or combat it!