I've been thinking about problems solving in the midst of my training with Ross Greene in his "Collaborative Pro-Active Solutions" model outlined in his The Explosive Child and Lost at School books that have taken root around the world. These books teach that to understand children's behaviors is best done in collaboration with them in defining the problems and then coming up with solutions to the challenges they can bring.
Greene's model of working with kids is one that I have found unique in a number of ways. The most important thing is that it demands that we listen to kids in an extended way, a way that only ends when there is surety that the problem being discussed has been fully addressed by the child. It's not a simple task, but one that is eminently do-able, as its not complex either. It mostly involves listening and reflecting back to the child their statements (think "active listening") until the child convincingly can state that they have really addressed their opinion about the difficulty at hand. Most of the skill is in having patience to let the child concentrate and express their thoughts.
Another unique aspect of the model: it does not include our theories on "why" kids behave the way they do (See "The End of Why Questions" post of 3/2/15) and the lack of theories - even when they are obvious, reasonable and maybe even correct, does something very important: they keep the child engaged in the process of discussing the problem. When we tell kids our erudite conclusions, we run the high risk of excluding them from the process of the discussion. We have, essentially, closed the discussion if the child states anything that is in opposition to our theory. Shutting kids down is obviously a poor way of communicating with them - not a great strategy to solving the puzzle of the child's problems. After all, who better than the child can express their experience?
It seems an obvious position, but one that many clinicians (myself more frequently than I like to admit) often forget. In the almost 9 months I've been using Greene's methodology I've learned a lot as I've left my theories behind. I've learned that kids with autism like to be heard. I've learned that a kid with impaired hearing feels doesn't feel normal when she wears hearing aides (which, by the way, she now regularly wears due to the "problem solving" aspect of the model - something I'm sure to discuss later.) I've learned that a kid with a visual learning disability is much more willing to do his homework if it can be read to her.
Kids and their behavior are not an easy puzzle to figure out, but Greene's model is one that is making it much more successful.
Greene's model of working with kids is one that I have found unique in a number of ways. The most important thing is that it demands that we listen to kids in an extended way, a way that only ends when there is surety that the problem being discussed has been fully addressed by the child. It's not a simple task, but one that is eminently do-able, as its not complex either. It mostly involves listening and reflecting back to the child their statements (think "active listening") until the child convincingly can state that they have really addressed their opinion about the difficulty at hand. Most of the skill is in having patience to let the child concentrate and express their thoughts.
Another unique aspect of the model: it does not include our theories on "why" kids behave the way they do (See "The End of Why Questions" post of 3/2/15) and the lack of theories - even when they are obvious, reasonable and maybe even correct, does something very important: they keep the child engaged in the process of discussing the problem. When we tell kids our erudite conclusions, we run the high risk of excluding them from the process of the discussion. We have, essentially, closed the discussion if the child states anything that is in opposition to our theory. Shutting kids down is obviously a poor way of communicating with them - not a great strategy to solving the puzzle of the child's problems. After all, who better than the child can express their experience?
It seems an obvious position, but one that many clinicians (myself more frequently than I like to admit) often forget. In the almost 9 months I've been using Greene's methodology I've learned a lot as I've left my theories behind. I've learned that kids with autism like to be heard. I've learned that a kid with impaired hearing feels doesn't feel normal when she wears hearing aides (which, by the way, she now regularly wears due to the "problem solving" aspect of the model - something I'm sure to discuss later.) I've learned that a kid with a visual learning disability is much more willing to do his homework if it can be read to her.
Kids and their behavior are not an easy puzzle to figure out, but Greene's model is one that is making it much more successful.
