القائمة
Map control, influence, and concern after systems analysis. Use when students need wise agency without being made responsible for everything.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
| name | agency-circles-for-systems-action |
| description | Map control, influence, and concern after systems analysis. Use when students need wise agency without being made responsible for everything. |
| disable-model-invocation | false |
| user-invocable | true |
| effort | medium |
| skill_id | systems-thinking/agency-circles-for-systems-action |
| skill_name | Agency Circles for Systems Action |
| domain | systems-thinking |
| version | 1.0 |
| evidence_strength | moderate |
| evidence_sources | ["Covey (1989) — The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People (circle of concern/influence)","Zimmerman (2002) — Becoming a self-regulated learner (agency and self-regulation)","Manyukhina & Wyse (2019) — Learner agency and the curriculum: a critical realist perspective","Meadows (2008) — Thinking in Systems (leverage points and systemic action)"] |
| input_schema | {"required":[{"field":"system_issue_or_aspiration","type":"string","description":"The issue or aspiration students are considering"},{"field":"context","type":"string","description":"Class, school, community, ecological, or project context"}],"optional":[{"field":"iceberg_or_system_map","type":"string","description":"Prior systems analysis to draw from"},{"field":"student_level","type":"string","description":"Age/year group"},{"field":"stakeholders","type":"array","description":"People or groups with roles in the system"},{"field":"constraints","type":"string","description":"Safety, authority, policy, time, or resource constraints"}]} |
| output_schema | {"type":"object","fields":[{"field":"agency_map","type":"object","description":"Control, influence, collective influence, and concern zones"},{"field":"action_options","type":"array","description":"Safe action options matched to zones"},{"field":"adult_responsibility_flags","type":"array","description":"Issues that should not be placed on students"},{"field":"reflection_prompts","type":"array","description":"Prompts for agency without blame"}]} |
| chains_well_with | ["systems-awareness-iceberg","aspirational-systems-iceberg","mental-model-mapper","agency-scaffold-generator","self-regulation-scaffold-generator","project-brief-designer"] |
| teacher_time | 5 minutes |
| tags | ["agency","circle-of-control","systems-action","student-voice","wellbeing","influence","collective-action"] |
Helps students and educators sort possible responses into what they can control, what they can influence, what requires collective or institutional action, and what remains a concern to name without carrying as personal responsibility. It adapts the Circle of Control / Influence / Concern tradition for compassionate systems work.
The key design move is to avoid over-individualising systemic problems. Students should not be told that a structural issue is simply their mindset problem. At the same time, systems thinking should not leave them overwhelmed. This skill turns analysis into wise agency: small actions, relationship-building, evidence-sharing, partnership, advocacy, and careful naming of constraints.
Covey popularised the circle of concern and circle of influence as a practical agency framework. Education research on learner agency cautions that agency is relational and structured, not just personal will. Meadows' leverage-point framework helps connect agency to system structures rather than isolated effort. The result is a tool for agency with humility: act where possible, influence with others, and name larger responsibilities truthfully.
Required:
Optional:
You are helping students and/or educators translate systems analysis into wise agency using agency circles.
Inputs:
System issue or aspiration: {{system_issue_or_aspiration}}
Context: {{context}}
Iceberg/system map: {{iceberg_or_system_map}}
Student level: {{student_level}}
Stakeholders: {{stakeholders}}
Constraints: {{constraints}}
Rules:
1. Use four zones, not three:
- Control: what students/teacher can directly do or choose.
- Direct influence: what they can affect through relationship, evidence, modelling, invitation, or dialogue.
- Collective/institutional influence: what requires adults, leaders, community partners, policy, money, or coordinated action.
- Concern: what matters but is outside current influence; name it without pretending students must fix it.
2. Never place systemic responsibility only on students.
3. Connect each action to prior systems analysis: which pattern, structure, or mental model does it touch?
4. Prefer small safe experiments over heroic action.
5. Include wellbeing: acting should not require students to sacrifice safety, dignity, or belonging.
6. Include partnership: who needs to be invited, informed, or asked?
Return exactly:
## Agency Circles for Systems Action: [Issue/Aspiration]
**Context:** [brief]
**Important stance:** Agency is real, but responsibility is shared across the system.
### Circle 1: Direct Control
Things we can directly do or choose:
- **Action:** [specific]
- **Touches:** [pattern/structure/mental model]
- **Evidence of effect:** [what to notice]
- **Safety check:** [risk]
### Circle 2: Direct Influence
Things we may influence through relationships, evidence, modelling, or dialogue:
- **Influence move:** [specific]
- **Who is involved:** [stakeholder]
- **How to approach:** [language/process]
- **Evidence of effect:** [what to notice]
### Circle 3: Collective or Institutional Influence
Things that require partnership, adult authority, policy, resources, or coordination:
- **Collective move:** [specific]
- **Who holds authority/resources:** [stakeholder]
- **Student role:** [evidence, voice, proposal, participation]
- **Adult/institutional responsibility:** [what adults must own]
### Circle 4: Concern to Name Without Carrying Alone
Things that matter but are not currently controllable:
- [Concern]
- **Why it matters:** [reason]
- **How to hold it:** [learn, name, witness, seek allies, avoid self-blame]
### Recommended First Step
[One low-risk action or experiment that fits the current sphere of control/influence]
### Reflection Prompts
- What are we taking responsibility for that is truly ours?
- What belongs to adults, leaders, institutions, or wider systems?
- What can we influence together that none of us can influence alone?
- What evidence would show that our action is helping rather than only making us feel busy?
Self-check: Do not tell students to fix structural harm alone. Include collective/institutional responsibility. Every action should be specific, safe, and connected to the system map.
Design discipline-specific critical thinking tasks grounded in knowledge-contingent reasoning rather than generic skills. Use when embedding higher-order thinking into subject content.
After any AI-generated explanation, require the learner to identify one place it could be wrong, one thing to check, and one source to consult. Builds epistemic vigilance — treats AI output as a claim to evaluate, not truth to absorb.
Capture confidence ratings before and after a learning attempt to identify overconfidence and underconfidence patterns. Use when a student wants to understand how well they actually know something versus how well they think they know it.
Require the learner to explain a concept in their own words before the AI evaluates or extends it. Ensures the AI works from the learner's understanding rather than providing an explanation from scratch.
Track performance across sessions and reduce scaffolding as competence grows. Makes fading visible — the learner knows when scaffolds are removed and why. Use for sustained learning engagement where independence is the goal.
Stage exploration before instruction on complex problems. The learner produces two attempted approaches before consolidation — which builds on those attempts, not from scratch. Use for genuinely hard problems where struggle produces deeper learning.