Transcript 10. Pedagogical Dialogue as a Basis of Art of Teaching

Pedagogical Dialogue as a Basis
of Art of Teaching.
•
Pedagogical dialogue comes
through communication
• • The Latin word «comunikare» means "to make common,
share."
• The goal of communication is the expression of thoughts,
ideas or feelings of other people in an accessible form for
them.
• Learning to identify and correct weaknesses in our
communication style, we make an important step toward
improving its effectiveness.
•
•
•
Every individual needs to communicate in one or the other way. It takes many
forms such as writing, speaking and listening. Communication is the life blood
of every organization and its effective use helps build a proper chain of
authority and improve relationships in the organization.
Communication is a process of transferring information from one entity to
another. Communication processes are sign-mediated interactions between at
least two agents which share a repertoire of signs and semiotic rules.
Communication is commonly defined as "the imparting or interchange of
thoughts, opinions, or information by speech, writing, or signs". Although
there is such a thing as one-way communication, communication can be
perceived better as a two-way process in which there is an exchange and
progression of thoughts, feelings or ideas (energy) towards a mutually
accepted goal or direction (information).
Communication is a process whereby information is enclosed in a package and
is channeled and imparted by a sender to a receiver via some medium. The
receiver then decodes the message and gives the sender a feedback. All forms
of communication require a sender, a message, and a receiver. Communication
requires that all parties have an area of communicative commonality. There
are auditory means, such as speech, song, and tone of voice, and there
are nonverbal means, such as body language, sign
language, paralanguage, touch, eye contact, and writing.
Barriers in communication
•
• Breakdowns of communication channels, is a frequent
challenge that managers face. Communication problems
signify more deep-rooted problems than those that appear
prima facie. The barriers may exist either at the
transmission stage or at the feedback stage. It may so
happen that the sender is unable to properly channelise the
message, or it may also be wrongly received. The
important point is to understand the barriers that a manager
faces at various stages so that they can be properly dealt
with.
•
•
•
•
1. Faulty Planning:
The prerequisite of effective communication is accurate planning. The message should
be properly planned and then delivered. Which channel links are to be adopted needs to
be planned out in advance. The contents of the message should be drawn after
considering all the aspects. A poorly designed message looses all its worthiness.
Besides, the purpose of the message also needs to be clearly stated. Hence, faulty
planning leads to breaking up of communication lines.
2. Vague Presumptions:
The non-communicated assumptions that underline the message are extremely
dangerous. The sender presumes a certain part and accordingly forwards the message. It
is not necessary that the receiver shall also presume things in the same manner. This
may lead to confusion and chaos. Unclarified and vague presumptions lead to greater
dangers. For example, a senior officer gives a call to the junior stating that on certain
days he will be out of town assuming that the junior shall make necessary staying
arrangements for him. The junior receives this message assuming that senior manager is
simply informing him of his absence so that he can take over the responsibility and that
all staying arrangements were already taken care of by the senior.
• Semantic Distortion:
• A single word conveys lots of different meanings. Each word is
understood in reference to the context of the sentence as well as place
and situation it is used at. Semantic Distortion can be deliberate or
accidental. When it is deliberate, it is intended so but the one that is
accidental hinders the progress of communication. It renders ambiguity
to the message and every different individual may come to his own
conclusion in the end.
• Status Effect:
• This occurs when one person is considerably higher in the hierarchy
than another. The person at the top gives the message. People at the
bottom take it literally and follow it as an order. The top people may
not have intended to pass it on literally. This leads to confusion.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Poorly Expressed Contents:
The sender of the message may be clear about the thought in his mind but poorly chosen
words or omission of important links, leads to misunderstandings in the group. The
message that is simple and straightforward tends to be easily accepted and interpreted in
the team. But the simplicity should not be achieved at the cost of misrepresentation of
the crux.
Loss during transmission and poor retention:
When the message moves from one person to the other, it becomes less accurate.
