create a dialogue based on one of the following situations

RequestPDF | Services Task Model Based Dialogue Scenarios Design Towards L2 WTC Support Oriented Dialogues Authoring Tool | Prior studies have demonstrated that embodied conversational agents Withthe increasing popularity of social apps, sending emojis has become a very common way of expressing one's emotions. However, situations often arise when people send the wrong emoji by mistake, or sometimes even an emoji with an opposite meaning, which can cause embarrassment to the sender. Taking WeChat as an example, which is widely used in Chinese communities, this study summarizes 10 Createa simple dialogue for the following situations and use modals correctly.There are different possibilities.You can use the following modals to talk about these possibilities.Use any of these modals. Choices: can , could , will , might , may be , going to 1. What might cell phones be able to do in the future? 2. Thispaper is based on data from two teaching sequences in primary school that are designed using principles from the theory of didactical situations (TDS). The following research question is addressed: "What opportunities can a teaching design based on TDS give a teacher to gain insight into pupils' language use, and to use this insight to establish shared, and mathematically acceptable 1Examples of dialogue between two people. 1.1 Formal dialogue. 1.2 Friendly dialogue. 1.3 Courteous dialogue. 1.4 Dialogue between friends. 1.5 Dialogue between acquaintances. 1.6 Dialogue between friends. 1.7 Everyday dialogue. 1.8 Formal dialogue. Frau Sucht Mann Für Eine Nacht. Perintah dari soal tersebut adalah membuat dialog antara kamu dan temanmu. Dalam dialog tersebut, kalian mendiskusikan tentang membuat surat pada orang tua dengan membahas mengenai karya wisata yang telah kalian laksanakan. Contoh dialognya adalah You I want to send a letter for my parents. Artinya "Aku ingin menulis surat untuk orang tuaku". Friend That's would be nice! What do you want to tell them? Artinya "Wah itu bagus! Apa yang ingin kamu sampaikan pada mereka?" You I want to tell about our recent field trip. How should I start to write? Artinya "Aku ingin menceritakan tentang karya wisata yang telah kita laksanakan. Bagaimana aku mulai menulisnya?" Friend Firstly, you need to write the address, date and your parents' name. After that, you can write some greetings and continue to write about the story of our field trip and don't forget to write closing statement and your signature. Artinya "Pertama, kamu perlu menuliskan alamat, tanggal dan nama orang tua mu. Kemudian, kamu dapat menulis salam pembuka dan mulai bercerita tentang karya wisata kita dan jangan lupa untuk menuliskan kalimat penutup dan tanda tanganmu". You I see. Thank you. Artinya "Oh begitu, terimakasih". Jadi, contoh jawaban yang benar dapat dilihat pada dialog diatas. Writing good dialogue is not just about quippy lines and dramatic pauses. It's about propelling the story forward, pulling the reader along, and fleshing out characters and their dynamics right in front of the readers. Well-written dialogue has the potential to take your story to a whole new level. Here's how to write great dialogue in 9 steps 1. Skip the greetings and small talk 2. Keep to three dialogue beats 3. Use action beats 4. Don’t be afraid to use said’ 5. Add variety to your dialogue scenes 6. Avoid excessive exposition 7. Use catchphrases or quirks in moderation 8. Know that characters don’t always mean what they say 9. Remember that less is more 👀 Which dialogue tag are YOU? Find out in just a minute. 1. Skip the greetings and small talk Alfred Hitchcock once said that “drama is life with all the boring bits cut out.” Similarly, we could say that good dialogue is like a real conversation without all the fluff. Think about it very few “classic” scenes start with characters saying “Hey buddy! How are you doing? Wow, long time no see. Parking was a nightmare.” These lines don’t add anything to the story, and they are said all the time. Are you willing to repeat this prelude for every scene where the characters meet? Probably not, nor do your readers want to sit through it. Readers can infer that all these civilities occur, so you can go ahead and skip forward to get to the meat of the conversation. For a more tangible example of this technique, check out the dialogue-driven opening to Barbara Kingsolver's novel, Unsheltered. 2. Keep to three dialogue beats Outlined by screenwriter Cynthia Whitcomb, the Three-Beat Rule advises writers to have a maximum of three dialogue beats at a time, after which you should insert a dialogue tag, action beat, or another character’s speech. Dialogue “beats” can be understood as the short phrases in speech that you can say without pausing for breath. Sometimes they correlate with actual sentences, sometimes they don’t. Here’s an example from Jane Gardam’s short story, “Dangers”, in which the boy Jake is shooting an imaginary gun at his grandmother Now, you may point out that classic books often don’t follow this rule — that’s because dialogue conventions have changed over time. Nowadays, a lengthy and unbroken monologue unless it’s been effectively built up to be an impassioned outburst or revelation tends to feel dated and awkward. Readers also lose their attention and interest easily in the face of long speeches, so the Three-Beat Rule is definitely one to follow! FREE COURSE How to Write Believable Dialogue Master the art of dialogue in 10 five-minute lessons. 