September 30, 2008
September 29, 2008
September 28, 2008
A first advantage is that the coachee notices that the coach is very attentive which helps to make him feel taken seriously. A second advantage is that the coachee notices that the coach understands and accepts what he has brought forward. This gives the coachee a feeling of security and trust. A third advantage is that language matching helps the conversation to proceed fluently. This is because the coachee does not have to correct the coach and no time is lost on discussing the precise definitions of terms. Steve de Shazer was very skillful in matching his language with that of his clients. Often, in his questions, he used several words taken from the last sentence of the client.
September 26, 2008
First-year college students might be helped by an intervention that encouraged them to attribute any academic problems they were having to temporary factors. One way of accomplishing this, Wilson and Linville reasoned, would be to convey the simple message that many beginning college students experience academic difficulties, but that these difficulties tend to improve after the first year. The effects of this simple intervention were dramatic. Compared with the control condition, students in the treatment condition improved their grades in the following year and were more likely to remain in college.
I am sure there is much more research that confirms elements of the solution-focused approach. I quite like this 'elementary' approach of researching solution-focused interventions. If we only rely on a more 'moleculary' approach, in which we only compare effects of sets of interventions combined, we miss the opportunity to learn on a more detailed level.
September 25, 2008
September 23, 2008
"Never did success come through a head-on attack against the regulations and network effects that constituted the power of the status quo."
"You seldom talk anybody out of a position by arguing directly with their premises and inferences."
"I made the mistake of talking too much about what we were doing. That way it got too much attention. We should have just continued without talking much about it."
September 21, 2008
September 17, 2008
September 16, 2008
September 15, 2008
- If so, is the no-blame / support group approach to bullying "solution focussed", considering that it is widely held not to work? See this link: The comments from Prof. Dan Olweus are the ones with the most weight.
I contacted Sue and she was glad with the opportunity to clarify this. In brief: The no blame and Sue Young's support group approach are two rather different approaches with different interventions and different effects on children. Here are Sue's answers:
Yes, there is plenty of evidence that solution focused practice, whether support groups or individual solution focused interviewing, does work well in bullying situations. I cannot say that it always works – I don’t know that anyone would claim that solution focused strategies always work. On the other hand, I don’t know any other strategies that work more effectively, or I would recommend them!
If so, is the no-blame / support group approach to bullying "solution focused", considering that it is widely held not to work? See this link: The comments from Prof. Dan Olweus are the ones with the most weight.
The ‘no blame’ approach (as it was opriginally called) is different to my solution focused support group approach. For example, the no blame approach involves asking the child to do some writing or draw a picture about how bad they feel when they are being bullied whereas solution focused practice concentrates attention on times when the problem is not happening, what will be happening in the ‘preferred future’ and on behaviour rather than feelings.
The website mentioned refers to criticism of the "No Blame" approach - I very much regret the confusion between my approach and this one, caused partly because I acknowledged the 'no blame' approach as my starting point in my original published article. Maines and Robinson (authors of ‘No Blame’) have ever since claimed my approach was no different and used my successful outcomes as evidence for their strategy, and gradually changed the name of their approach to include ‘support group’ in their title. There is very little I can do about this! There are a lot of things I don’t agree with about the ‘no blame’ approach. My recommendations for support groups are in Coert’s interview (read it here).
Re the critisism of the ‘no blame’ approach on the website mentioned – and just to be clear about the difference in my support group approach: Unlike the ‘no blame’ approach, I do not advocate asking the child for a piece of writng about how they feel or telling the group how bad the child is feeling – I think these ideas are potentially harmful. If I were a parent, I would object to this too. The children in the support group are certainly not made to feel distressed. I would find that unacceptable. I want the children in the support group to enjoy it – that’s part of what helps it continue to be effective over the longer term! The support group meetings keep going until the child, the group, teachers and parents are all satisfied that the child is happy in school. I certainly recommend records are kept – I still have mine… Thanks for this opportunity to clarify this confusion!
September 13, 2008
~ John Murphy, professor of psychology at the University of Central Arkansas (source: Solution Focused Brief Therapy in Schools: A 360 Degree View of Research and Practice (Oxford Workshop Series), p 119). Indeed an important point to remember. What John Murphy says here is not limited to therapy. It is just as valid for coaching, techning, and management.
September 12, 2008
September 11, 2008
Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial captures the turmoil that tore apart the community of Dover, Pennsylvania in a landmark battle over the teaching of evolution in public schools. In 2004, the Dover school board ordered science teachers to read a statement to high school biology students about an alternative to Darwin s theory of evolution called intelligent design the idea that life is too complex to have evolved naturally and so must have been designed by an intelligent agent. The teachers refused to comply, and both parents and teachers filed a lawsuit in federal court accusing the school board of violating the constitutional separation of church and state.Now, NOVA explores the arguments by lawyers and expert witnesses in riveting detail and provides an eye-opening crash course on questions such as What is evolution? and Is intelligent design a scientifically valid alternative? Featuring trial reenactments based on court transcripts and interviews with key participants and expert scientists, this gripping program presents the celebrated case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District.
Also view this interesting video with Matt Damon (especially at 1:20 which is about Palin's views on intelligent design):
September 8, 2008
September 7, 2008
September 4, 2008
~ Carol Dweck, read my complete interview with her
September 3, 2008
~ Elam Nunnally
Also read: Life is a point in time