تعبت ارجوكم اخواتي ساعدوني بالترجمة وحل الواجب ارجوكم
w can I make sure that I'm being understood?
Bob Zimmer
Centre for Information Technology in Education
Institute of Educational Technology
The Open University
UK
January 1999
Overview
You're in a meeting - possibly online. You get an idea.
You share it; it gets ignored or dismissed.
After that, can you listen to others' ideas?
If you have more of your own, will you share them at all?
If you're like me, the answer is No - not until you have felt understood.
The meeting has lost you as a creative resource.
Acting just by yourself, can you prevent such a loss?
This paper explores possibilities.
Analysis
Once you've offered your views, then if you're like me, your greatest need is to be shown comprehension. It lets you know that you've been understood, that your ideas and feelings are being included, that you can be yourself and also belong.
And once shown comprehension, if you're like me, you can give your welcome easily in return: another's disagreement becomes simply difference - a further perspective - which can lead to shared understanding.
But if not shown comprehension, you might not be able to give others your welcome: another's disagreement can feel like contradiction, which can lead to dispute and even to war.
Some meetings have facilitators and recorders (Doyle & Straus, 1976), to make sure that everyone always is shown comprehension. But most meetings do not.
So what can you do by yourself, to make sure that you are shown comprehension?
Proposal
Many approaches to this problem are possible. I divide them into three kinds:
letting people show their comprehension
inviting people to show their comprehension
inducing people to show their comprehension
Each of these possibilities will be examined in turn.
Method
All three of these possibilities will be approached on the basis of a single core injunction: Use 'You' as the subject of a sentence only to give someone your welcome and to show your comprehension; if there's something that the other is doing that you don't like, then use 'I' to speak for yourself and to say so (Gordon, 1970, 1974, 1977).
According to this injunction, to do otherwise is to misuse the word 'You'. I view it much like driving on the wrong side of the road - and I see similar results. In my experience, those who follow this injunction can talk freely with one another about anything at any time. Those who don't, end up in constant collision and dispute.
Letting people show their comprehension
The simplest way that I know of to let people show me their comprehension, is to give them what I want in return. So in a discussion with others, I do my best to ...
Action Message conveyed Example
give them
my welcome .......................
so they can offer me
their own views ...................
so that I can ...
'I'm OK with you. You're
OK by me.' (Harris, 1967)
'I trust you with
my own views.'
'Hi.
You look puzzled!'
'Yeah. I'm trying to figure out
how to make this thing work.'
show them
my comprehension ............
so they can correct me
if necessary
and give me
their welcome in return .....
and only then do I ...
'You're included
with your views.'
'I'm OK with you.
You're OK by me.'
'So you're stuck. Maybe
you could use some ideas.'
'Yeah, that's right.
And yes, I could.'
offer them
my own views ......................
so they can show me
their comprehension .........
- thus including my views
alongside their own -
so that I can ...
'I trust you with
my own views.'
'You're included
with your views.'
'I had one of those.
Here's what I did to it ...'
'And that solved
it for you.'
give them
my welcome [again] ..........
'I'm OK with you.
You're OK by me.'
'Yes, it did.'
......
......
......
The centre column, if read downwards, shows the basic flavour of the kind of conversation that results. The right-hand column, if read downwards, offers a very simple example.
The messages in the centre column are conveyed by the actions on the left.
'Views' include what I or others notice, imagine in consequence, and feel as a result of that. It is my view that different views are never in conflict, that they always represent the same truth looked at simply from different angles, the result being a more deeply shared perspective.
You might recognise these three behaviours as versions of the core facilitative behaviours identified by Carl Rogers (Rogers, 1962; Zimmer & Alexander 1996). They also appear as practical communication principles for computer conferencing in some UK Open University courses (Alexander, 1996a, 1996b).
Each of the three behaviours/messages invites one of the others in return (Zimmer, 1995), creating a continuous and reciprocal conversational cycle. So by following the core injunction, I leave room for others to do the same.