3. Use action beats While we’re on the topic of beats, let’s take a look at another kind — action beats. These are descriptions of the expressions, movements, or even internal thoughts that accompany the speaker’s words. They’re included in the same paragraph as the dialogue, to indicate that the person acting is also the person speaking. Action beats can keep your writing varied, avoiding the need for a long list of lines ending in he said’ or she said’. They can also be used to manage the pace of a dialogue-heavy scene. Furthermore, they can illustrate and add context to the conversation, so that readers can gauge the significance of the scene beyond what was being said. These beats are a commonly used technique so you can find plenty of examples — here’s one from Never Let Me Go by Kazuo Ishiguro. 4. Don’t be afraid to use said’ Said’ gets a bad rap for being boring and overused as a dialogue tag, especially in school. But in the book-writing world, this simple tag is favored over more descriptive ones like exclaimed,’ declared,’ or the many other words used to replace said.’ Pro-tip While we cannot stress enough the importance of "said," sometimes you do need another dialogue tag. Download this free cheatsheet of 270+ other words for said to get yourself covered! FREE RESOURCE Get our Dialogue Tag Cheatsheet Upgrade your dialogue with our list of 270 alternatives to “said.” The thinking goes that most of the time, readers don’t notice words like said’ because their attention is rightfully on what’s actually being spoken. As writer Elmore Leonard puts it “Never use a verb other than said’ to carry dialogue. The line of dialogue belongs to the character; the verb is the writer sticking his nose in. But said’ is far less intrusive than grumbled,’ gasped,’ cautioned,’ lied.’” To never use other verbs might be a drastic measure, but you definitely do not want to overcrowd your dialogue with fancy tags and risk taking readers out of a scene for a brief display of verbal virtuosity. If bestsellers like Daphne du Maurier's Gothic novel, Rebecca, features said’ on a regular basis, then your book can, too. 5. Add variety to your dialogue scenes This tip is all about exceptions to some of the tips we’re sharing here. Learning how to write good dialogue isn’t about strictly following rules but rather learning what technique to use when, and emphasizing what's actually being said between characters. If you stick to one rule the whole time — if you only use said,’ or you finish every dialogue line with an action beat — you’ll quickly wear out readers. See how unnaturally it plays out in the example below with Sophie and Ethan The key, then, is to have variety in structure and use of dialogue tags or action beats throughout a scene — and by extension, throughout your book. Make said’ the default, but be flexible about changing it whenever a description of the characters or a more elaborate dialogue tag can add nuance to the scene! 🎵 Tell us about your book, and we'll give you a writing playlist It'll only take a minute! 6. Avoid excessive exposition Exposition is always a tough nut to crack when writing — finding an organic, timely, and digestible way to reveal important background information can be quite the challenge. It might seem natural to slot some exposition into dialogue in order to avoid overt narrative digressions, but it’s far from a sure-fire solution to your problem. This is mostly because speech-based explanations can quickly become unnatural. Characters might speak for too long, with too much detail on things that they really might not think about, remember, or comment on in the story’s context think “I’m just going to the well, mother — the well that my brother, your son, tragically fell down 5 years ago…”. Just because it’s a conversation doesn’t mean that info-dumps can’t happen. As such, be careful when carrying out dialogue-based exposition. It’s usually good to have at least one character who doesn’t fully understand what’s happening, so that you can offer explanations relatively naturally — rather than explaining things just for the sake of the readers. For instance, in The Godfather, readers get their first look at the Corleones through Michael's introduction of his family to his girlfriend. Kay Adams is Michael’s date at his sister’s wedding in this scene. Her interest in his family is natural enough that the expository conversation doesn’t feel shoehorned in. 7. Use catchphrases or quirks in moderation Giving a character a catchphrase or quirk — like Jay Gatsby’s “old sport” or Dolores Umbridge’s “hem hem” — can