Показаны записи 2001 - 2010 из 56266
As a succeeding step she was taught the game of anagrams, which was described as entirely comparable to tearing down “the back porch and using the old lumber to build on a new room with a kitchen sink.
“The task of “ naming” the words became most fascinating to her.
The final step was to have her discover that “naming words is just like talking,” and this was achieved simply by having her “build” words taken from the dictionary, apparently chosen at random but carefully selected by the writer, which she was asked to “set down here or there on this straight line.”
Since the words were not put down in correct order but were in correct spacing, the final result when she was called upon to “name” them astonished her.
The words were, “Get going Ma and put some grub on the table.”
As she completed “naming” the words, she declared, “Why, that’s what Pa always says—it’s just like talking.”
The transition from “talking words” to “reading words” was then a minor matter.
Within three weeks’ time she was spending every spare minute with her dictionary and a Readers’ Digest.
She died of a cerebral hemorrhage at the age of 80, a most prolific reader and a frequent letter writer to her children and grandchildren.
“The task of “ naming” the words became most fascinating to her.
The final step was to have her discover that “naming words is just like talking,” and this was achieved simply by having her “build” words taken from the dictionary, apparently chosen at random but carefully selected by the writer, which she was asked to “set down here or there on this straight line.”
Since the words were not put down in correct order but were in correct spacing, the final result when she was called upon to “name” them astonished her.
The words were, “Get going Ma and put some grub on the table.”
As she completed “naming” the words, she declared, “Why, that’s what Pa always says—it’s just like talking.”
The transition from “talking words” to “reading words” was then a minor matter.
Within three weeks’ time she was spending every spare minute with her dictionary and a Readers’ Digest.
She died of a cerebral hemorrhage at the age of 80, a most prolific reader and a frequent letter writer to her children and grandchildren.
With a little judicious maneuvering and indirect guidance on the part of the writer, it was possible to secure among the various “combinations” she made the complete alphabet printed in block form and with some of the letters formed in rounded fashion.
These were carefully reduplicated on a separate sheet of paper.
Thereupon a newspaper advertisement, magazine advertisements, and a child’s textbook were brought out, and systematically it was pointed out that she, without recourse to a copying procedure, had printed each of the letters of the alphabet.
She then was maneuvered into orienting her recognition of the letters not by comparing her printed letters with those in the book but by validating the letters in the book by their similarity to her own constructions.
Great care was exerted to prevent her from losing this orientation. Her excitement, pleasure, and interest were most striking.
The entire procedure was then repeated in the waking state.
The next problem was to interest her safely in “letter building” and “word building” and the “naming,” not reading each new construct.
Each step was accomplished first in the trance state and then repeated in the waking state.
No mention was made of writing or reading; circumlocutions were used.
For example she would be told, “Take some of these straight or crooked lines and build me another letter.
Now build me a few letters alongside of each other and name the word.”
Then she was taught that “a dictionary is not a book to read; it is a book to look up words in, just like a picture book isn’t for reading, it’s just to look at pictures.” With the dictionary she was enabled to discover that she could use vertical, horizontal, oblique, or curved lines to “build” any word in it, and great care was taken to emphasize the importance of “the right name for each word, just like you never forget the correct name for a harrow, a disk, or a cultivator.”
These were carefully reduplicated on a separate sheet of paper.
Thereupon a newspaper advertisement, magazine advertisements, and a child’s textbook were brought out, and systematically it was pointed out that she, without recourse to a copying procedure, had printed each of the letters of the alphabet.
She then was maneuvered into orienting her recognition of the letters not by comparing her printed letters with those in the book but by validating the letters in the book by their similarity to her own constructions.
Great care was exerted to prevent her from losing this orientation. Her excitement, pleasure, and interest were most striking.
The entire procedure was then repeated in the waking state.
The next problem was to interest her safely in “letter building” and “word building” and the “naming,” not reading each new construct.
Each step was accomplished first in the trance state and then repeated in the waking state.
No mention was made of writing or reading; circumlocutions were used.
For example she would be told, “Take some of these straight or crooked lines and build me another letter.
Now build me a few letters alongside of each other and name the word.”
Then she was taught that “a dictionary is not a book to read; it is a book to look up words in, just like a picture book isn’t for reading, it’s just to look at pictures.” With the dictionary she was enabled to discover that she could use vertical, horizontal, oblique, or curved lines to “build” any word in it, and great care was taken to emphasize the importance of “the right name for each word, just like you never forget the correct name for a harrow, a disk, or a cultivator.”
