Interview to Diana Mazza. Clinical perspective in education.Educational News Bulletin Nr. 60

| , | | , |
Guardar

In this bulletin, we go deeper into the school of clinical perspective in education; a school based on psychology that is focused on the emotional processes involved both in the teacher-student relationship and in the relation with the object of knowledge. To this purpose, we have interviewed Dr Diana Mazza, who introduces us into the theoretical references and conceptual reasoning of this school, the approach it developed and some of the research-training projects in Argentina.

After the interview, you will find a series of bibliography references with further information on this subject.

Diana MazzaWith a Doctorate in Education at the Universidad de Buenos Aires and graduated in Science Education at the UBA, a tenured lecturer in charge of the Chair of Didactics II in the School of Philosophy and Letters of the UBA; a researcher at the Science Education Research Institute in the School of Philosophy and Letters of the UBA, on matters related to university training and teaching from the group perspective. A post-graduate professor at several national universities. She has been vice-dean of the UBA XXI Program, Secretary of Academic Matters at the UBA. Consultant at several educational institutions and corporate organizations in the field of training for work. Author of several publications, such as “La tarea en la universidad” (Tasks in University) (Eudeba).

– Gabriel Latorre: – What is the clinical perspective related to education?

-Diana Maza:- We can analyze the clinical perspective from two points of view. In a broad sense, the clinical aspect has to do with perceiving what is specific. Having a clinical outlook on education has to do with being able to connect ourselves with what is specific of teaching situations. The concrete spaces where the function of knowledge transference occurs. The spaces where there is someone who transfers knowledge and someone who tries to learn. The clinical perspective has to do with grasping the peculiarities of this.

 -GL:- Do you refer to classroom situations only or also to what we may consider “non-formal” teaching processes?

–DM:- Of course. The situations can be absolutely many. The clinical perspective allows grasping what is specific in the diversity. The diversity of multiple spaces where teaching may occur in multiple different ways.

When we refer to teaching or training situations, we talk about situations where there is a function of knowledge. This may involve schools, teaching institutions at any level or any context where teaching is involved. In fact, job training might be considered from a training perspective and it does not imply a specific educational institution. In fact, we have made research work in this area.

Many authors refer to the triad that links 3 components to be considered: teacher, student and knowledge. When this triad interacts, the knowledge function exists.

In a more restricted sense, the clinical perspective has to do with the outlook involving the emotional life of that scene. There is a specific level of reality there, which is the psychical and emotional reality of the situation. This reality is different from the technical, political and social reality, since it involves a different perspective.

By “perspective”, we mean the standpoint from where we look at and get a specific view of the situation. Placing ourselves on the clinical perspective implies defining priorities, observing certain kind of phenomena over others, using theories coming from psychoanalysis.

This is why I make a difference between what is clinical in a broad sense, as it grasps the singularity and the specific, inspired by the psychoanalysis as by other outlooks;  and what is clinical in a more restricted sense, as it refers to the phenomena such as what happens among those individuals, the relationship among them and the kind of knowledge they try to transfer or acquire, their own history updated in this scene, the bondage and relationship issue, where inter-subjectivity takes place; which is what occurs in the intermediate space between individuals.

In the article El sentido de la enseñanza (The sense of teaching), I have tried to present broad issues like the emotional bondage with knowledge, which is of a different nature from the cognitive bondage.

Since the beginning of the XXth century, the cognitive theories have nourished didactics. These theories deal with mental work, how we learn and acquire knowledge. These theories deal with a reality level which has to do with the conscience: to what extent we can acquire a given knowledge; which mental mechanisms come into play before a determined object. Whatever the cognitive theory is (Piaget, Vigotvsky, the American cognitivists), they have all had different answers to the question “How do we learn?”, but all from the conscious point of view.

When I speak of emotional bondage with knowledge, I refer to another line dealing with another level of issues: apart from the cognitive conditions to acquire certain knowledge, there is a way of psychic bondage with such knowledge. Here, all the emotions inherent to the knowledge acquisition process play their part.

– Silvia Paz Illobre: – Nowadays, it seems that neuroscience agrees with psychology. Even if there are a lot of people who may not trust psychology, they find it more difficult to say that they do not trust neuroscience, given the social recognition it has as a branch of medicine. For example, in a conference,  Dr. Facundo Manes discussed the importance of affection over memory construction. That is to say, we tend to believe the memory we have of a fact is that which in fact happened, while indeed, what an individual prioritizes in his memory is what has been emotionally more significant to him. It would be important to recognize this knowledge from the point of view of both disciplines.