give them a distinctive, recognizable voice. But as with all character quirks, they work best when you don’t go overboard with them. Firstly, you don’t want your character to repeat this catchphrase too frequently, otherwise, readers might find it jarring. Remember what Elmore Leonard said about the writer intruding? If you inject the quirk too much, you might become visible on the page. Secondly, you also want to avoid giving too many characters their own quirks. Gatsby and Umbridge’s voices stand out because no one else has something as memorable about their speech. Moreover, each quirk reveals something about the character Gatsby impersonates a gentleman in his speech and lifestyle; Umbridge works to maintain her image of composure in contrast to the disarray of Hogwarts under the direction of Dumbledore. You therefore want to think carefully about your character’s voice, and use catchphrases and quirks only when they really have something to say about your character. 🖊️ Which famous author do you write like? Find out which literary luminary is your stylistic soulmate. Takes one minute! 8. Know that characters don’t always mean what they say Just as “I’m good” in response to a friendly “How are you?” might not actually mean that you’re good, characters can also say things that don’t reflect the truth. Creating dialogue that places emphasis on what’s not said the subtext can make your story that much more realistic and compelling. To do this, you can apply the classic rule of “show, don’t tell”. Use action beats and descriptions to provide clues that can be read between the lines. Let’s revisit Sophie and Ethan in this example While Sophie claims she hasn’t been obsessing over this project all night, the actions in between her words indicate that there’s nothing on her mind but work. In weaving personality traits into the conversation through action beats, rather than describing Sophie as hardworking or using a “she lied” dialogue tag, you give readers a chance to organically get to know the characters. FREE COURSE Show, Don't Tell Master the golden rule of writing in 10 five-minute lessons. 9. Remember that less is more Our final tip is more of a reminder than anything. With a “less is more” mentality, you can cut out unnecessary bits of dialogue the “boring bits” from tip 1 and focus on making sure the dialogue you do keep matters. Good writing is intentional and purposeful — it always strives to keep the story going and readers engaged — so the importance lies in quality rather than quantity. One particular point we haven’t really addressed is repetition. If used well with clear intentions, repetition is a literary device that can help you build motifs and flesh out themes in your writing. But when you’re writing dialogue and find yourself repeating well-established pieces of information, it might be a good time to step back and revise your work. For instance, here’s a scene with Sophie and Ethan later on in the story Having Sophie mention that they’ve been working together since the transfer feels repetitive without really adding anything to the conversation. Instead of rephrasing this bit of info, consider cutting Sophie’s line altogether or adding something else, like “I can’t believe we’re talking about this again”, to increase the tension between the characters. The point is, a good dialogue is often a place where character dynamics can play out. Including needless phrasings or repetitions may decrease the strength of that interaction, and waste valuable space in a scene. If you’re verging on repeating yourself, it’s better to write less and let the readers infer more. We know that writing dialogue can be intimidating, especially if you don’t have much experience with it. But that should never keep you from including it in your work! Just remember that the more you practice — especially with the help of these tips — the better you’ll get. And once you’re confident with the conversational content you can conjure up, follow along to the next part of our guide to see how you can punctuate and format your dialogue flawlessly. Teachers need ideas for creating dialogues in ESL classrooms to help their students to practice Dialogues in ESL Classrooms-Why?Dialogue writing is an activity where students collaborate to compose a dialogue, which can later be performed for the entire class. I have found dialogue writing to be extremely motivating with my university students, and I’m always very impressed with their benefit of this activity is that it is extremely student-centered, giving students the opportunity to create their own materials for speaking and listening. This allows them to create material is more personalized than a dialogue in a who are reluctant to speak out in class enjoy the progression from writing to speaking. Read here about some LEAD IN IDEAS for the ESL addition, this type of activity gives students a chance to be creative. They can make their dialogue dramatic, funny, serious or crazy. Students are always curious to hear what their classmates have following are