The procedure of the trance state was repeated with no additional elaboration in the waking state and with the same instructions. She was dismissed, not entirely pleased but somewhat intrigued, with instructions to return the next day.
A medium-to-deep trance was readily induced, and it was learned that she had spent approximately two hours “marking marks!”
The explanation was then offered her that the only difference between a pile of lumber to construct a house and the completed house was that the latter was the former “merely put together.”
To this she agreed wonderingly.
She was then shown a rectangle and told, “That’s a rough plan of the side of a 40-foot barn.”
The rectangle was then bisected vertically and she was told, “Now it’s a rough plan of two 20-foot long barns end to end.”
Still wondering, she agreed.
She was then shown a neat copy of the “marks” she had made the previous day and was asked to select those that could be used to make a small-scale “rough plan” of the side of a 40-foot barn and to “mark out” such a plan.
She was then asked to “split it in the middle” and then to “mark out one 20-foot side of a barn up on top of another one the same size.”
Bewilderedly she did so.
She was then asked to use the oblique lines to “mark out” the gable end of a roof and then one of the straight lines to “stretch halfway up from one side to the other like a scantling used to brace the end of the roof.”
Obediently she did so and she was emphatically assured that she now knew how to put marks together, but that she should take half of the doughnut hole and use it repeatedly to “round off the corners of the side of the barn.”
This she did.
Thereupon she was emphatically instructed as an indisputable item of information that not only did she know how to write, but the fact had been irrefutably established.
This dogmatic statement puzzled her greatly but without diminishing her cooperation.
Before she could organize any thoughts on this matter, she was peremptorily instructed to inspect the “marks” and “put them together in twos and threes in different ways.”
A medium-to-deep trance was readily induced, and it was learned that she had spent approximately two hours “marking marks!”
The explanation was then offered her that the only difference between a pile of lumber to construct a house and the completed house was that the latter was the former “merely put together.”
To this she agreed wonderingly.
She was then shown a rectangle and told, “That’s a rough plan of the side of a 40-foot barn.”
The rectangle was then bisected vertically and she was told, “Now it’s a rough plan of two 20-foot long barns end to end.”
Still wondering, she agreed.
She was then shown a neat copy of the “marks” she had made the previous day and was asked to select those that could be used to make a small-scale “rough plan” of the side of a 40-foot barn and to “mark out” such a plan.
She was then asked to “split it in the middle” and then to “mark out one 20-foot side of a barn up on top of another one the same size.”
Bewilderedly she did so.
She was then asked to use the oblique lines to “mark out” the gable end of a roof and then one of the straight lines to “stretch halfway up from one side to the other like a scantling used to brace the end of the roof.”
Obediently she did so and she was emphatically assured that she now knew how to put marks together, but that she should take half of the doughnut hole and use it repeatedly to “round off the corners of the side of the barn.”
This she did.
Thereupon she was emphatically instructed as an indisputable item of information that not only did she know how to write, but the fact had been irrefutably established.
This dogmatic statement puzzled her greatly but without diminishing her cooperation.
Before she could organize any thoughts on this matter, she was peremptorily instructed to inspect the “marks” and “put them together in twos and threes in different ways.”
O. K. Now make a mark on the paper, any old scribbling mark like a baby that can’t write makes. Just any old crooked mark! That’s something you don’t even have to learn.
O. K. Now make a straight mark on the paper, like you make with a nail when you want to saw a board straight or with a stick when you mark a row in the garden. You can make it short or long or straight up and down or just lying down.
O. K. Now make a mark like the hole in a doughnut and then two marks like the halves of the doughnut when you break the doughnut in halves.
O. K. Now make two slanted marks, one like one side of the gable roof of a barn and the other like the other side.
O. K. Now make a mark like a horse’s crupper standing on the little end. And now poke the pencil in the paper and make just a little spot.
O. K. Now all those marks you made you can make different sizes and in different places on the paper and in different order and even one on top of the other or one next to another. O. K.?
Now, those marks that you made and can make again any old time [straight, vertical, horizontal, and oblique lines; circles, semicircles, etc.] are writing, but you don’t know that it is writing. You don’t have to believe that it is writing—all you have to do is know that you can make those marks and that isn’t hard to know, because you already know it. Now I’m going to awaken you and do the same thing all over, and I want you to practice at home making those marks. O. K.?
O. K. Now make a straight mark on the paper, like you make with a nail when you want to saw a board straight or with a stick when you mark a row in the garden. You can make it short or long or straight up and down or just lying down.
O. K. Now make a mark like the hole in a doughnut and then two marks like the halves of the doughnut when you break the doughnut in halves.