Sometimes I forget to use these three principles myself. If I am lucky, others still use them - which invites me back into using them again. But if others forget to use them too, then the usual result for everyone involved is primeval 'fight or flight'.
I find a lot of depth in these three principles, especially when I consider the alternatives:
1. Judging instead of welcoming
For me, judging includes blaming and belittling. But it also includes commonly approved behaviours like praising ('You did well') and asking questions ('You must answer'), instead of giving appreciation and attention ('I'm OK by you. You're OK by me'). On the receiving end, I am extremely sensitive to the implicit and often explicit misuse of the word 'You' which characterises these commonplace forms of judgement (Gordon, 1970, 1974, 1977). On the giving end, I am aware that any of these forms of judgement can stop people from offering me their own views, thereby inhibiting my own learning (Argyris, 1978). I find that the problem can be put very simply: if I judge people, they won't talk to me (Deming & Senge, 1993).
2. Showing dismissiveness instead of comprehension
If I ignore or dismiss what people say instead of showing them my comprehension, I court three kinds of communicational disaster:
people don't feel understood and included, so they reject me and my different views instead of giving me their welcome; or what's worse ...
I assume that I know what they mean but I've actually misunderstood (unchecked understanding has a 75% chance of being wrong (Nolan, 1987)), so that ...
I waste everyone's time (and can end up looking like a fool) by disagreeing vehemently with nothing more than my own misunderstanding.
3. Imposing my views instead of offering them
I perform an action, and something arises in my perception as a result. If I then ascribe what arises to 'objective reality', I fail to take account of myself and my own actions (Maturana, 1997). If I compound this error by lecturing people about my alleged objective reality - presuming to tell them the way 'it' is and what 'we' must do about it - instead of saying what I myself notice and imagine and feel - then I can prevent people from encompassing my individual point of view and taking it in. Indeed, because my presumed objective reality leaves no room for them to have different views of their own, they might well stop listening to me altogether.
These three alternatives amount to control or outright abuse rather than communication. I don't like the consequences of any of them. So I do my best to avoid them.
Inviting people to show their comprehension
It can happen that even if I give others my welcome, show them my comprehension and offer them my own views, then in return they still don't offer me their own views, give me their welcome and show me their comprehension. They remain silent.
What can I do then, to invite these three behaviours explicitly?
My own solution is to add explicit invitational messages to the messages which are conveyed by the three core behaviours. So I do my best to ...
Action Message conveyed
give them
my welcome .......................
and if necessary
invite a response ...............
so they can offer me
their own views ...................
so that I can ...
'I'm OK with you.
You're OK by me.'
'Tell me what you notice
and think and feel.'
'I trust you with
my own views.'
show them
my comprehension ............
and if necessary
invite a response ................
so they can correct me
if necessary
and give me
their welcome in return .......
and only then do I ...
'You're included
with your views.'
'Tell me if my understanding
is right for you.'
'I'm OK with you.
You're OK by me.'
offer them
my own views ......................
and if necessary
invite a response .................
so they can show me
their comprehension .........
- thus including my views
alongside their own -
so that I can ...
'I trust you with
my own views.'
'I'd welcome your sense
of what I'm saying.'
'You're included
with your views.'
give them
my welcome [again] ............
'I'm OK with you.
You're OK by me.'
......
......
The new invitational messages are shown in bold print. The right-hand column, if read downwards, shows how these invitational messages invite the three core messages explicitly in return.
The invitational messages (Zimmer, 1995; Zimmer and Alexander, 1996) have been constructed using Driver Theory (Kahler, 1979; Stewart & Lee, 1986) in Transactional Analysis (Berne, 1964).
Inducing people to show their comprehension
What's worse for me than to receive silence in response, is to feel actually imposed on, judged or dismissed. What can I do then?
It is my experience that I can't just characterise such behaviours as errors and try to get people to change them: to do so amounts to imposing, judging or dismissing on my own part - and people just give me back more of the same.