a few ideas that can help creating dialogues in ESL classrooms. Several of these are based on the brilliant ideas found in the book Dialogue Activities by Nick Bilbrough Cambridge University Press, a highly recommended resource book about using dialogues in the and End- Creating Dialogues in ESL Classrooms Prepare a handout that has 10 lines, each marked “A” or B” on the left side. On the first and last line, add a simple sentence or phrase in English such as “Excuse me” or “Hello” for the first line or “I gotta go” or “Goodbye” for the last line. Prepare one copy of the handout for every two students in your class. Pass out the handouts. Tell students you want them to create a dialogue that begins and ends with the phrases on their handout. They are free to write whatever they want, but they cannot alter the beginning and end of the dialogue. Once students have finished writing, give them time to rehearse, then call on a few pairs to perform the dialogues for the class. Variation if you want to give this activity an additional twist, you can assign each pair a theme for their dialogue, such as THE ANGRY DIALOGUE, THE HIP-HOP DIALOGUE, THE OLD PEOPLE DIALOGUE, THE RUDE DIALOGUE, THE SUPERHERO DIALOGUE or THE NERD a Dialogue from Short PhrasesWrite on the board 7 expressions that you want students to practice. You can use expressions from your coursebook, or some that you want students to learn. Aim for expressions that students can use in their daily conversation, such as “I’ve been meaning to talk to you about…” or “I have no idea.” Drill them with the students, each time asking students to say them in a different way a whisper, in a drunken voice, very quickly, in an angry voice, in a nervous voice. Next, put students into pairs. Give each pair a sheet of paper. Ask them to write A and B vertically on the left side of the page 5 times each, creating a total of 10 blank lines. Tell each pair to choose three expressions from the board and write them on three different lines, anywhere on the page. Point out that each expression can be written at the beginning, middle or end of a line. Collect all papers and redistribute them. The pairs now must add words and sentences to the lines to create a complete dialogue. When students have finished writing, ask a few students to read their dialogues for the the HouseBring to class a photo of a house. Ask students to speculate how many people live in the house and what they are like. Give them a few moments to look at the picture and imagine. Ask them questions such as “How many people live in the house?” “Is it a man or a woman?” “How old is she?” “Is she tall or short?” “What does she do for a living?” Write their answers on the board to create a short description of all the people in the house. Put students in pairs. Assign them to create a dialogue between two people in the house. If the class decided that only one person lives in the house, tell them to imagine a visitor to the house. Ask each pair to perform their dialogues for the entire class. When each pair finishes, choose students to ask questions to the two characters about their lives, their relationship or the house. Acknowledgment I learned about this sort of interactive character building exercise from a presentation by Andrew Wright a few years ago at a British Council presentation in Hong a StrangerBring to class a random collection of pictures of people, making sure to include a wide variety of faces. Put students into pairs and give each pairs two pictures. Tell the class that the two people in their pictures are going to meet today, but they are both strangers. Ask them to decide who the two people are, where they will bump into each other, how they will meet, and what they will talk about. You can ask them to close their eyes and imagine the interaction, then jot down notes , and finally discuss their ideas. Next give them a sheet of paper. Ask them to write a 10 line dialogue between the two people. Give them a few minutes to practice performing their dialogues at their desks, once they’ve finished writing. Ask each pair to perform their dialogue for the from MusicPlay students a short piece of instrumental music. You might choose a bit of classical, jazz, or something from an old movie soundtrack. Tell students to close their eyes and imagine a scene from a film with two characters talking, as you play the music again. Put students into pairs and ask them to write 5 lines of dialogue, based on what they imagined. When everyone is finished, ask them to change partners, working with someone who is sitting in a different area of the room. Students now work with their new partners to write 5 more lines of dialogue, completing the conversation. When all pairs are finished writing, give students several minutes to practice reading their dialogues. Ask one student to stand up. Read out the names of two pairs and ask the standing student to choose one pair to perform their dialogue. Repeat this procedure until all pairs have read out their TalkAsk students to imagine what a baby