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 co-construction 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 self-assertion, 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.