–DM:- No doubt! We should question ourselves why psychoanalysis, created as from the end of the XIXth century, has not had the same status as other theories since it has been a somewhat abstract explanatory theoretical model, which has not responded to the patterns of empirical evidence of the science of that time. But we are noticing that through different research ways, we get to the hypothesis that they have much to do with it. In fact, there are authors now interested in issues devoted to pointing out this relation; Gérard Pommier, for instance, in his book Cómo las neurociencias demuestran el psicoanálisis (How neurosciences explain psychoanalysis) (Letra Viva, 2010).

Freud anticipated some issues that we take in Education that have to do with the epistemophilic desire, which was later on developed by Melanie Klein.

There are other ideas developed afterwards, which we deal with when we train education specialists, belonging to the English psychoanalyst Wilfred Bion, which work fundamentally on the problems of the bondage with knowledge. From this perspective, we work on how the possibility of knowing, beyond the cognitive-oriented possibilities we will not deny, lies in bearing a very peculiar feeling, that is frustration.

To us, the educators, this is a vital tool to understand the best part of what happens in the classroom.

How much does a learner tolerate when he does not possess the object? To what extent, in fact, are many of the situations we believe to be learning situations (which we would call non-significant if we were Ausubel’s followers (David Ausubel) and cognitivists) due to the intolerance of not having the object?

For example, excessive memorizing may aid to not being conscious of the permanent quest underlying in learning.

– GL:- In the act of memorizing, isn’t there the illusion of learning everything?

–DM:- Well, precisely. In fact, it is just an illusionary way-out – or as Bion would put it “an hallucinatory way-out “(they have the same meaning), which reveals such intolerance -. This way-out has two aspects: one is believing that we know because we possess the object (memorizing); and the other is through rejecting it, for example: “Mathematics is not for me”. Both ways-out may refer to issues which do not necessarily have to do with cognitive limitations, but with the elaboration of the proper and inevitable limitation in learning. Bion held that knowledge was not the possession itself but the permanent status of quest. The underlying process has an emotion, which is frustration. Knowing implies bearing frustration. 

– GL:- So when we talk about the “knowledge – teacher –student” triad, frustration would be inherent to both; be it between them or between them and the object of knowledge.

–DM:- Absolutely. Hence the complexity that may appear in a situation. A complexity which is not only that of the student’s and his own bondage issue with knowledge. It is that of two individuals, with their own history and their different capacity to elaborate such relation with knowledge, with their own expectations of what is going to happen there. Therefore, the possibility of knowing or not is built on the relationship between them. The problem becomes more complex.

– GL:- When you referred to the specific perspective of the clinical outlook, may we infer that , from such perspective, mediation is a kind of relation to be observed?

– DM:- The idea of mediation is a bit more vigotskyan, more cognitive, not so clinical. But what is always discussed in the pedagogical environment is the creation of mediation conditions so that the other may learn. From the clinical perspective, the idea of mediation has to do with creating a continent space; that is, a space which receives and bears the deposit of emotions. In such space, a teacher or trainer shall elaborate them and return them transformed.

Creating appropriate cognitive mediators to learn is to a cognitivist, what creating a sufficiently continent space so that emotion can be elaborated is to a clinical.

– GL:- Would such space or environment be created by individuals?

DM:- Yes. It is an inter-subjective space. There are individuals interacting there.

– GL:- Trying to relate this concept of continent and inter-subjective space with the didactic conditions, in your article El sentido de la enseñanza, you talk about the capacity of interpreting indicators and signs in order to be able to create the most beneficial conditions for the singularity of each individual.

– DM:- In that part of the article, I’m thinking of an ethnographic-type approach, I’m not referring so much to the clinical approach. The idea of environment crops up here. The anthropologists and cognitive psychologists have brought this idea into didactics. It had to do with the development in the  didactics field, specially as from the ’80s, when it was first noticed that in order to understand what happens in a teaching situation, you must understand why students learn. Since this is finally the question. Didactics has been trying to answer this question for years. First, from an efficiency-guided approach, where we had to analyze which components to change so that they worked better under certain situations, and then, as time went by, with a more complex approach.