must be thinking about. Call on students to tell you what is important to a baby. Write their ideas on the board. Next, tell them you are going to play a video that contains two babies talking, but not in any identifiable language. Play one of the two very famous Talking Twin Babies VideosTalking Twin Babies Part 1Uploaded by jayrandall22011Talking Twin Babies Part 2Uploaded by jayrandall22011Play it a second time and get your students to call out any items they see in the video. Play it once again and ask more questions, such as “Where are they?” “How old are they?” “Do they look happy or angry?” Again, write their answers on the students into pairs. Tell them you want them to write the English translation of the conversation. Encourage them to use the language that you wrote on the board students have finished writing, collect all their dialogues, and pass them out so that each pair now has a new dialogue. Tell the pairs to spend a few minutes reading over the dialogues written by their classmates. Give them some time to practice reading them. When they’re ready, ask the pairs to perform their dialogues for the This activity is inspired by “If cats could talk”, a charming lesson which appears on Jamie Keddie’s Lessonstream website Houston teaches at National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Science. His articles have been published in periodicals such as It’s for Teachers, Modern English Teacher and English Teaching Professional. He has written 5 books including Brainstorming and Creative Output, both available on Amazon. Consider any complex, potentially volatile issue — Arab-Israeli relations; the problems between the Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians; the deficit, healthcare costs, or labor/management relations. At the root of such issues, you are likely to find communication failures and cultural misunderstandings that prevent the parties involved from framing the problem in a common way and dealing with it constructively. We clearly need ways of improving our thought processes, especially in groups where finding a solution depends on people first reaching a common formulation of the problem. Dialogue, a discipline for collective learning and inquiry, can provide a means for developing such shared understanding. Proponents of dialogue claim it can help groups reach higher levels of consciousness, and thus to become more creative and effective. The uninitiated, however, may view dialogue as just one more oversold communication technology. I believe that in addition to enhancing communication, dialogue holds considerable promise as a problem-formulation and problem-solving philosophy and technology. It is a necessary vehicle for understanding the cultures and subcultures in which we live and work, and organizational learning will ultimately depend upon such cultural understanding. Dialogue thus becomes a central element of any model of organizational transformation. If dialogue is to become helpful to organizational processes, it must be seen as accessible to everyone. In order to demystify dialogue, therefore, I’d like to focus on the process — how to get started, and how and why dialogue often breaks down — while exploring some of the issues that groups must address if they are to create an effective dialogue process. We clearly need ways of improving our thought processes, especially in groups where the solution depends on people reaching a common formulation of the problem. Dialogue vs. Discussion To understand the different phases of the dialogue process, I have found it helpful to draw a road map based on Bill Isaacs’ basic model see “Ways of Talking Together,” p. 2. The diagram maps different forms of conversation in terms of two basic paths — dialogue and discussion. One basic question that all groups must face before entering into dialogue is, “How do we know whether discussion and/or debate is more or less desirable then dialogue? Should we always go down the dialogue path?” I would argue that discussion/debate is a valid problem solving and decision-making process only if one can assume that the group members understand each other well enough to “talk the same language.” Such a state of shared understanding, however, probably cannot be achieved unless some form of dialogue has previously taken place. The danger in premature discussion is that the group may reach “false consensus” members assume they mean the same thing in using certain terms, but only later discover subtle differences in meaning that have major consequences for action. Dialogue, on the other hand, is a basic process for building common understanding. By letting go of disagreement, a group gradually builds a shared set of meanings that make much higher levels of mutual understanding and creative thinking possible. As we listen to ourselves and others, we begin to see the subtleties of how each member thinks and expresses meanings. In this process, we do not strive to convince each other, but instead try to build a common experience base that allows us to learn