Interpreting Dreams Through Humanistic Sandtray Therapy

Interpreting Dreams Through Humanistic Sandtray Therapy Aaron Glogowski Dr. Michael E. Dunn Swan, K. L., Schottelkorb, A. A. (2013). Interpreting Children’s Dreams Through Humanistic Sandtray Therapy. International Journal of Play Therapy, 22 (3), 119-128. doi: 10.1037/a0033389 Swan and Schottelkorb open this article with a statement on dreams and adolescence. They first not that studies have shown that children as young as three years old are able to recall their dreams. Some studies have even hypothesized that children’s dreams can reveal what they think about themselves. Afterward, they proceed to show an example of how children’s dreams change as they develop. Children tend to take on a more active part in their dreams as they get older, and their dreams from ages 4-12 become scarier, based on events in their lives. In this way, traumatic experiences could wind up playing a large part in children’s dreams. In their analysis, Swan and Schottelkorb determined that they wanted to find an approach to aid children in examining their dreams for various thoughts and feelings that may be hidden within them. But to do that, they needed to develop a method of experimentation first, and they wound up choosing the sandtray method. According to their research, Margaret Lowenfeld is the person responsible for creating the World Technique, which gave the base for the development of sandtray therapy. The sandtray method is meant to allow children to recreate scenes from their dreams on a sandtray, which they are then able to explore. Through their experiment, Swan and Schottelkorb hoped to determine whether the children’s dreams could be based on past or present events, in addition to providing them with an outlet to explore their dreams. To carry out their experiment, they began by creating four distinct phases through which the study would occur. These included the precreation phase, the creation phase, the dream processing phase, and the postprocessing phase. Each phase had a very specific goal attached to it. In the first phase, the precreation phase, the aim was to help the children recreate the dreams in their mind, and to bring them to a state of relaxation. The phase began by putting the child through a sense of meditation. The therapist took them through a series of steps to relax them and help them focus their mind. They started by giving them simple statements about themselves or their environment, before moving their attention to the dream aspect of the therapy. The therapist would ask them a series of questions about the dreams to get the child’s thought process focused on the dream’s details. Once they were done asking questions about the dream, they proceeded to the next step. In phase two, the creation phase, the focus shifted to the child’s creation of their dream. At the beginning of phase two, the child was given a sandtray to recreate their dream to the best of their ability. They were told to use as much or as little as necessary to properly create the dream. Swan and Schottelkorb note that it is imperative that the therapist stays engaged and focused on the child, watching their process silently, in order to maintain the proper therapeutic environment for the child to continue to create their dreams in the sand. It was offered that the therapist may note their thoughts and feelings as they try to track the course of the dream. Once that phase concluded, they moved on to the actual dream processing. Phase three, the phase of the processing of the dream, was divided up into several steps. This phase was designed to help better understand the dream and the feelings associated with it. The dream processing phase began with the therapist asking the child to explain the scene that they had created. Swan and Schottelkorb note that by doing this, the focus was able to shift from the child to the creation in the sand, thus making it easier for them to discuss the dream, and any issues or problems that may go along with it. In the first step of the process, the therapist’s goal was to get a firm idea of the world of the dream, asking the child very specific questions about the objects that they had created within the sandtray. At that point, the therapist would ask questions about what happened between certain objects. In the next step, the therapist would ask the child about how certain objects made them feel. The therapist would try to follow along in a way that mimicked the child’s feelings, for example, telling the child about things that they saw with them when they were talking about a certain object. The goal of this portion of the phase was to take notice of how the child felt toward certain triggers. Step three involves the therapist and child trying to figure out what the child sees or imagines when he is presented with a specific object from the set. The hoped to use this step to discover hidden meanings with objects, and how they may be associated with other experiences that th e child may have had. Step four is about examining any possible events that could be in some way linked to the formulation of the dream. Swan and Schottelkorb say that the therapist may need to ask questions in a more solid way to get the specific responses required based on the issue of determining specific triggers for past or present memories. The final step is about reflection, or trying to piece all of the information together. The therapist may ask the child some questions about how they feel about what the dream means, allowing the child to come to terms with the dream as well. The final phase of the study was the postprocessing phase, in which the main goal was to determine the ultimate meaning behind the dream. The therapist asked the child to create a title for the sandtray creation. They hope that this title would help to create a single idea for the meaning of the dream. The child was then asked to create a phrase to sum up how they discovered the meaning of the dream. They make it clear that a picture should be taken of all of the dream scenes to monitor the therapeutic process. They also caution against resetting the dream scene in the sandtray until the child leaves, as it may serve as an extension of the unconscious. Swan and Schottelkorb note one particular case in which a ten year old patient by the name of Mary was subjected to this form of therapy. Mary’s mother had brought her in to therapy because she was worried about Mary being abnormally anxious and sad. The therapist used the sandtray process to uncover the meanings behind a dream that Mary had involving an attacking clock, a fighting wolf, and a protective dog. Through the process, Mary and the therapist were able to determine that she was having these feelings of sadness and anxiety because of her parent’s recent divorce. After the session was over, Mary revealed that she was now feeling more at ease with everything. Swan and Schottelkorb note that the sandtray method used in this instance seemed to activate a healing process for the patient. They end their study by stating that dream based therapy may prove useful for children experiencing emotional difficulties, but where there is no official evidence on the specific type of therapy, counselors should make sure that they obtain full consent before using the method.