When I refer to the environment and to the perception of indicators, I am talking about the ecological approach. This approach is developed when didactics starts to be nourished by the anthropologists and micro-sociologists’ knowledge and experiences; at a moment when didactics stops being closely attached to cognitive psychology and starts interacting with other disciplines. When interacting with other disciplines, the outlook becomes more complex. And we discover the idea of complexity of the environment, which is an epistemological idea.

The only key to understand why a teaching situation generates or does not generate conditions for learning does not lie in a specific component, but has to do with the whole environment. To consider this wholeness, we have to resort to different theories since what happens there is different.

– SPI:- We stop looking only at a student in an environment and start noticing the teacher’s capacity or lack of capacity to establish such relationship.

– DM:- Among other things. We also consider the physical space. And something much more abstract, as well, which is the meaning of the environment. This is complex because, in a certain environment, something we may call “meaning” is built, which makes students and teachers act in a given way. This removes absolute responsibility from teachers as responsibility depends on a series of variables. This is the ecological approach, whose main referent in didactics is Walter Doyle, an American curriculum specialist who comes from the cognitive psychology and who started to incorporate the ethnographic approach. He was a school teacher who started taking detailed records of what happened in his classes. This type of outlook allowed him to observe a series of phenomena which went beyond considering  the mental process involved in certain instruction or practical work. The idea of understanding clues crops up here. Where does a student’s capacity to succeed in school lie on? It lies on his capacity to interpret the clues from the environment which lets him solve things. And this is not just solving mathematics exercises, it is knowing when to speak, whom to, which stimula to respond to or not.

There are two types of indicators: the cognitive ones, which imply knowing how to respond to certain learning demands; and the social ones which refer to what is expected of us in terms of social interaction, exchange and communication with others.

GL:- Have you tried or developed any kind of training action with teachers on this perspective? Have you trained teachers, for example, and what did you observe or which was the result? Maybe within your research work.

– DM:- Yes we have. Between the years 2000 and 2002, we had two research-training projects led by de Dr. Marta Souto. The approach was different from the research-action since the researcher undertook the research problem with the individual researched. In the first case, the project was conducted in a secondary school and consisted of the implementation of a teachers’ training device where we tried to train them on this complex way of observing the classroom. It was called “School Classes Multireferenced Analysis Device” (Dispositivo de Análisis Multireferenciado de Clases Escolares (DIAMCLE)).

 – GL:- And how did you teach to interpret such complexity?

– DM:- We worked within an epistemological hypothesis, the complexity theory, referred to in Edgar Morin‘s. The complexity theory proposes that all modern outlooks of science suppose a way of approaching reality based on the idea of objectivity, that is to say, the research object is differentiated from what it is not; and I, as a researcher, have an objective knowledge provided I may take distance from what the object is.

 – GL: – Then we have the possibility of having a perspective on the neurosciences insertion in education, for example. If there is a distance and delimitation operating there as well.

– DM:- I completely agree on this. I think there is a limit there; at least up to now. But undoubtedly, specially all biological sciences, as we happen to know them, are based on the modern paradigm and on the Cartesian thought. What the complexity theory does is to question whether this way of approaching reality allows us to understand certain kind of phenomena. It is not that modern thinking is invalid or disposable. Morin calls it the “simplicity paradigm”, that is to say, this way of approaching objects as simple objects, cut out, should be incorporated into a broader outlook, which is the outlook of complexity. For the complexity outlook, we are not able to clearly delimit the object from the environment or to clearly delimit the individual from the object he is looking at. In fact, in the second half of the XXth century, some physicists held this. For example, Heisenberg and his uncertainty principle; as well as aspects of Einstein’s theory of relativity which involve this kind of ruptures in respect of modern thinking. In short, it is not that there has been an abrupt change through Morin; science itself has incorporated visions on reality which suppose questioning the modern paradigm. As from then, we work on the idea that the objects we take as research objects are complex objects, and they basically require, given their complexity, that we do not differentiate variables in them, as modern thinking needs to do, and hence, consider the relation among these variables as a direct cause, as modern thinking has tried to prove, while in fact, as Morin would put it, we have to embrace their wholeness knowing they are never complete, and to try to perceive the heterogeneity of what happens. This would require “multi-referentiality“, a complex word that means considering something from different points of view. Again, it is not that we choose only one theory to consider the object, as modern science does; but we try to consider the same phenomenon from different points of view knowing they are not always exhaustive. It is by intertwining the different outlooks that we may perceive a bit of the object complexity. This is an epistemological outlook at the basis of research; it is not research itself but a kind of epistemological hypothesis that allows us to get access to what lays in the relation among different things.