collectively. The more the group achieves such collective understanding, the easier it becomes to reach a decision, and the more likely it is that the decision will be implemented in the way the group meant it to be. Getting Started In the groups that I have observed, the facilitator started by arranging the setting and then describing the concept of dialogue. The goal is to give the group enough information to understand dialogue sufficiently to begin the conversation. Next, small group discussion and reflection is used to link dialogue to past experiences of “real communication” see “Role of the Facilitator Setting the Context,” p. 3. This introductory session has several objectives which frame the session and allow a more effective dialogue to occur Make the members feel as equal as possible. Having the group sit in a circle neutralizes rank or status differences in the group, and conveys the sense that each person’s unique contribution is of equal value. Give everyone a sense of guaranteed “air time” to establish their identity in the group. Asking everyone to comment ensures that all participants will have a turn. In larger groups, not everyone may choose to speak, but each person has the opportunity to do so, and the expectation is that the group will take whatever time is necessary for that to happen. Set the task for the group. The group should understand that they have come together to explore the dialogue process and gain some understanding of it, not to make a decision or solve an external problem. Legitimize personal experiences. Early in the group’s life, members will primarily be concerned about themselves and their own feelings; hence, legitimizing personal experiences and drawing on these experiences is a good way to begin. The length and frequency with which the group meets will depend upon the size of the group, the reason for getting together, and the constraints on members. The meetings that I participated in at MIT were generally one-and-a-half to two hours long and occurred at roughly two-to-three-week intervals. After watching various groups go through a first meeting, I often wondered how the second meeting of each group would get going. I found that the best method was to start by asking everyone to comment on “where they were at” and to go around the circle with the expectation that everyone would speak. Again, what seems to be important is to legitimize “air time” for everyone and to imply tacitly that everyone should make a contribution to starting the meeting, even though the content of that contribution can be virtually anything see “Check-In, Check-Out A Tool for Real’ Conversations,” May 1994. WAYS OF TALKING TOGETHER The facilitator has a choice about how much theoretical input to provide during a dialogue session. To determine what concepts to introduce when, I have drawn a road map of the dialogue process based on Bill Isaacs’ model, which describes conversation in terms of two basic paths — dialogue and discussion. Deeper Listening As a conversation develops in the group, there inevitably comes a point where we sense some form of disconfirmation. Our point is not understood, or we face disagreement, challenge, or attack. At that moment, we usually respond with anxiety and/or anger, though we may be barely aware of it. Our first choice, then, is whether to allow that feeling to surface and trust that it is legitimate. As we become more aware of these choices, we also become aware of the possibility that the feeling might have been triggered by our perception of what the others in the group did, and that these perceptions could be incorrect. Before we give in to anxiety and/or anger, therefore, we must determine whether we accurately interpreted the data. Were we, in fact, being challenged or attacked? This moment is critical. As we become more reflective, we begin to realize how much our initial perceptions can be colored by expectations based on our cultural learning and past experiences. We do not always accurately perceive what is “out there.” What we perceive is often based on our needs, expectations, projections, and, most of all, our culturally learned assumptions and categories of thought. Thus the first challenge of really listening to others is to identify the distortions and bias that filter our own cognitive processes. We have to learn to listen to ourselves before we can really understand others. Such internal listening is, of course, especially difficult if one is in the midst of an active, task-oriented discussion. Dialogue, however, opens up the space for such reflection to occur. Once we realize that our perception itself may not be accurate, we face a second, more fundamental choice — whether actively to explore our perception by asking what the person really meant, explaining ourselves further, or in some other way focusing specifically on the person who produced the disconfirming event. As we have all experienced, choosing to confront the situation immediately can quickly polarize the conversation around a few people and a few issues. An