O. K. Now make two slanted marks, one like one side of the gable roof of a barn and the other like the other side.
O. K. Now make a mark like a horse’s crupper standing on the little end. And now poke the pencil in the paper and make just a little spot.
O. K. Now all those marks you made you can make different sizes and in different places on the paper and in different order and even one on top of the other or one next to another. O. K.?
Now, those marks that you made and can make again any old time [straight, vertical, horizontal, and oblique lines; circles, semicircles, etc.] are writing, but you don’t know that it is writing. You don’t have to believe that it is writing—all you have to do is know that you can make those marks and that isn’t hard to know, because you already know it. Now I’m going to awaken you and do the same thing all over, and I want you to practice at home making those marks. O. K.?
</>
Further Clinical Techniques of Hypnosis: Utilization Techniques
meta_eugzol в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
Milton H. Erickson
Reprinted with permission from The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, July 1959, 2, 3-21
EXAMPLE 14
A 70-year-old woman born in a rural community had not been allowed to attend school, since her parents did not believe in education for women. At the age of 14 she married a youth of 16, whose formal education was limited to his signature for signing checks and “figgering.” The bride was pleased with her husband’s greater education and resolved to have him teach her, since she resented her lack of schooling. This hope did not materialize. During the next six years she was kept busy with farm work and pregnancies, but she did learn to “figger” excellently but only mentally, since it was apparently impossible for her to learn to write numerals. Neither was she able to learn to sign her name.
At the age of 20 she hit upon the idea of furnishing room and board for the local rural schoolteacher, with the intention of receiving, in return for reduced rates, the much desired instruction in reading and writing.
Each school year for the next 50 years she made and kept her agreement, and the teachers hopefully began the attempt. Finally, some soon, others only after prolonged labor, abandoned the task of teaching her as hopeless. As the community grew, the number of teachers increased until she was boarding, year after year, a total of four. None succeeded, despite the sincerity of her desire and the honesty of their effort. Her children went through grade school, high school, and college, and they too tried to instruct their mother but without results.
Each time she was given a lesson, invariably she developed, after the manner of a seriously frightened small child, a state of mental blankness or a state of frantic, disorganized effort to please that led to a total impasse.
It was not that “Maw” was unintelligent. She had an excellent memory, good critical judgment, listened well, and was remarkably well informed. She often gave strangers, through her conversation, the impression that she had a college education, despite her faulty grammar.
At the time she was seen by the writer, she and her husband had been retired for some years, but she was still boarding teachers, three at that time. These three had made it a joint project for several months to teach her the elements of reading and writing but were finally forced to give up. They described her as:
It’s always the same. She starts the lesson period full of enthusiasm and hope, and that’s the way you feel, too. But inside of a minute you’ll swear that you must be talking a foreign language to her because she doesn’t understand a thing you say or do. No matter what you say or do, she just sits there with those eager, troubled eyes, trying hard to make sense out of the nonsense you seem to be saying to her. We’ve tried everything. We’ve talked to some of our friends who have tried. She is just like a badly scared child who has blanked out completely, except that she doesn’t seem scared but just blanked out. Because she is so intelligent, we just couldn’t believe that she couldn’t learn easily.
Reprinted with permission from The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis, July 1959, 2, 3-21
EXAMPLE 14
A 70-year-old woman born in a rural community had not been allowed to attend school, since her parents did not believe in education for women. At the age of 14 she married a youth of 16, whose formal education was limited to his signature for signing checks and “figgering.” The bride was pleased with her husband’s greater education and resolved to have him teach her, since she resented her lack of schooling. This hope did not materialize. During the next six years she was kept busy with farm work and pregnancies, but she did learn to “figger” excellently but only mentally, since it was apparently impossible for her to learn to write numerals. Neither was she able to learn to sign her name.
At the age of 20 she hit upon the idea of furnishing room and board for the local rural schoolteacher, with the intention of receiving, in return for reduced rates, the much desired instruction in reading and writing.
Each school year for the next 50 years she made and kept her agreement, and the teachers hopefully began the attempt. Finally, some soon, others only after prolonged labor, abandoned the task of teaching her as hopeless. As the community grew, the number of teachers increased until she was boarding, year after year, a total of four. None succeeded, despite the sincerity of her desire and the honesty of their effort. Her children went through grade school, high school, and college, and they too tried to instruct their mother but without results.
Each time she was given a lesson, invariably she developed, after the manner of a seriously frightened small child, a state of mental blankness or a state of frantic, disorganized effort to please that led to a total impasse.