Equally, I can't just sit and express helpless need for people to give me these core behaviours, so that I can give them the same in return: that way I lose my initiative. Anyway, if they were interested in listening to my needs, I don't think that they'd be imposing, judging or dismissing in the first place.
So the best solution that I have found so far, is to appeal to their self-interest: show them how they can get more of what I think that they want from me, by doing what I need them to do. The result looks and sounds as follows: I do my best to ...
Action Message conveyed
give them
my welcome .......................
and if necessary not
only invite a response ........
but also appeal to
their self-interest .................
so they can offer me
their own views ...................
so that I can ...
'I'm OK with you.
You're OK by me.'
'Tell me what you notice
and think and feel.'
'I can understand you better
if you speak for yourself.'
'I trust you with
my own views.'
show them
my comprehension ............
and if necessary not
only invite a response ........
but also appeal to
their self-interest .................
so they can correct me
if necessary
and give me
their welcome in return .......
and only then do I ...
'You're included
with your views.'
'Tell me if my understanding
is right for you.'
'I can speak for myself to you better
if I know that you're feeling understood.'
'I'm OK with you.
You're OK by me.'
offer them
my own views ......................
and if necessary not
only invite a response ........
but also appeal to
their self-interest .................
so they can show me
their comprehension .........
- thus including my views
alongside their own -
so that I can ...
'I trust you with
my own views.'
'I'd welcome your sense
of what I'm saying.'
'I can listen to you better if I hear
your understanding of what I just said.'
'You're included
with your views.'
give them
my welcome [again] ..........
'I'm OK with you.
You're OK by me.'
......
......
The new, self-interest messages are shown in bold print. The right-hand column, if read downwards, shows how these can raise the stakes for the other person. In order to keep these messages short, I use 'listen' for 'give welcome', 'show understanding' (Bailey, 1997) for 'show comprehension' and 'speak for oneself' for 'offer one's own views'.
If my abilities to give people my welcome, show them my comprehension and offer them my own views suffer badly because of their behaviour toward me, then (if I can get a word in edgewise) I may try interrupting them with, 'Excuse me ...', followed by one of these messages aimed at their own self-interest. With any other kind of message, though, I would imagine that they would respond to such interruption only with fight or flight.
And if that doesn't work
If permitting, inviting and then inducing these core behaviours doesn't work (and provided that I'm not cornered in some way), then I still am free to say, 'Let me know if you change your mind,' and to walk away. I see no point in staying in a meeting in which I have no hope of feeling trusted, welcomed and shown understanding - and therefore no hope of others feeling the same way with me.
Evaluation
The techniques above are techniques for establishing communication in place of control or abuse. In my own life so far, I have had fair success in using them. I work continually to improve them.
The main problem which I have encountered so far in using them, lies in actually remembering to use them before I become too angry (feeling imposed on), scared (feeling judged) or outright hurt (feeling dismissed) to be able to do so: a primeval bypass circuit in the human brain makes it all too easy to go straight into fight or flight (Goleman, 1995).
Summary
I have found that it takes only three basic messages to create communication instead of control or abuse, and that extended versions of these three messages can help other people to send them to me in return. The most difficult thing about their use, for me, is remembering to use them.
Opportunities
1. When people give welcome and show comprehension, especially before differing, it sometimes is called learning through discussion (cf. Hill, 1962). When this is done in an email environment, it often is called collaborative learning (Crook 1996; Zimmer & Alexander, 1996). An email discussion among practising humanistic psychotherapists is an especially good place to look for such a discussion. You are invited to look for a specific example of collaborative learning from your own experience.
2. In my own observations of everyday life, it is rare for people to give a welcome and show comprehension before differing. Normally they just pass judgement and dismiss others' views before imposing their own; this is control. When this behaviour not surprisingly is resisted, their judgement often escalates into name-calling, and their dismissiveness into imputation of evil motive; this is abuse. In the public arena, political diatribe is a good place to look for such practices. When such practices occur in an email environment, they usually are called 'flaming' (Coate, 1992; Kiesler and Sproull, 1992; Shea, 1994). You are invited to look for a specific example of flaming from your own experience.
