guiadeayuntamientos.info | Relationship, learning and education
Relationship education is scientifically proven to help your relationship and give you tools you need to communicate better. Our relationship programs utilize. I have blogged several times about the debate over the effectiveness of social policies to promote relationship education (RE) programs. Improving students' relationships with teachers has positive implications for students' instruction is designed to be appropriate to students' educational levels.
BSF and control group couples reported that their co-parenting relationships were of equally high quality. In addition, at the month follow-up, couples in both research groups were equally likely to report that fathers were living with their children, spending substantial time with them, and providing them with substantial financial support. BSF couples were less likely than control group couples to remain romantically involved, 59 percent versus 70 percent.
Baltimore BSF couples reported being less supportive and affectionate toward each other than control group couples did.
Five Tips for Teaching Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education in Schools
In addition, women in the Baltimore BSF program were more likely than women in the control group to report having been severely physically assaulted by a romantic partner in the past year, 15 percent compared with 9 percent.
Baltimore BSF couples also rated the quality of their co-parenting relationship lower than control group couples did and reported that BSF fathers spent less time with their children and were less likely to provide them financial support than control group fathers were. Department of Health and Human ServicesAdministration for Children and Familiesa meta-analysis by Hawkins and Ooms  and a five-year impact report by Peluso, Eisenberg and Schindler  found that relationship education provided statistically significant benefits for married couples.
However, the largest and most rigorous study of low-income, unmarried couples produced mixed results and shows there is still much to learn Across nearly all the studies reviewed for this Report, MRE improves communication—a core, essential relationship skill—as well as other measures of relationship quality.
Relative to the control group, the program group showed higher levels of marital happiness, lower levels of marital distress, greater warmth and support, more positive communication, and fewer negative behaviors and emotions in their interactions with their spouses. The consistency of results across outcomes and data sources surveys and independent observations of couple interactions is noteworthy. Compared with individuals in the control group, program group members reported experiencing slightly less psychological and physical abuse from their spouses.
Men and women in the program group reported less psychological abuse in their relationships, and men in the program group reported that their spouses physically assaulted them less often, compared with their control group counterparts.
Is couple and relationship education effective for lower income participants? Journal of Family Psychology, 29, Are government-supported healthy marriage initiatives affecting family demographics? Family Relations, 62, For instance, see, Randles, J. Marriage education policy and inequality in AmericaNew York: Columbia University; Heath, M.
One marriage under God: The campaign to promote marriage in America. New York University; Lee, G. The limits of marriage: Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, —; Huston, T. The case for promoting marriage: The devil is in the details.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, —; 4. The long-term effects of Building Strong Families: A program for unmarried parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76, — Does social and economic disadvantage moderate the effects of relationship education on unwed couples? An analysis of data from the month Building Strong Families evaluation.
Family Relations, 63, A family-strengthening program for low-income families: Final impacts from the Supporting Healthy Marriage evaluation.
Relationship education - Wikipedia
Department of Health and Human Services. Many professional informal educators, for example, operate in settings where they have to work very hard at being recognized first and foremost as educators. The agency may well employ them as, say, a key worker within a hostel or day centre. As such they may well be drawing upon an understanding of a role derived from social work or care management.
Similar conflicts can arise within youth work, community development and other agencies. There is a further struggle in terms of working with the project participant or client. They may well come to the group or the setting not recognizing it as an educational setting. For example, they may have wanted to take part in a particular activity or interest such as a sport or some sort of creative arts.
Deepening their abilities in football, say, may well be part of their agenda, but they may well not see the worker in the group as an educator.
What we have here is a classic question of role. The educator is seeking to establish themselves in that role — and they need that role to be accepted by others if they are to function. One further thing needs noting here. The behaviour that is directed at us may well derive from the way people see and experience our role, rather than the people we are.
In a community group we may get abused because we ask questions about the way money is being handled. These questions can arise directly from our role with the group as informal educators we are committed to certain values e.
- What is Relationship Education?
- Relationship education
- Relationship, learning and education
Some of the abuse may come because of the way we ask questions i. For professional informal educators relationships are mostly temporary. Indeed, they can be very short — just one encounter. However, in some working situations, such as in a school, club or project the relationship may exist over a number of years. She is guided by two propositions. The emotional bond that unifies two or more people around some shared concern is charged with enabling, facilitative powers.
In an increasing anomic and depersonalised world, there may be potential humanizing value in even brief and task-focused encounters between one person and another.
What is Relationship Education? | Marriage and Family Research Institute
It can reduce the feeling that we are alone and that the tasks we face are so huge. Their pleasure in our achievements or concern for our hurt can motivate us to act. Crucially, their valuing of us as people can help us to discover the worth in ourselves, and the belief that we can change things. Relationships can animatebreathe life into situations. Relationships are obviously not all that we need. It is not at all a substitute for the opportunities and material things people need in order to flourish.
He highlights three significant qualities or attitudes that facilitate learning: Realness in the facilitator of learning. Perhaps the most basic of these essential attitudes is realness or genuineness. This means that the feelings that she is experiencing are available to her, available to her awareness, that she is able to live these feelings, be them, and able to communicate if appropriate.
It means coming into a direct personal encounter with the learner, meeting her on a person-to-person basis. It means that she is being herself, not denying herself. There is another attitude that stands out in those who are successful in facilitating learning… I think of it as prizing the learner, prizing her feelings, her opinions, her person.
It is a caring for the learner, but a non-possessive caring. It is an acceptance of this other individual as a separate person, having worth in her own right. It is a basic trust — a belief that this other person is somehow fundamentally trustworthy… What we are describing is a prizing of the learner as an imperfect human being with many feelings, many potentialities.
A further element that establishes a climate for self-initiated experiential learning is emphatic understanding. Rogers emphasizes achieving a full an understanding of the other person as is possible. Here we might argue that in conversationthe task is not so much to enter and understand the other person, as to work for understanding and commitment. This is not achieved simply by getting into the shoes of another. Conversation involves working to bring together the insights and questions of the different parties; it entails the fusion of a number of perspectives, not the entering into of one Gadamer However, the core conditions that Carl Rogers identifies are a very helpful starting point for considering the attitude or orientation of informal educators in relationships.
Conclusion In this piece we have seen how relationship is both a medium through which informal educators work, and a state that they want to foster. Being in relationship allows us to flourish. It involves an emotional connection with another and can animate us. It links to a concern to work so that all may share in a common life. Further reading and references Biestek, F. Classic exploration with an opening chapter on the essence of the casework relationship and then a discussion of what Biestek sees as the seven principles of the casework relationship: The heart of helping people, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Routledge and Kegan Paul.