Different individuals tend to add their perception to it. Besides, the message may not be
retained thoroughly in the memory. Hence it is advisable to repeat the message and also
use more than one channel to communicate the same message.
Poor listening and instant interpretations:
Listening requires patience. It demands full attention and self-discipline. It also requires
that the listener avoid premature evaluation of what another person has to say. Usually,
people have a tendency to judge what is said, whether they agree to it or disagree. This
is a common notion. There are hardly few people who are good listeners. Besides, when
the message is long, after a while people start-loosing interest and hence stop listening.
Due to this tendency, the message transmission gets hindered. Hence, listening with
empathy should be practiced in the organization to have effective communication.
•
•
•
•
Threat, fear and distrust:
In an environment of threat, fear and distrust, effective communication cannot
be expected. People become defensive and close-minded. They remain always
on their guard, which hinders the movement of communication. People acting
under threat or fear, do not take the decisions rationally but rather, the
decisions are made under pressure. Moreover, they do not actually care about
the consequence of a faulty message as they are always under the grip of some
fear. For making communication effective, a climate of trust, honesty and
integrity is needed.
Insufficient time period:
Whenever the communication is made, sufficient time period, to understand
and digest the message needs to be given. Moreover, communication may
bring in changes. These changes affect different people in different manner.
Besides, realization of the whole implication of the message is time
consuming. However, managers are usually pressed for time. This leads to
breakage in the communication channel.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Physical distractions:
In the organization that is filled with people all around, a lot of noise, improper lighting,
frequent physical movements of people, the messages that come-get distracted. People
are not relaxed in such climate and tend to receive the communication haphazardly.
Improper feedback
Though one way communication is quick, two way communication is more accurate. It
is always advisable to have some interactions between the receiver and the sender. This
clears the doubts and misconceptions of both the parties. If a proper feedback system is
not installed, then in such a case two way communication becomes difficult.
Other barriers:
People tend to have selective percetion as far as information is concerned. They hear
that part of the information, which they like best and tend to ignore other parts. This
does not allow the whole message to get through.
Attitude and reactions to different situations, by individuals as unit and by individuals
collectively or in group vary. Hence, different individuals react differently to the same
message.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Communication Styles
Every time we speak, we choose and use one of four basic communication
styles: assertive, aggressive, passive and passive-aggressive.
Assertive Communication
The most effective and healthiest form of communication is the assertive style.
It's how we naturally express ourselves when our self-esteem is intact, giving
us the confidence to communicate without games and manipulation.
When we are being assertive, we work hard to create mutually satisfying
solutions. We communicate our needs clearly and forthrightly. We care about
the relationship and strive for a win/win situation. We know our limits and
refuse to be pushed beyond them just because someone else wants or needs
something from us. Surprisingly, assertive is the style most people use least.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aggressive Communication
Aggressive communication always involves manipulation. We may attempt to make people do what
we want by inducing guilt (hurt) or by using intimidation and control tactics (anger). Covert or overt,
we simply want our needs met - and right now! Although there are a few arenas where aggressive
behavior is called for (i.e., sports or war), it will never work in a relationship. Ironically, the more
aggressive sports rely heavily on team members and rational coaching strategies. Even war might be
avoided if we could learn to be more assertive and negotiate to solve our problems.
Passive Communication
Passive communication is based on compliance and hopes to avoid confrontation at all costs. In this
mode we don't talk much, question even less, and actually do very little. We just don't want to rock
the boat. Passives have learned that it is safer not to react and better to disappear than to stand up and
be noticed.
Passive-Aggressive Communication
A combination of styles, passive-aggressive avoids direct confrontation (passive), but attempts to get
even through manipulation (aggressive). If you've ever thought about making that certain someone
who needs to be "taught a thing or two" suffer (even just a teeny bit), you've stepped pretty close to
(if not on into) the devious and sneaky world of the passive-aggressive. This style of communication
often leads to office politics and rumour-mongering.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Aggressive Communication
Ø You choose and make decisions for others.