3. This paper has been designed to walk its own talk: to follow its own core injunction about use of the words 'I' and 'You', and thereby to deliver to you as a reader the same three core facilitative messages which it discusses. Specifically, it has been designed ...
in the Overview:
to deliver the message
'I'm OK with you. You're OK by me.'
in the Analysis:
to deliver the message
'You're included with your views.'
from the Method to the Summary:
to deliver the message
'I trust you with my own views.'
in the Opportunities:
to deliver the messages
'I trust you with my own views.' [Again]
'I'm OK with you. You're OK by me.'
You are invited to examine the paper to see whether, for you, it has succeeded. (Feedback from you as reader to me as author is difficult in this format, so I've given the second 'I'm OK with you' without first waiting to see if I've been understood.)
4. The techniques described in this paper for substituting communication for control and abuse are always under review. You are invited to formulate your own ideas as to how these techniques might be improved.
5. You yourself may be about to engage in a discussion, online or otherwise. You are invited to try out in practice the techniques presented here.
ارجووووووووووووووووووووووووووك م
والواجب هذا بالعربي
توضيح مبسط للواجب الاول من المادة :
الهدف من هذا الواجب هو تنمية قدرات الطالب على القراءة والاستنتاج ومن ثم كتابة تقرير يحتوي إجابات لأسئلة محدده. ويهدف الواجب أيضا إلى تعريف الطالب على أسس ومبادئ التواصل عبر البريد الالكتروني وكيفية العمل ضمن مجوعات. وينقسم الواجب إلى قسمين:
القسم الأول: يتطلب قراءة المقالة How can I make sure that I'm being understood?, ومن ثم عمل ما يلي:
أ- وصف النقاط الأساسية التي تعرضت لها كاتبة المقالة أعلاه والهدف من وراء المقالة مثلا :
1- لأي فئة من الناس توجه المقالة.
2- ذكر خلفية الكاتبة من حيث تعليمها او حياتها او ثقافتها...
3- هل قامت الكاتبة بتوضيح الهدف من كتابة المقالة وماهو .
ب- اذكر خمسة من النقاط الاساسية التي تناقشها الكاتبة في المقالة
1- تعداد النقاط فقط لايعتبر كافي في هذا الجزء بل يجب اعاده صياغة النقاط لتوضيحها
ج-ضرورة توضيح ما اذا كانت النقاط المذكورة في المقالة مبنية على ملاحظات شخصية او آراء او افكار وذلك عن طريق طرح امثلة مما ذٌكر في المقالة
د- اختيار رسالة من الرسائل الموجودة في مجموعة أحد المؤتمرات ومن ثم التعليق على محتواها.
القسم الثاني: اذكر ثلاثة من اهم العوامل التي تحقق العمل الجماعي عن طريق الإنترنت مع ذكر أسباب اختيار هذه العوامل ومصادرها ولماذا تعتقد أنها مهمة. قد تكون هذه العوامل مستقاة من
خبرتك الشخصية
تجربتك في النشاط رقم TGA2 - Effective Group Work Online Activity
من خلال تلخيصك للمقالة في القسم الأول من الواجب بإمكانك ان تستشف هذه العوامل .
ونؤكد هنا على ضرورة كتابة الواجب ضمن نسق مرتب وبشكل مقالي وحسب الأصول التي سوف يتم شرحها في اللقاءات الأسبوعية المباشرة. ويفضل ان يتم تقسيم فقرات الواجب بحيث يظهر واضحا القسم الاول في عنوان جانبي يبين اسم القسم ومضمونه وكذلك العنوانين الفرعية والتي تتضمن الاجابة على النقاط الفرعية لكل سؤال. كما يجب ان يكون نص الواجب متسلسل ومنطقي من حيث الاسلوب المستخدم.
ارجوكم حلو لي مو عارفة تعبت وانا اترجم
الروابط المفضلة