alternative choice is to “suspend” our feelings to see what more will come up from ourselves and from others. What this means in the group is that when I am upset by what someone else says, I have a genuine choice between 1 voicing my reaction and 2 letting the matter go by suspending my own reaction. Suspending assumptions is particularly difficult if we perceive that our point has been misunderstood or misinterpreted. Nevertheless, I have found repeatedly that if I suspend my assumption, I find that further conversation clarifies the issue and that my own interpretation of what was going on is validated or changed without my having actively to intervene. When a number of members of the group begin to suspend their own reactions, the group begins to go down the left-hand path toward dialogue. In contrast, when a number of members choose to react by immediately disagreeing, elaborating, questioning, or otherwise focusing on a particular trigger that set them off, the group goes down the path of discussion and eventually gets mired in unproductive debate. Suspending assumptions allows for reflection, which is very similar to the emphasis in group dynamics training on observing the “here and now.” Bill Isaacs suggests that what we need is proprioception — attention to and living in the moment. Ultimately, dialogue helps us achieve a state in which we know our thoughts at the moment we have them. Whether proprioception is psychologically possible is debatable, but the basic idea is to shorten the internal feedback loop as much as possible. As a result, we can become conscious of how much our thoughts and perceptions are a function of both our past learning and the immediate events that trigger it. This learning is difficult at best, yet it lies at the heart of the ability to enter dialogue. ROLE OF THE FACILITATOR SETTING THE CONTEXT The role of the facilitator can include the following activities Organize the physical space to be as close to a circle as possible. Whether or not people are seated at a table or tables is not as important as the sense of equality that comes from sitting in a circle. Introduce the general concept of dialogue, then ask everyone to think about a past experience of dialogue in the sense of “good communication”. Ask people to share with their neighbor what the experience was and to think about the characteristics of that experience. Ask group members to share what aspects of such past experiences made for good communication and write these characteristics on a flip chart. Ask the group to reflect on these characteristics by having each person in turn talk about his/her reactions. Let the conversation flow naturally once everyone has commented this requires one-and-a-half to two hours or more. Intervene as necessary to clarify, using concepts and data that illustrate the problems of communication. Close the session by asking everyone to comment in whatever way they choose. Group Dynamics The dynamics of “building the group” occur parallel to the process of conducting the dialogue. Issues of identity, role, influence, group goals, norms of openness and intimacy, and questions of authority all have to be addressed, though much of this occurs implicitly rather than explicitly. The group usually displays all of the classical issues that occur around authority vis-à-vis the facilitator Will the facilitator tell us what to do? Will we do what we are told? Does the facilitator have the answers and is withholding them, or is he or she exploring along with the rest of us? At what point can we function without the facilitator? Issues of group growth and development have to be dealt with if they interfere with or confuse the dialogue process. The facilitator should therefore be skilled in group facilitation, so that the issues can be properly sorted into two categories those that have to do with the development of the dialogue, and those that have to do with the development of the group. In my own experience, the dialogue process speeds up the development of the group and should therefore be the primary driving process in each meeting. A major reason for this acceleration is that dialogue creates psychological safety and thus allows individual and group change to occur, assuming that some motivation to change is already present see “Containment”. The group may initially experience dialogue as a detour from or a slowing down of problem solving. But real change does not happen until people feel psychologically safe, and the implicit or explicit norms that are articulated in a dialogue session provide that safety by giving people both a sense of direction and a sense that the dangerous aspects of interaction will be contained. If the group can work on the task or problem using the dialogue format, it should be able to reach a valid level of communication much faster. Task vs. Process Once a group experiences dialogue, the process tends to feed on itself. In several cases, I have been in groups that chose to stay in a circle and continue in a dialogue mode even as they tackled