Ø You are brutally honest.
Ø You are direct and forceful.
Ø You are self enhancing and derogatory.
Ø You’ll participate in a win-lose situation only if you’ll win.
Ø You demand your own way.
Ø You feel righteous, superior, controlling – later possibly feeling guilt.
Ø Others feel humiliated, defensive, resentful and hurt around you.
Ø Others view you in the exchange as angry, vengeful, distrustful and fearful.
Ø The outcome is usually that your goal is achieved at the expense of others.
Your rights are upheld but others are violated.
Ø Your underlying belief system is that you have to put others down to
protect yourself.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Passive Communication
Ø You allow others to choose and make decisions for you.
Ø You are emotionally dishonest.
Ø You are indirect and self denying.
Ø You are inhibited.
Ø If you get your own way, it is by chance.
Ø You feel anxious, ignored, helpless, manipulated, angry at yourself and/or
others.
Ø Others feel guilty or superior and frustrated with you.
Ø Others view you in the exchange as a pushover and that you don’t know
what you want or how you stand on an issue.
Ø The outcome is that others achieve their goals at your expense. Your rights
are violated.
Ø Your underlying belief is that you should never make someone
uncomfortable or displeased except yourself.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Passive-Aggressive Communication
Ø You manipulate others to choose your way.
Ø You appear honest but underlying comments confuse.
Ø You tend towards indirectness with the air of being direct.
Ø You are self-enhancing but not straight forward about it.
Ø In win-lose situations you will make the opponent look bad or manipulate it so you win.
Ø If you don’t get your way you’ll make snide comments or pout and be the victim.
Ø You feel confused, unclear on how to feel, you’re angry but not sure why. Later you possibly feel
guilty.
Ø Others feel confused, frustrated, not sure who you are or what you stand for or what to expect
next.
Ø Others view you in the exchange as someone they need to protect themselves from and fear being
manipulated and controlled.
Ø The outcome is that the goal is avoided or ignored as it cause such confusion or the outcome is the
same as with an aggressive or passive style.
Ø Your underlying belief is that you need to fight to be heard and respected. If that means you need
to manipulate, be passive or aggressive, so be it.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Assertive Communication
Ø You choose and make decisions for you.
Ø You are sensitive and caring with your honesty.
Ø You are direct.
Ø You are self-respecting, self expressive and straight forward.
Ø You convert win-lose situations to win-win ones.
Ø You are willing to compromise and negotiate.
Ø You feel confident, self-respecting, goal-oriented, valued. Later you may
feel a sense of accomplishment.
Ø Others feel valued and respected.
Ø Others view you with respect, trust and understand where you stand.
Ø The outcome is determined by above-board negotiation. Your rights and
others are respected.
Ø Your underlying belief is that you have a responsibility to protect your own
rights. You respect others but not necessarily their behaviour.
Dialogue
• It seems that hardly anyone has a bad word to say against dialogue. A
broad range of political orientations hold out the aim of "fostering
dialogue" as a potential resolution to social conflict and as a basis for
rational public deliberation. A range of pedagogical approaches, from
constructivist scaffolding to Socratic instruction to Freirean liberatory
pedagogy, all proclaim the virtues of an interactive engagement of
questions and answers in the shared pursuit of knowledge and
understanding. Philosophical accounts of dialogue from Plato to the
present employ the dialogical form as a literary genre that represents
the external expression of an internal, dialectical thought process of
back-and-forth ratiocination. Dialogue constitutes a point of
opportunity at which these three interests — political, pedagogical, and
philosophical — come together. It is widely assumed that the aim of
teaching with and through dialogue serves democracy, promotes
communication across difference, and enables the active coconstruction of new knowledge and understandings.
• Nevertheless, the ideal of dialogue has received withering criticism,
particularly from poststructural feminist theorists in education and
from those for whom "difference" is a lived experience of
marginalization, and not just a demographic category of identification.
