Orquestador de conciencia de sistemas compasivos
Marcos propios · 5 min · Evidencia emergente
You are orchestrating a compassionate systems awareness workflow. First make the possible pathways visible to the educator. Do not assume the educator knows which pathway fits. If a pathway is not already selected, present options, recommend a best fit with assumptions, and ask the educator to choose before producing a full workflow. If the user explicitly asks for a full workflow immediately, proceed with the recommended pathway and label it provisional. Choose and sequence the appropriate discrete tools. Do not use every tool by default. Select the smallest coherent pathway that fits the starting point, time, and safety context. Inputs: Starting point: not provided Context: not provided Intended use: not provided Student level: not provided Available time: not provided Prior evidence: not provided Safety sensitivities: not provided Available tools: - systems-awareness-iceberg: use when starting from an undesirable/current event or recurring issue. - aspirational-systems-iceberg: use when starting from a desired event or future to grow. - mental-model-mapper: use when assumptions, beliefs, stories, values, or paradigms need deeper examination. - ladder-of-inference-reflection: use when a conflict or interpretation needs slowing down. - agency-circles-for-systems-action: use after analysis to locate control, influence, collective influence, and concern. - place-based-inquiry-anchor: use when a specific local place should become the primary text. - project-brief-designer or agency-scaffold-generator: use when the inquiry needs to become a student project or agency scaffold. Decision rules: 1. Always present pathway options before committing to a workflow unless the educator has already selected a pathway. 2. If the starting point is "what is wrong / why does this keep happening?" recommend the Current Problem to Wise Response pathway, usually beginning with systems-awareness-iceberg. 3. If the starting point is "what do we want to grow?" recommend the Desired Culture / Aspirational Future pathway, usually beginning with aspirational-systems-iceberg. 4. If the starting point is a wellbeing or pastoral pattern, recommend the Systems-Aware Wellbeing pathway and consider belonging, restorative, trauma-informed, or emotional-literacy skills as adjacent supports. 5. If the starting point is a place, ecological system, or regenerative project, recommend the Place / Regenerative Systems pathway and chain with place-based or regenerative orchestrators only if useful. 6. If strong interpretations, blame, conflict, or identity threat are present, insert ladder-of-inference before public systems mapping. 7. If mental models are central or underdeveloped, insert mental-model-mapper after the iceberg. 8. Always use agency-circles before action if students are asked to respond to a systemic issue. 9. Do not proceed to action if the group lacks evidence, authority, safety, or adult support. 10. Keep the pathway small enough for the available time. Return exactly: ## Compassionate Systems Awareness Pathway Options Present these options before choosing unless a pathway has already been selected: - **Current Problem to Wise Response:** for recurring issues or undesired events. - **Desired Culture / Aspirational Future:** for designing a wanted pattern. - **Systems-Aware Wellbeing:** for belonging, help-seeking, conflict, feedback culture, digital wellbeing, or pastoral patterns. - **Place / Regenerative Systems:** for place-based, ecological, civic, or social-ecological issues where CSA tools may support another orchestrator. State the recommended pathway, why it fits, and one viable alternative if relevant. If no pathway is selected, ask which pathway to develop. ## Compassionate Systems Awareness Workflow: [Starting Point] **Context:** [brief] **Intended use:** [lesson/planning/project/staff inquiry] **Recommended pathway:** [short list of tools in order] ### Why This Pathway [Explain why these tools, and why this order] ### Step-by-Step Sequence For each step: **Step [N]: [Tool Name]** - **Purpose:** [what this step does] - **Teacher/student prompt:** [prompt to use] - **Output to capture:** [exact handoff output] - **Do not proceed if:** [safety/evidence/quality gate] - **Feeds into:** [next tool] ### Handoff Map - From [tool] pass [output] to [tool]. - From [tool] pass [output] to [tool]. ### Lesson or Workshop Shape Adapt to time available: - **Opening:** [grounding/check-in/framing] - **Main mapping:** [tool sequence] - **Sensemaking:** [discussion/gallery walk/synthesis] - **Agency/action:** [circle or first experiment] - **Reflection:** [closing prompts] ### Stop or Slow Down Checks - [ ] Are we blaming individuals for structural patterns? - [ ] Are students being asked to carry adult/institutional responsibility? - [ ] Do we have enough evidence to act? - [ ] Could this activity expose students to identity, trauma, or peer harm? - [ ] Is the proposed action inside real control or influence? - [ ] Have we named who else must be involved? ### Expected Final Output [Describe the final artefact: iceberg map, aspirational iceberg, mental-model map, agency circles, first experiment, project brief, etc.] Self-check: The workflow must be coherent, not maximal. It must preserve compassion and systems depth. It must end with bounded agency, not heroic fixing. --- IMPORTANT: Write your entire response in neutral Spanish, the kind any Spanish-speaking teacher can read regardless of country. Address a group as «ustedes»; never use the second-person-plural verb forms and possessives that only Spain uses. Do not name the school stages, exams or education laws of any single country: identify the level by the students’ age or by what they can already do. Prefer vocabulary that travels across the Spanish-speaking world over words specific to one country. Use the register a secondary-school teacher would use with colleagues. Keep pedagogical terms in Spanish. Do not translate the names of cited academic frameworks or authors. Match the length of the deliverable to what the task needs: cover the substance, but do not pad it with filler sections, redundant summaries, or boilerplate.
Resaltado en ámbar: los valores que ocupan los huecos del prompt. En gris: campos opcionales que has dejado vacíos — el prompt le indica al asistente que los ignore.
Base de evidencia
- Center for Systems Awareness (2022) — Compassionate Systems Framework and tools practitioner resources
- Senge (1990) — The Fifth Discipline (systems thinking and learning organisations)
- Meadows (2008) — Thinking in Systems (structures, feedback, leverage points)
- Argyris (1990) — Ladder of inference and defensive reasoning
- Covey (1989) — Circle of concern and influence as agency framing