Language Policy Essay

LANGUAGE LEGISLATION: VOTER DRIVEN INITIATIVES Kelly M. Jefferson Grand Canyon University: SPE 523 July 23, 2012 The issue of language policy and the education of English language learners (ELLs) in this country has been hotly debated and widely contested. Students who enter our school systems without an understanding of the English language must attain not only conversational proficiency, but also academic literacy in English. Academic literacy is the foundation of school success and necessary for students to master content standards (Echevarria, Short, & Vogt, 2008).All parties agree that ELLs are federally entitled to a quality education once they join this country’s educational system. The debate stems from how to effectively teach students English and core content, simultaneously, in ways that ensure their success within the curriculum. Politicians and educators must also grapple with the dilemma of how to effectively educate non-native students, so as to facilitate their adequate proficiency on a myriad of statewide tests required of all pupils enrolled in public schools.ELLs are concentrated in the urban areas of states like California, Texas, Florida, Illinois, and New York, which have seen the largest influx of English learners within their schools (Boyle, Cadiero-Kaplan, & Peregoy, 2008). Students with limited English proficiency (LEP) made up almost ten percent of the K-12 public school student population in the 2004-2005 school year (Echevarria et al. , 2008). Spanish is the most prevalent primary language (L1) and is spoken by eighty percent of ELLs (Boyle et al. , 2008).In the absence of clear direction at the federal level on how to best prepare ELLs academically, many states have taken the matter into their own hands through various voter initiatives. Arizona, California, and Massachusetts are states that have attempted to solve these questions through ballot initiatives. The voters of each state overwhelmingly adopted a Structured Englis h Immersion (SEI) approach in which ELLs receive all content in English via a sheltering technique that allows learners to understand their instruction.The goal of SEI is language, literacy, and content learning exclusively in English. Each state elected to limit the amount of time ELLs are provided with language assistance to roughly one year, despite research findings that show students need at least five to seven years of language assistance to acquire the English proficiency required for successful academic participation (Boyle et al. , 2008). Arizona’s Proposition 203 was passed in November of 2000 and effectively repealed bilingual education laws in effect at that time.Proposition 203 required all students to be taught in English with the exception of those classified as† English Learners†. Designated pupils are instructed through sheltered English immersion programs (SEI) primarily in English, although a minimal amount of a child’s native language ma y be incorporated, when necessary (â€Å"www. ballotpedia. org†, 2012). Students who demonstrate a solid working knowledge of English are transferred out of the SEI program into a regular English classroom. Parents of identified ELL children have the ability to obtain a waiver that excuses their child from participation in the SEI program.Excused students are often taught English and other content via traditional bilingual education instruction or another recognized instruction method (www. ballotpedia. org, 2012). Parents are also entitled to recoup any actual and compensatory damages they incur as the result of school officials failing to comply with Proposition 203. The Massachusetts English in Public Schools Initiative, known as Question 2, is very similar to the Arizona law, in that Question 2 places a heavy reliance on SEI programs and lessens the availability and access to bilingual education programs.Passed in 2002, the law mandates that all public school children mus t be taught English. All content is delivered in English language classrooms (â€Å"www. ballotpedia. org†, 2012). Children whose native language is not English are educated using the SEI method with minimal access to their native language at their teacher’s discretion. Question 2 allows for children from diverse native language groups to be placed in the same classroom provided their English skills are of similar levels. The law does not affect students with physical and mental impairments in special education programs (â€Å"www. ballotpedia. org†, 2012).Question 2 differs from Arizona’s Proposition 203, in that if twenty or more students in any one grade level at a school obtain waivers that school must offer bilingual education classes in both the child’s native language and English or another type of generally recognized educational program. Question 2 contains some of the same provisions as Proposition 203, such as a parent’s right to sue school officials who obstruct its implementation. English learners in the state undergo annual standardized tests of their English skills and students in grades two and above take annual written standardized tests in English (â€Å"www. allotpedia. org†, 2012). California voters passed Proposition 227 by a huge majority in 1998. The law answered the question of how to educate English language learners in that state by putting in place a statewide SEI program and drastically eliminating access to bilingual education programs (Purcell, 2002). In sync with similar initiatives in Arizona and Massachusetts, Proposition 227 calls for the education of all children in English by being taught in English. The law allows LEP students one year of language assistance before they are mainstreamed into total English speaking classrooms.Each piece of legislation fails to consider the body of research that finds that nonnative speakers need anywhere from five to seven years of language in struction in order to attain a level of proficiency within a second language. The laws also neglect studies that prove that time spent learning in a student’s native tongue does not negate English language development, but enhances it due the transference of literacy skills from one language to another (Purcell, 2002). Also, within the pressurized and time constrained settings of many SEI programs, students are not granted the involuntary and often incidental tmosphere that language development often occurs in. Without necessary native language instruction amid an English language deficit, many LEP students have failed to attain the level of academic achievement and English language proficiency entitled to them. References Arizona english language education for children in public schools, proposition 203 (2000). (2012, February 28). Retrieved from http://ballotpedia. org/wiki/index. php/Arizona_English_Language. Boyle, O. F. , Cadiero-Kaplan, K. , & Peregoy, S. F. (2008). Rea ding, writing, and learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teachers.Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Echevarria, J. , Short, D. J. , & Vogt, M. (2008). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP Model. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Massachusetts english in public schools initiative, question 2 (2002). (2012, February 27). Retrieved from http://www. ballotpedia. org/wiki/index. php/Massachusetts_Question 2. Purcell, J. (2002). The foundations and current impact of california’s proposition 227. Retrieved February 28, 2012 from U. S Department of Education, Educational Resources Information Center: http://www. eric. ed. gov.