For these critics, "dialogue" has exerted a kind of hegemonic
dominance that belies its emancipatory rhetoric, its apparent openness
to difference, and its stress on equality and reciprocity within the
dialogical relation. The way in which dialogue has become almost
synonymous with critical pedagogy has tended to submerge the voices
and concerns of groups who feel themselves closed out of dialogue, or
compelled to join it only at the cost of restricting their self-expression
into acceptable channels of communication. Finally, an idealized,
prescriptive conception of dialogue has abstracted the situated
historicity of specific practices of communicative engagement from
their consequences for people and groups who encounter the invitation
to dialogue in difficult circumstances of conflict.
•
•
In light of such reactions, the claims made on behalf of dialogue as an
inherently liberatory pedagogy need to be reassessed. The insistence that
dialogue is somehow self-corrective, that if there are unresolved power
differentials or unexamined silences and omissions within a dialogue, simply
persisting with the same forms of dialogical exchange can bring them to light,
seems not only counterproductive but itself a form of hegemony: If dialogue
fails, the solution to the problem is more of the same.
Yet it also remains true that the ideal of "dialogue" expresses a hope in the
possibility of open, respectful, critical engagements from which we can learn
about others, about the world, and about ourselves. Is there a space between
the exaggerated claims made on behalf of dialogue as an inherently liberatory
pedagogy and the rejection of dialogue as an ideal entirely? Can dialogue
continue in good faith while acknowledging the inherent limits to (and dangers
arising from) its aspirations toward understanding across differences? Or must
such aspirations toward understanding and communication be abandoned
entirely? These are the questions animating this essay.
•
We seem to be living in an era in which for many "dialogue" has
become the foundation of last resort in an antifoundational world. The
thoroughgoing proceduralism of placing trust in processes of
interpersonal communication has proven to be compatible with a wide
range of otherwise quite different social and political stances. Dialogue
represents, to one view or another, a way of reconciling differences; a
means of promoting empathy and understanding for others; a mode of
collaborative inquiry; a method of critically comparing and testing
alternative hypotheses; a form of constructivist teaching and learning;
a forum for deliberation and negotiation about public policy
differences; a therapeutic engagement of self- and other-exploration;
and a basis for shaping uncoerced social and political consensus. I will
briefly review six dominant traditions that have centrally invoked the
concept of dialogue, particularly in relation to the aims and methods of
education.
•
For liberal views of dialogue, such as those of John Dewey or Benjamin
Barber, dialogue is the fulcrum around which the imperatives of democracy
can be reconciled with the facts of diversity and conflict. For exponents of
"deliberative democracy" it is in public, communicative engagements that
democracy works its will, and a chief aim of democratic education must be to
foster in learners the capabilities and dispositions to participate in such
deliberations. An implication of this stance, however, is that those who do not,
who cannot, or who choose not to develop or exercise these capabilities suffer
an attenuated relation, at best, to the democratic public sphere, if not an actual
exclusion from it: "Proponents of liberal dialogue are not sensitive enough to
the fact that a theory of conversational restraint may be damaging precisely to
the interests of those groups that have not been traditional actors in the public
space of liberalism — like women, nonwhite peoples, and sometimes
nonpropertied males." Public education is supposed to be an arena of training
for engagement in the rough and tumble of public deliberation; but the very
avenues of opportunity for access to deliberation on these terms can be seen
from a different vantage point as barriers of exclusion.
•
Some versions of feminism, by contrast, tend to reject the agonistic features of dialogue
in this sense and to promote a more receptive, caring stance in the dialogical relation.