– GL:- How has this outlook influenced the research-training when you worked with teachers?

– DM:- In the research-training mechanism, we have worked in a very large secondary school in the city, which had primary, secondary and tertiary departments and also trained teachers. A completely voluntary group was formed there when they learnt what the modality would be. The DIAMCLE proposed training a group of teachers with minimum theoretical elements but multireferential ones instead, that is, choosing certain subjects and theoretical categories which suppose multireferentiality.

– GL:- Wasn’t there a contradiction with the modern approach with respect to partial views and segmentation? The way of considering it means having a multiplicity of concepts referring to a specific approach. How did you intertwin all these to create an outlook?

– DM:- What we intended was training teachers precisely to let them analyze situations from different points of views. It is a methodology created by Dr. Souto, which we still use with university students. I mean, we train the way of approaching a situation to be able to interpret it from different perspectives. This means approaching the situation from a more didactic and technical way; from a social perspective, be it in the broader social terms of sociology or in the narrower social terms of psycho-sociology; and analyzing the phenomena of communication, power, leadership; and finally considering it from a psychical or emotional point of view paying attention to what occurs in the emotional life of individuals. Basically, we may summarize these three large lines chosen since they have to do with our experience in research, and they are related to the more technical dynamics in the classroom, to the more social dynamics in relationships and to the psychical dynamics related to emotions. We work on the string of outlooks; not on their union or terms formulation to get an integrated mega hypothesis; it is not about that. It is the successive outlooks that allow us to understand what happens.

– SPI:- Did you use this device at secondary level?

– DM:- Yes, with secondary school teachers. There was a central collective space where all teachers were trained to observe situations which were not their own form this multiferentiality.

-GL:- Which kind of situations?

– DM:- Situations in the classrooms; classroom cases.

-GL:-Shot situations?

-DM:- Transcribed cases. Cases they might bring up from some situation; they were not working on their own classroom cases.

-SPI:- With direct observations?

-DM:- No, with written records.

In DIAMCLE. there was a social collective space on the one hand, where all teachers were trained to work on the theoretical categories we provided so that they could observe, for example, the idea of leadership, the idea of power, the idea of didactic agreement, among others. And on the other hand, each one of those teachers could chose a class of their own they would like to be analyzed.

Such teacher was assigned a team researcher. The researcher observed the class before, during and after the DIAMCLE, so that there were three class observation records. These observation records turned into working material. They were ethnographic records of the class which the researcher handed over to the teacher.

In this other private differentiated individual space, the teacher together with the researcher, all along this process and parallel to these cases he analyzed with his colleagues, tried to bring into analysis his own class and he himself therein. He did so in the framework of a very clinical approach, where the researcher was a facilitator of the teacher’s return to himself. That is why we said it was a research-training device, since from the research, we looked at the movements afterwards or the transformations said person had made, the ones he had decided to make and the ones he had considered useful to be made, as well as the movements he had been able to make at a thinking level or action level.

-GL:- Did you find a series of regularities?

-DM:- No, we never found regularities. This is absolutely unique of each person. There were teachers who did not experiment deep transformations. There were teachers who were able to transform their outlook on certain things and noticed things they had not noticed before, and there were teachers who dared to make concrete modifications since they realized there were things they wanted to modify.

DIAMCLE was a device particularly concerned with the great problem of didactics, that is prescription. As a team, researchers took special care to analyze the phenomenon of the researcher’s involvement.

-SPI:- How did you evaluate the results and which goals had been planned?

-DM:- There were training goals and research goals. Training goals intended to train those teachers’ capacity to observe things and to observe themselves; that is, our hypothesis here is that if individuals are given theoretical tools, categories to observe reality, then they can observe more things than without them. And, on the other hand, if adequate conditions are generated so that the other person dares to observe a situation and question himself, then he learns how to observe things. Therefore, the training goals have to do with generating the conditions so that we can observe what happens in a classroom other than our own as well as in our own classroom. Observing our own classroom is more complex since the issue of involvement crops us; and we have to be willing to observe ourselves; we have to be willing to observe what is not working.  This involvement varies completely from one individual to the other. This involvement varies completely according to the individual because there are people who have a more narcissistic involvement with their own job and are less likely to realize the difficulties and, at the other end, there are people who never realize what they do right and are always paying attention to what they can’t achieve.  So, from the training point of view, we intend to create the necessary conditions to enable the individual to observe himself.