It was not that “Maw” was unintelligent. She had an excellent memory, good critical judgment, listened well, and was remarkably well informed. She often gave strangers, through her conversation, the impression that she had a college education, despite her faulty grammar.
At the time she was seen by the writer, she and her husband had been retired for some years, but she was still boarding teachers, three at that time. These three had made it a joint project for several months to teach her the elements of reading and writing but were finally forced to give up. They described her as:
It’s always the same. She starts the lesson period full of enthusiasm and hope, and that’s the way you feel, too. But inside of a minute you’ll swear that you must be talking a foreign language to her because she doesn’t understand a thing you say or do. No matter what you say or do, she just sits there with those eager, troubled eyes, trying hard to make sense out of the nonsense you seem to be saying to her. We’ve tried everything. We’ve talked to some of our friends who have tried. She is just like a badly scared child who has blanked out completely, except that she doesn’t seem scared but just blanked out. Because she is so intelligent, we just couldn’t believe that she couldn’t learn easily.
The children couldn't believe their ears. Here was a teacher telling them to cheat! When people hear the word 'cheat' they are shocked. We are taught from an early age that cheating is wrong, and indeed it is. But this teacher was not talking about cheating the way we normally understand the term. He was talking about using your mind in a way that you never did before.
The teacher (Richard Bandler) was talking about organising and driving your brain so that it helps you to spell consistently, speak fluently, calculate effectively, read efficiently, remember consistently and learn easily.
When learners are taught the quick and easy steps to learning it does seem that they have an unfair advantage, unless or until of course all children are taught the same processes. So some people may think this is cheating, while learners today might use the term 'learning hacks'. We prefer the terms learning on purpose and thinking on purpose.
The teacher (Richard Bandler) was talking about organising and driving your brain so that it helps you to spell consistently, speak fluently, calculate effectively, read efficiently, remember consistently and learn easily.
When learners are taught the quick and easy steps to learning it does seem that they have an unfair advantage, unless or until of course all children are taught the same processes. So some people may think this is cheating, while learners today might use the term 'learning hacks'. We prefer the terms learning on purpose and thinking on purpose.
</>
Application of Implications of Lashley’s Researches in a Circumscribed Arteriosclerotic Brain Cond
metanymous в посте Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
Application of Implications of Lashley’s Researches in a Circumscribed Arteriosclerotic Brain Condition
Milton H. Erickson
Reprinted with permission from Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 16, 779-780.
Milton H. Erickson
Reprinted with permission from Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 16, 779-780.
Спасибо!
По ДПДГ/емдр новое исследование
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/early/2018/09/04/JNEUROSCI.0703-18.2018
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/early/2018/09/04/JNEUROSCI.0703-18.2018
</>
![[pic]](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51BbFg32G-L._SX323_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Образование -обучение (10) TEACHING EXCELLENCE THE DEFINITIVE GUIDE TO NLP FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
metanymous в Metapractice (оригинал в ЖЖ)
https://metapractice.livejournal.com/586718.html
Примечание:
The Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (or TEF) is a government assessment of the quality of undergraduate teaching in universities and other higher education providers in England, which may be used from 2020 to determine whether state-funded providers are permitted to raise tuition fees. Higher education providers from elsewhere in the United Kingdom are allowed to opt-in, but the rating has no impact on their funding. The TEF rates universities as Gold, Silver or Bronze, in order of quality of teaching.[1][2][3] The first results were published in June 2017. This was considered a "trial year" (even though the non-provisional ratings awarded are valid for 3 years[4]) and is to be followed by a "lessons learned exercise" that will feed into the 2018 TEF and longer-term plans for subject-level ratings.[5][6] In October 2017 the official title of the exercise was officially renamed from Teaching Excellence Framework to the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_Excellence_Framework
Примечание:
The Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework (or TEF) is a government assessment of the quality of undergraduate teaching in universities and other higher education providers in England, which may be used from 2020 to determine whether state-funded providers are permitted to raise tuition fees. Higher education providers from elsewhere in the United Kingdom are allowed to opt-in, but the rating has no impact on their funding. The TEF rates universities as Gold, Silver or Bronze, in order of quality of teaching.[1][2][3] The first results were published in June 2017. This was considered a "trial year" (even though the non-provisional ratings awarded are valid for 3 years[4]) and is to be followed by a "lessons learned exercise" that will feed into the 2018 TEF and longer-term plans for subject-level ratings.[5][6] In October 2017 the official title of the exercise was officially renamed from Teaching Excellence Framework to the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework.[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaching_Excellence_Framework
Дочитали до конца.