Deborah Tannen’s recent popular book, The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to
Dialogue, is an extended paean to this nonconfrontational view. More detailed and
modulated treatments of this theme can be found in Mary Belenky et al., Carol Gilligan,
and Nel Noddings. What relates all of these accounts is a linkage between a competitive,
adversarial approach to public or private disagreements and the stereotypical norms of
masculine behavior, and the association of "dialogue" with the more open, receptive,
inclusive spirit of women’s values. Educational and social deliberation that privileges
the more adversarial mode of interaction, and discourages or dismisses the more
tentative and cooperative spirit of dialogue, on this view, discriminates against females
in schools and in the public sphere generally. These authors are always careful to insist
that this more receptive stance does not preclude vigorous disagreement and selfassertion, but it is not difficult to see why these views have come to be labeled by other
feminists as "good girl" feminism. Without intruding myself into this particular
disagreement, I think it is clear why the mode of dialogue proposed under this view of
feminism has not been seen as adequate for the more confrontational politics favored by
certain other feminists and by the aggrieved members of other groups.
•
) Platonic views of dialogue stress the role of communicative interchange as a proving
ground for inquiries into truth: While in his dialogues the protagonist Socrates
distinguishes "disputatious" and "friendly" forms of dialogue (paralleling in some ways
the distinction just explored under (2)), in both forms the joint endeavor is to propose
and oppose, to formulate arguments and to put forth counterexamples and
counterarguments, as the mechanism by which truth is ascertained. It is an intriguing
feature of this view, reflected later in a different context in the work of Freire and
others, that this philosophical conception of dialogue coincides with a preferred
pedagogy: for in Plato’s view the way in which knowledge claims are adjudicated and
tested is also the way to teach. Dialogue is a way of drawing forth latent, unformed
understandings and facilitating the discovery of truths by the learner for himself or
herself — hence the ubiquity of teachers from law schools to kindergartens to adult
literacy programs ascribing their teaching to "the Socratic method" (though this method
never comprised only one style of teaching). But the Platonic view of dialogue rested
upon a view of knowledge as absolute, unchanging, and humanly attainable through
recollection — an epistemological stance that almost no one would feel comfortable
with today. I suspect that few contemporary advocates of the Socratic method as a
pedagogy would want to be held to the underpinnings by which Plato advocated and
justified it.
• Hermeneutic views of dialogue tend to emphasize dialogue as a
condition of intersubjective understanding: what Hans-Georg Gadamer
calls "the fusing of horizons." A precursor of this view can be found in
the existential theology of Martin Buber’s I-Thou relation.
Hermeneutic dialogue emphasizes the relational, to-and-fro movement
of question and answer as an avenue toward understanding and
agreement. This intersubjective confirmation stands in direct contrast
to the objectivist view of convergence around the truth that we find in
Platonic views of dialogue. But critics of this hermeneutic view of
dialogue have tended to question its limited capacity for critique and
for engaging issues of power and inequality that stand outside the
dialogical relation; these contexts need to be problematized in terms
that go beyond their impact on interpersonal understanding. Moreover,
some have questioned the aim of understanding itself as insufficiently
attuned to cultural differences and as dangerously naive in supposing
that when "fusing" occurs it occurs on neutral ground:
• By communicative dialogue, I mean a controlled process of interaction
that seeks successful communication, defined as the moment of full
understanding. For those who advocate it in education, communicative
dialogue drives toward mutual understanding as a pedagogical
ideal….What kind of knowledge does dialogue proffer? What
techniques does it use to regulate knowledge and the relationship of the
teacher and student within the dialogue to knowledge and truth? I’m
persuaded that dialogue…is not just a neutral conduit of insights,
discoveries, understandings, agreements, or disagreements. It has a
constitutive force. It is a tool, it is for something….[It] tries to
accurately represent the world through the conventions and politics of
realism.