From the research point of view, the goal was different. It was to notice up to what extent a training device like this helped training people in a broad sense, not only in giving them knowledge. The goal was not to turn them into theorists of the categories given. The goal was to train their way of  thinking. We were not interested in making them Bion’s theory scholars but we shared Bion’s stuff with them so that, for example, they could notice there were certain kind of phenomena which were related to knowledge.

-SPI:- Within classroom results, did you notice any change in the teaching-learning process which resulted in an improvement?

-DM:- In some cases we did. They were small groups. In this kind of study, we never have very general or large hypothesis. It takes very patient work with tiny results. The course lasted two months approximately; and between the first observation (made before the device was implemented) and the last one (when the teacher looked back and tried to observe to what extent he has modified things or not), there were cases where there had been evident differences and others where there had not. It depends mostly on internal willingness and on what is generated under each training situation. This is why teaching is so complex.

-SPI:- Have you tried or were you able to have another research-training process at teachers’ training institutions?

-DM:- The second DIANCLE was called DIANCLEF, Multireferenced Analysis Device but for Teachers’ Trainers (Dispositivo de Análisis Multireferenciado).

We worked at the same institution with tertiary level teachers, and implemented the same scheme with small differences at the end. As they were teachers’ trainers, the activities had to do with the elaboration of a training project, which had not been done with secondary teachers. But this was a technical difference since the essence of the project was the same; we used the same methodology and the goal of the project was the same: giving teachers the possibility of observing what they had not observed so far or formulated as such, and of being able to notice unobserved phenomena.

-SPI:- Were the teachers’ age groups alike? I’m asking this since, in general, in most cases, the teachers in the teachers’ training colleges are generally old (at least those who have a tenure and have been teachers for long) and it would be interesting to know if this affects their capacity to change or review what they did.

-DM:- A priori, I would disagree. It is not a matter of age. There were young people and well-experienced people in the two groups, and that did not show a direct relation with their flexibility to transform themselves or their capacity to review what they had done.

– SPI:- According to your team, how can this kind of research projects be applied to obtain results or changes in the training of teachers?

-DM:- There are many issues involved in this question. The first is basically political. It demands the decision of training colleges to generalize this kind of things. Another issue has to do with time and institutional conditions. These two projects were possible since this institution counted on institutional hours, and this undoubtedly made it easier for the teacher to allocate certain amount of hours to get involved in a project like this. It is not a minor problem.  Besides, it is necessary that the institution is interested and believes that such a device will improve the teachers’ work. Generalizing this is a complex matter, as there are always micro experiences that might not be open to everybody to do a work like this, as it would not be possible to make a device with this level of detail for a  group of 50 or 100 people.

Introducing this kind of approach in the teachers’ training, in the training syllabi, is a political decision. In general, they are not widespread approaches. There aren´t much people who work along these lines. It is still a restricted space which seems to be out of the syllabi structure of institutions.

– GL:- The sphere of teachers’ practices could be a space or concrete training-transformation sphere  to develop and work on this kind of proposal.

-DM:- No doubt, the space is defined in the syllabus; the problem is what happens within that space. So  we go back to the clinical and absolutely individual. We may have a space of practice for analysis which entails a space-continent for thought and analysis. It itself is a good measure to incorporate practices from the beginning of the training, to make the space of the internship the student’s space to work with a tutor specialized in the content and be incorporated into a class with a teacher at the same time. But it is not a question of the syllabus definition of space, it is a question of the complexity of what is played in there, when players meet, when the teacher receiving the intern has not necessarily defined or had a shared space to define what the intern can do there and, hence, some tension situations appear which have to do with what the intern ends up doing in such space. The experience the intern lives ends up determining his training.

On UBA XXI program (Diana Maza has been the vice-deacon of the admission program at the  Universidad de Buenos Aires up to March 2015)

GL:- At UBA XXI, we work mainly with young students who have just completed their secondary school and who usually bring along the difficulties therein, for example, those referring to the relation with knowledge and the involvement with teachers, which implies the relation with knowledge. In both relationships there appear anxieties, frustrations, different transience with relation to attention. How do you work with this kind of conflicts, or how do you approach didactics at UBA XXI?