concrete tasks with time limits. I would hypothesize, however, that unless a dialogue group is formed specifically for the purpose of learning about itself, it eventually needs some other larger purpose to sustain itself. Continuing to meet in a dialogue format probably does not work once members have mastered the basic core task or ultimate problem, then, is likely to be the reason the group met in the first place. Dialogue is, by definition, a process that has meaning only in a group. The best way to think about dialogue is as a group process that arises initially out of the individual participants’ personal skills or attitudes. Dialogue is, by definition, a process that has meaning only in a group. Several people have to collaborate with each other for dialogue to occur. But this collaboration rests on individual choice, based on a certain attitude toward how to get the most out of a conversation and on certain skills of reflection and suspension. Once the group has gained those attitudes and skills collectively, it is possible to have even highly time-sensitive problem solving meetings in a dialogue format. Most people have a general sense of what dialogue is about and have experienced versions of it in their past relationships. Therefore, even in a problem-solving meeting, a facilitator may suggest that the group experiment with dialogue. In my own experience, I have found it best to introduce early on in a meeting the idea that there are always assumptions behind our comments and perceptions, and that our problem-solving process will be improved if we get in touch with these assumptions. Consequently, if the conversation turns into too much of a discussion or debate, I can legitimately raise the question of whether or not the disagreement is based on different assumptions, and then explore those assumptions explicitly. Continually focusing the group on the cognitive categories and underlying assumptions of conversation is, from this point of view, the central role of the facilitator. One of the ultimate tests of the importance of dialogue will be whether or not difficult, conflict-ridden problems can be handled better in groups that have learned to function in a dialogue mode. Because severe conflicts are almost always the result of cultural or subcultural differences, I would assume that initial dialogue in some form will always be necessary. Dialogue cannot force the conflicting groups into the room together, but once they are there, it holds promise for finding the common ground needed to resolve the conflicts. Edgar H. Schein is Sloan Fellows professor of management emeritus and a senior lecturer at the Sloan School of Management. He chairs the board of the MIT Organizational Learning Center and is the author of numerous books on organization development, such as Process Consultation, Vol. 1 and 2 Addison-Wesley, 1987, 1988. This article is edited from “On Dialogue, Culture, and Organizational Learning” by Edgar H. Schein, which appeared in the Autumn 1993 issue of Organizational Dynamics. Reprinted with permission of the publisher, American Management Association, New York, NY. © rights reserved. CONTAINMENT Bill Isaacs describes the need to build a container for dialogue—to create a climate and a set of explicit or implicit norms that permit people to handle “hot issues” without getting burned see “Dialogue The Power of Collective Thinking,” April 1993. For example, steelworkers participating in a recent labor/management dialogue likened the dialogue process to a steel mill in which molten metal was poured from a container into various molds safely, while human operators were close by. Similarly, the dialogue container is jointly created, and then permits high levels of emotionality and tension without anyone getting “burned.” The facilitator contributes to this by modeling behavior—by being non-judgmental and displaying the ability to suspend his or her own categories and judgments. This skill becomes especially relevant in group situations where conflict heats up to the point where it threatens to spill out of the container. At that point, the facilitator can simply legitimize the situation by acknowledging the conflict as real and as something to be viewed by all the members, without judgment or recrimination or even a need to do anything about it. Situasi yang digambarkan oleh kalimat tersebut adalah salah satu temanmu akan menjalani ujian akhir dan kamu bertemu dengannya di jalanan. Ekspresi dapat digunakan untuk membentuk dialog berdasarkan situasi tersebut adalah expression of hope untuk berharap agar temanmu mendapatkan hasil yang terbaik. Mulailah dialog dengan terlebih dahulu bertukar sapaan. Berikut contoh dialog yang dapat dibentuk. Jadi, jawaban yang benar adalah You Hi, John. What are you doing here? Friend Hi, Jimmy. I'm going to my friend's house to study together for tomorrow's final examination. You Oh, I see. I hope you'll get the best results for your final examination. Friend Thank you, Jimmy.

create a dialogue based on one of the following situations