•
Most contemporary critical views of dialogue, especially those in education, invariably
refer to the important work of Paulo Freire. Indeed, for an entire generation of critical
educators his writings and life’s work stand as an inspiring model of committed
pedagogy, and he has had a primary impact on the work of widely read North American
authors including Henry Giroux, Peter McLaren, and Ira Shor. Yet it must be said that
this very popularity and loyalty have interfered at times with the selective, critical
appropriation and reinterpretation of his ideas. Freire’s distinctions of monological vs.
dialogical pedagogies, his critique of "banking" forms of education as the mere
"depositing" of information in the minds of students, his conception of conscientization
as the overcoming of what he calls "intransitive consciousness," are all virtually
canonical. Freirean pedagogy is sometimes taken as simply synonymous with critical
pedagogy or radical pedagogy, forcing feminists and others to find different ways of
describing alternative critical educational theories and practices. Yet, as the roots of
Freire’s pedagogy have come to be more clearly identified in specifically Hegelian,
Marxist, and Catholic assumptions, it has become necessary to ask whether this
particular constellation of theories is the best or only basis for a radical theory and
practice of pedagogy. In some accounts, Freirean dialogue is regarded as a practice with
intrinsic critical and emancipatory potential; but many authors, notably some feminists,
do not find space within it for critique and emancipation on their terms.
•
Finally, there are what might be termed post-liberal views of dialogue,
especially the work of Jurgen Habermas. Perhaps no contemporary theorist has
gone further in proposing a model of communicative dialogue as the
nonfoundational foundation for epistemological, political, and moral
adjudication. For Habermas, all claims are filtered through the medium of
discourse, but it is a medium with evaluative standards built-in:
Communicative claims rest upon implicit norms that can be, and should be,
critically questioned and redeemed. The grounding of truth and value claims
lies in the uncoerced consensus that such deliberations can achieve —
including, significantly, critical reflection on the conditions under which that
agreement is obtained. These conditions — uncoerced consensus and the
implicit norms (discursively redeemed) that regulate communicative
interactions — give the outcomes of such deliberation a generalizability not
based upon absolute claims of truth or rightness, but secured on the nonrelative
criterion of valid agreement among those parties concerned.
• Critics of Habermas, including Seyla Benhabib, have
complained that this account of communication assumes a
commonality in modes of communication and a kind of
impersonality toward the way in which participants in
deliberation are identified: the emphasis is on the
conditions under which consensus is obtained, not the
specific choices and identities of those party to it. While
sharing the basic idea of discursive justification, Benhabib
wants to situate this process in the actual identities,
positions, and differences among participants. She calls
this "interactive universalism":
•
•
Interactive universalism acknowledges the plurality of modes of being human,
and differences among humans, without endorsing all these pluralities and
differences as morally and politically valid. While agreeing that normative
disputes can be settled rationally, and that fairness, reciprocity, and some
procedure of universalizability are constituents, that is necessary conditions of
the moral standpoint, interactive universalism regards difference as a starting
point for reflection and action. In this sense, "universality" is a regulative ideal
that does not deny our embodied and embedded identity, but aims at
developing moral attitudes and encouraging political transformations that can
yield a point of view acceptable to all. Universality is not the ideal consensus
of fictitiously defined selves, but the concrete process in politics and morals of
the struggle of concrete, embodied selves, striving for autonomy.
Benhabib’s move, emphasizing the actual difference, embodiment, and
situatedness of communicative participants, and her shift from rational
agreement per se to the ongoing conditions (social and interpersonal) that can
support sustained deliberation among contesting points of view, make the
Habermasian model both more concrete and more responsive to the fact of
cultural diversity.
•
Nevertheless, even this account has been challenged, for example by Judith
Butler, as insufficiently sensitive to difference and as essentially normalizing,
that is, tending to discipline the acceptable forms of communication in terms
of dominant norms. For Butler and other poststructural critics, the process of
relentlessly problematizing conventional norms and categories proceeds
through the interrogation of the silences, gaps, and paradoxes of
inclusion/exclusion that bedevil even the most "participatory" models of public
deliberation — including the disciplinary regimes that suggest (however
invitingly) "we fully welcome your participation on these terms." The subtle
workings-out of asymmetries of power and access often belie the open and
reasonable self-conception of the Habermasian (or even the Benhabibian)
models of communication, making even their sincerely invitational gestures a
kind of false seduction into conformity. For Butler, Ellsworth, Lather, and
other critics, the response is to resist the "good behavior" that is made a
condition of participation in favor of what Anderson calls "performative
subversion," pointedly refusing to valorize such conditions.
•
These six conceptions of dialogue comprise almost the entire range of discussion about
the topic within the field of education. I have briefly reviewed them, and some of the
prominent criticisms against them, not to engage each of these debates in detail, but to
draw the background against which current disputes over dialogue are situated. While
these six views are quite different from one another, and indeed disagree among
themselves over many issues, they have certain crucial features in common. They all
place primary emphasis on dialogue as the adjudicative basis for social and political
discussion and disagreement. They all privilege dialogue as the basis for arriving at
valid intersubjective understanding or knowledge. And they all, in the educational
domain, recommend dialogue as the mode of pedagogical engagement best able to
promote learning, autonomy, and an understanding of one’s self in relation to others.
The prominence of these six views, particularly among educational theorists and
practitioners of what might be called broadly the "progressivist" stripe, has meant that
dialogue is the topic of the day and that promoting dialogue and the conditions which
can support it are taken as central educational tasks. But the critics of dialogue raise
issues that cannot easily be swept aside; and, in my view, some of these criticisms have
raised deep problems for that approach.
Talking
• • Before you answer pause and take a deep
breath.
• Speak in short sentences, clear and straight.
• Express your thoughts or feelings, and wait
for an answer.
• Check the "language" of his body.
• Be constructive. Focuse on the future rather
than past.
Listening
• • Listening requires mental and physical stress.
We spend a day in 80% of the hearing.
• Ability to listen - the most frequently used
communication skills, although we often think
that it requires no effort.
• Many students talk too much. Learn the art of
the silent response.
Thoughtful listening
• Express your interest to the person and his speech.
It has to talk.
• Do not interrupt, expressing his opinion, do not
interrupt the speaker.
• The conversation involved the whole body. Keep
eye contact. Nod in the right places.
• Insert the words of approval, it will give the
speaker know that he is listened to with attention.
Physical listening
• Do not cross your arms and legs.
• Listen to the whole body. Lean towards the speaker.
• Convenient distance between speakers - about 1 meter.
• Avoid distracting movements and gestures.
10 ways to learn to listen
• Create an atmosphere of attention.
Stop talking.
• Look for common interests.
• Focus on core thoughts.
• Recognize non-verbal signs.
• Know your weaknesses. Hold the tongue.
Three main rules of people’s behaviour
1. Passive behavior.
2. Aggressive behavior.
3. Confident behavior.
Passive behaviour
• • Inactivity - is the unwillingness or inability to
confidently express their thoughts or feelings.
• Quickly give a stranger requirements,
denying their rights and needs.
• Excessive anxiety and worry in a conflict
situation.
Aggressive behaviour
• The desire to dominate others, to act by force.
• Inattention to others' feelings and needs,
causing resentment, humiliation, and
defensiveness.
• The main desire - to emerge victorious in any
conflict, just follow the aggressive goals.
Confident behaviour
• Confident behavior shows respect for self
and others.
• Strong communication often allows both
sides to get it.
• The confident manner of communication,
even if you have not reached our goals, you
usually feel better.
Factors, hindering the communicate
• • Indifference, disinterest, bad mood
nurses.
• Instructions, directions, trying to
"convince," "persuade" patients.
• Threats, whatever form they had not.
Factors, hindering the communicate
• Giving advice about which the nurse has
no corresponding representation does not
have the necessary knowledge.
• Condemnation of the doctors or the
differences between physicians.
• Discussion of errors, the erroneous
views of the patient's bedside, causing the
latter uncertainty, anxiety.
The facilities? Assisting the communicate
• Contain your emotions.
• Be calm reasonableness.
• Placing the patient's interests above all else.
• Demonstrate empathy, to be patient and
compassionate in his conversation with the patient.
• To ensure the secrecy of the information obtained.