-DM:- UBA XXI is a massive program. We have to consider that there are 30,000 students every four months. Just this summer we had around 18,000 students taking summer courses. That is, there are thousands of students. In fact, the program does not allow us to make a clinical work with students. the admission difficulties go beyond the emotional bondage difficulties. I must make clear that the issue if the emotional bondage with knowledge is an aspect of learning together with many others. Should i have to talk about the admission difficulties we are having in Argentina, it goes beyond the emotional problem. There are high levels of failure and this is a problem of national interest. it is a very complex problem that almost half the enrolled students do not pass the university admission exam. which is mostly due to the differences among levels.

-GL:- Frustration also works there.

-DM:- Of course, but among many other things. Between a secondary school that does not provide the basic knowledge universities take for granted when students enter, and a social context which does not facilitate the fact that those students are apt to start University. It is highly complex from the cognitive and social points of view, far beyond the emotional problem. They are surely connected, since the fact that students are not fully prepared place them in a situation of insecurity that very likely threatens their own self-esteem, and surely triggers difficulties in the relationship they have with their  studies and in their considering themselves  “unable to” enter university. However, I would not like to create confusion here: all these aspects being involved do not mean that everything is emotional. There are very concrete admission problems of lack of knowledge, and knowledge the university takes for granted and may seem unwilling to provide in the admission course. A similar problem is noticed in secondary schools admission for first year, where many times there is also a difficult gap to solve. And not by coincidence these first years in secondary schools are the most complex for students. We demand formal thinking in secondary school students, which is not being trained during the last years of primary schools.

This is typical of education. An educational level always blames the previous level for not having trained students properly. This is the well-known problem of levels articulation. In the case of universities, in particular, there is evidently a world of knowledge secondary schools are not providing. But I would not like to omit something which, to me, is very important: whether there is an adequate social context for university students to devote the necessary amount of time to complete a university course of studies.

-GL:- Are you referring to the need to work and the need to survive that are somehow threatening, apart from extending the years of study?

-DM:- Yes, they are threatening. Extended years of study are the direct indicator of the influence of social conditions on the possibility of completing a university course of studies. The fact that a university degree is obtained after 10 or more years of study, as is the case, is a direct indicator of such problem. Therefore I state that the admission difficulties go beyond the emotional problem, even when it is also present.

Our schools do not normally prepare students for tolerance. We are not going to blame only schools since there are also very personal aspects at play which have to do with the student’s own history, I would say “family history”, and with the first experiences of relationship with the world. The clinical perspective goes deeper into processes starting at absolutely early periods. Psychoanalysts – mainly Melanie Klein – base themselves on the very primitive hypothesis, primitive in the sense of first in time, of babies’ relationship with their mothers, where the capacity of tolerating frustration is closely linked to first life experiences and to the relationship established with someone who acts as continent. That is, there is a theoretical hypothesis I will try to explain briefly: when the baby is absolute emotion, as his/her psyche is not developed, he/she needs somebody else to be able to transform himself/herself into a conscious individual; without this other person providing the first aid psychoanalysts speak of, the baby dies. And this other person does not only feed the baby; this other person offers her own developed psyche to make the baby’s emotion meaningful and transform it into thought. I mean, she turns what the baby feels as something unbearable into something bearable. Just as there is a sufficiently good mother (I mean mother in general terms, not necessarily the biological mother but that who behaves as a mother) who bears the baby’s anguish and gives it a conscious sense; it is this mother who promotes the development of the baby’s thoughts and makes his/her own emotion bearable. This very primitive hypothesis, psychoanalysts work on, is then taken by those who are educators, to believe that in the same way that mothers constitute an adequate continent for babies’ emotion and make the babies bear such emotion and become individuals, teachers might be considered in this sense as individuals able to provide what Melanie Klein calls the “rêverie capacity”. This capacity mothers have to connect themselves emotionally with their babies, to give sense to their emotion and make it bearable – now you are cold, now you are hot, now you are hungry – is called rêverie, as “rêverie” means “semi-consciousness” in French. This same connection capacity might seem to appear in teachers when they train or teach, in this possibility of containing the emotion of the student who does not learn or is under a search process, and of giving an elaborated sense so that the student might think and learn.

Consultation Materials on Clinical Perspective in Education

Etiquetas: