Main Article Content
We thank the previous publishers for permission to re-publish this article, which previously appeared as Jusik, P. (2018) Strokes, games and learning in groups. Edukacyjna Analiza Transakcyjna, 7, 27-36. We have retained the structure and referencing of that article.
Students’ hunger for strokes plays a key role in improving learning outcomes and emotional literacy in groups. Teachers and facilitators can consciously respond to their learner’s need for recognition by paying attention to the group culture and creating a responsive environment through modelling. When learners’ hunger for strokes is unmet, they start inviting psychological games. Teachers can respond adequately by stressing options in relation to the drama triangle. Additionally, TA concepts are more effective when applied in a relationship context, as otherwise the interventions become a fruitless, simplistic and formulaic endeavour. Some group settings give rise to the role lock phenomenon, when an individual represents an issue that is collectively avoided by other members. When this is brought into awareness, the group can move forward. On the whole, learners thrive when they receive appropriate strokes and permissions that support their growth and development.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The work in this journal is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Karpman, S.B. (1968). Fairytales and script drama analysis. Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 7 (26), 39-43.
Levin-Landheer, P. (1982). The Cycle of Development. Transactional Analysis Journal, 12 (2), 129-139. https://doi.org/10.1177/036215378201200207
Moiso, C. (1985). Ego States and Transference. Transactional Analysis Journal, 15 (3), 194-201. https://doi.org/10.1177/036215378501500302
Napper, R.& Newton, T. (2014). Tactics: Transactional analysis concepts for all trainers, teachers and tutors plus insight into collaborative learning strategies. Ipswich: TA Resources.
Pierzchała, A. (2013). Pasywność w szkole: Diagnoza zjawiska z punktu widzenia analizy transakcyjnej. Częstochowa: Wydawnictwo im. Stanisława Podobińskiego Akademii im. Jana Długosza.
Roberts, D.L. (1975). Treatment of Cultural Scripts. Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 5 (1), 29-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/036215377500500106
Sills, C. (2003). Role Lock: When the Whole Group Plays a Game. Transactional Analysis Journal, 33 (4), 282-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/036215370303300403
Spitz, R.A. (1945). Hospitalism. The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 1 (1), 53-74. https://doi.org/10.1080/00797308.1945.11823126
Steiner, C. (1971). The Stroke Economy. Transactional Analysis Journal, 1 (3) 9-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/036215377100100305
Stewart I.& Joines V. (2009). TA Today. A New Introduction to Transactional Analysis, Nottingham, England and Chapel Hill, NC: Lifespace Publishing
Summers, G.& Tudor, K. (2000). Co-creative. Transactional Analysis Journal, 30 (1), 23-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/036215370003000104