Interaction

From UpdateNet English

Picture follows

Contents 1 Solution oriented interaction 2 Solution and development oriented interaction doesn’t ask for what has been but what has to come, and it changes concerned people into participants 3 Not asking, saying: but how? 4 Questions as learning impulses 5 Sources, resources, links

Solution oriented interaction

Many things in school happen through language, spoken or written, to communicate knowledge. Teachers are talking as students listen, and that’s how the traditional schooling pattern works. That also means that the teacher actually claims the majority of time. Of course, they teach, but, ‘it shows that teachers aren’t aware of important aspects of their actions’ Andreas Helmke states. ‘Teachers assess themselves as much more reserved, less dominant and more quiet than they really are.’ (Helmke 2006) Teachers had to assess their speaking part in class. This self-perception was compared with videographic data. (See graphic) The differences are striking.

School learning is communication. Now we know we cannot not-communicate (Watzlawick 1985), which leads to the conclusion that we also cannot not-learn. Modern neurobiology provides this confirmation: our brain learns anyway whether we want or not. The only question is: what? Do I develop joy in learning English? Or do I learn English words for the purpose of repetition for tests and exams? The difference lies in the way we communicate in school, and who promotes or hampers the learning processes and with which questions. It is the difference that makes the difference, because looking at it from a theoretical point of view, every change in a system has an influence on the future interplay of all parts of the system.

Communication is about explaining something: may it be goals, the way to get there, needs or conditions – it needs clarity and a direction. ‘I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been’ Wayne Gretzky said and his success in hockey is due to the same principle that should apply for the interaction in school: future instead of past and solutions instead of problems.

The education systems grading and progress tracking (but not only) focuses on pointing out past mistakes and where students failed. Such a search for causes normally ends in pointing fingers and excuses.

School today is still primarily based on the red pen mentality and aims for the losers. The red pen is a visible sign of this attitude. Things that are wrong are highlighted, like a brand. That means in traditional school patterns the interest is particularly on the deficits.

The reason might be, at first glance, the plausible assumption that we have to know the cause of a problem to solve it. ‘The more in-depth we attend to difficulties, the closer we get to overcome them.’ (Mehlmann/Roese 2000) We look back. But what happens: we strengthen what we’re fighting.

Solution and development oriented interaction doesn’t ask for what has been but what has to come, and it changes concerned people into participants

Because, someone who doesn’t feel like a part of the solutions feels they are part of the problem.

Whether direct or indirect, this theory or another one, interaction is mainly one thing: an attitude. Keywords include appreciation and interest. It is about appreciating the participants and to make the interest in their success to the action guiding factor.

Momo and the strange story about the time thieves and the child that brought back the stolen time – in this book Michael Ende shows what could be understood as school interaction: ‘What little Momo could do like no one else: listen. (…) She understood how to listen in a unique way. Momo could listen in a way that stupid people suddenly had intelligent thoughts. Not because she asked or said something that made them think of it, no, she just sat there and listened with all here attention and sympathy. She looked at others with her big brown eyes, and the other person felt how thoughts suddenly came that they never knew were inside them. She could listen in a way that allowed undecided or helpless people suddenly know what they wanted.’

Not asking, saying: but how?

Questions are the waiting room to knowledge. Our own questions of course, our own curiosity. But central elements in the school context are mostly the teacher’s questions. They build the basic pattern of the events in class. Studies by Annemarie and Reinahrd Tausch have shown that on average a teacher poses two to four questions per minute. ‘If we look at the cognitive level of these questions, about 80 % are knowledge and remembering questions and only about 20 % are encouraging intellectual processes.’ (Green / Green 2005)

That means the art of questioning in school makes students answerer. It is therefore not about learning but about knowing. The right number at the right time, that’s what’s wanted. Its not even 2 seconds on average teachers give students to give an answer. Thinking is obviously not required.

‘At school, rhetorical questions are asked in order to collect answers which are of no use and for this reason don’t produce responsibility but opportunism and stupidity. A question is rhetorical if the answer is already known. If teachers ask questions of this type it’s a foulness and meanness. Legitimate questions are ones that don’t have a finished answer yet. Wouldn’t it be nice if an institution like school would have a leaning towards legitimate questions?’ (von Foerster 1998) It is about asking legitimate questions and systematically creating an encouraging, interactive culture. With a solution oriented communication the likeliness to succeed^[1] verifiably increases.

That means the work of a learning coach centers on the goal ‘to get the process of exploring solutions going and keeping it on track’ (towards solution options). (Mehlmann/Roese 2000) It is about the students seeing themselves as experts and developing a stable solution consciousness which is sustainable in everyday situations.

To have clear contracts in the beginning is an investment. The collective understanding of commitments and responsibilities in the beginning lowers the risk of additional time consuming amendments.

It is fairly plausible, if the individual commitments are not clear we risk the student’s efforts ending in frustration or ‘laisser-faire’. But learning should be successful and that is why the solutions are in the centre of school interaction. The ‘solution’ is not only what is marked and underlined. The solution begins before the underlining in the workbook and goes way beyond. The focus is on the students self designing potential.

The interaction is also focused on the help to self help, as much as necessary but as little as possible. The motto ‘if you do this you get that’ is replaced with ‘asking instead of saying’. Its like questions sit in the waiting room of the solution. They express interest on the individuals and their ‘solutions’. The questions are therefore only the tool to encourage the ability to verbalize and visualize. That in turn is a presupposition for self-designed and goal-oriented learning.

School interaction is not limited to what happens between the students and the learning coaches. There is an enormous potential of chance in the versatile forms of collaboration and interaction between students, an investment potential so to speak. Knowing this, we can influence this coincidence and act constructively. Modeling and conferencing are two possibilities: Modeling means to deal with something (individually or in a small group) by thinking aloud or to have a loud conversation between coach and student (for example, about goal formulation). By doing so the other students have the possibility to compare what they hear to their own methods of resolution and to expand and differentiate their strategy repertoire.

Conferencing means to exchange work resolutions and their accomplishment in larger groups. The students have the possibility to get to know different results and different methods of resolution. They see what strategies others use to approach something and how they dealt with possible difficulties.

Questions as learning impulses

Learning processes in school oscillate between induction and instruction. The goal is (or should be) the encouragement of self designing competences. Behind that, and one can’t say it often enough, is an attitude. This attitude reflects in the manner of the interaction. The questions are a tool to enable students to successfully design their learning.

Sources, resources, links

Mehlmann, Ralf/Röse, Oliver: Das LOT-Prinzip. Lösungsorientierte Kommunikation im Coaching, mit Teams und in Organisationen. Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht. Göttingen. 2000
Müller, Andreas: Mehr ausbrüten, weniger gackern. Denn Lernen heisst: Freude am Umgang mit Widerständen. Oder kurz: vom Was zum Wie. hep-Verlag. Bern. 2008
Green, Norm/Green, Kathy: Kooperatives Lernen im Klassenraum und im Kollegium. Kallmeyer. Seelze-Velber. 2006

http://www.therapeuten.de/therapien/loesungsorientierte_kurztherapie.htm

http://www.psychotherapie-beratung.de/loesung.html

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6sungsorientierter_Ansatz