Language Learning Resources

Comparison Between Medea and the Epic of Giglamesh. How...

The Greatest Thing in Life â€Å"The greatest thing in life is love, and be loved in return† (Eden Ahbez). â€Å"Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things† (Cor 13:7). Love also influences all things. It is a powerful force that drives people to do things they would normally not do. In the news, there are several instances of murder in the name of love or robbing a bank because a person needs money for the person they love. There are also everyday instances of moving cross country for the person you love, leaving the person you love just to see them happy, or choosing another career path just to be with your significant other. In the literary works The Epic of Gilgamesh and Medea. Gilgamesh and Medea prove†¦show more content†¦Endiku’s love for Gilgamesh blinds him, and convinces him to do something that he knows will ultimately kill them. The pair begins to prepare for their journey into the Cedar Forest. They head to Gilgamesh’s moth er’s temple, Egalmah, and ask for her blessing. She becomes distraught, but formally adopts Endiku has her son, making official that Endiku and Gilgamesh are brothers. The pair leaves Uruk, making way to the Cedar Forest. Along the way, they lift each other’s spirits. Endiku lifts Gilgamesh’s courage whenever he begins to doubt if they can defeat Humbaba, and in turn Gilgamesh reassures Endiku that he is a good warrior. When they finally get to the forest and they meet with Humbaba, they defeat him. Humbaba pleads for mercy by saying he will become Gilgamesh’s servant if he is spared. Gilgamesh considers being merciful but is convinced by Endiku to kill the demon. Gilgamesh’s love for Endiku made his decision clear, he listened to Endiku above Humbaba, therefore sealing Endiku’s fate. Gilgamesh and Endiku return home, where Ishtar makes an advance on Gilgamesh. He refuses her because he knows what has happened to her other lovers. Ishtar be comes furious and unleashes the Bull of Heaven on Uruk. Gilgamesh and Endiku fight the bull, defeat him, and then bask in the fame of Uruk’s people. The gods meet in council to decide Gilgamesh and Endiku’s fate. They are furious that they killed the bull, Humbaba and for felling the tallest tree in the