Fluent Essays

Children who have been abused or traumatized in some way may benefit from working with a therapist. Children often reenact trauma through repetitious play in order to establish mastery over their emotions and integrate experiences into their history on their own terms. Through the use of toys and props, children may naturally share their emotions and past experiences without feeling the pressure they might encounter with traditional talk therapy. For this Discussion, review the course-specific case study for Claudia and the Chiesa (2012) and Taylor (2009) articles. By Day 3 Post an explanation of ways play therapy might be beneficial for Claudia. Using the insights gained from the articles, describe ways you might have worked with Claudia to address her fears and anxiety related to the mugging she witnessed. PRACTICE 13 Working With Children and Adolescents: The Case of Claudia Claudia is a 6-year-old, Hispanic female residing with her biological mother and father in an urban area. Claudia was born in the United States 6 months after her mother and father moved to the country from Nicaragua. There is currently no extended family living in the area, but Claudia’s parents have made friends in the neighborhood. Claudia’s family struggles economically and has also struggled to obtain legal residency in this country. Her father inconsistently finds work in manual labor, and her mother recently began working three nights a week at a nail salon. While Claudia is bilingual in Spanish and English, Spanish is the sole language spoken in her household. She is currently enrolled in a large public school, attending kindergarten. Claudia’s family lives in an impoverished urban neighborhood with a rising crime rate. After Claudia witnessed a mugging in her neighborhood, her mother reported that she became very anxious and “needy.” She cried frequently and refused to be in a room alone without a parent. Claudia made her parents lock the doors after returning home and would ask her parents to check the locks repeatedly. When walking in the neighborhood, Claudia would ask her parents if people passing are “bad” or if an approaching person is going to hurt them. Claudia had difficulty going to bed on nights when her mother worked, often crying when her mother left. Although she was frequently nervous, Claudia was comforted by her parents and has a good relationship with them. Claudia’s nervousness was exhibited throughout the school day as well. She asked her teachers to lock doors and spoke with staff and peers about potential intruders on a daily basis. Claudia’s mother, Paula, was initially hesitant to seek therapy services for her daughter due to the family’s undocumented status in the country. I met with Claudia’s mother and utilized the initial meeting to explain the nature of services offered at the agency, as well as the policies of confidentiality. Prior to the SOCIAL WORK CASE STUDIES: CONCENTRATION YEAR 14 meeting, I translated all relevant forms to Spanish to increase Paula’s comfort. Within several minutes of talking, Paula notice- ably relaxed, openly sharing the family’s history and her concerns regarding Claudia’s “nervousness.” Goals set for Claudia included increasing Claudia’s ability to cope with anxiety and increasing her ability to maintain attention throughout her school day. Using child-centered and directed play therapy approaches, I began working with Claudia to explore her world. Claudia was intrigued by the sand tray in my office and selected a variety of figures, informing me that each figure was either “good” or “bad.” She would then construct scenes in the sand tray in which she would create protective barriers around the good figures, protecting them from the bad. I reflected upon this theme of good versus bad, and Claudia developed the ability to verbalize her desire to protect good people. I continued meeting with Claudia once a week, and Claudia continued exploring the theme of good versus bad in the sand tray for 2 months. Utilizing a daily feelings check-in, Claudia developed the ability to engage in affect identification, verbalizing her feelings and often sharing relevant stories. Claudia slowly began asking me questions about people in the building and office, inquiring if they were bad or good, and I supported Claudia in exploring these inquiries. Claudia would frequently discuss her fears about school with me, asking why security guards were present at schools. We would discuss the purpose of security guards in detail, allowing her to ask questions repeatedly, as needed. Claudia and I also practiced a calming song to sing when she experienced fear or anxiety during the school day. During this time, I regularly met with Paula to track Claudia’s progress through parent reporting. I also utilized psychoeduca- tional techniques during these meetings to review appropriate methods Paula could use to discuss personal safety with Claudia without creating additional anxiety. By the third month of treatment, Claudia began determining that more and more people in the environment were good. This was reflected in her sand tray scenes as well: the protection of good figures decreased, and Claudia began placing good and bad PRACTICE 15 figures next to one another, stating, “They’re okay now.” Paula reported that Claudia no longer questioned her about each indi- vidual that passed them on the street. Claudia began telling her friends in school about good security guards and stopped asking teachers to lock doors during the day. At home, Claudia became more comfortable staying in her bedroom alone, and she signifi- cantly decreased the frequency of asking for doors to be locked. APPENDIX 99 7. What local, state, or federal policies could (or did) affect this case? Chase had an international adoption but it was filed within a specific state, which allowed him and his family to receive services so he could remain with his adopted family. In addi- tion, state laws related to education affected Chase and aided his parents in requesting testing and special educa- tion services. Lastly, state laws related to child abandonment could have affected this family if they chose to relinquish custody to the Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). 8. How would you advocate for social change to positively affect this case? Advocacy within the school system for early identification and testing of children like Chase would be helpful. 9. Were there any legal or ethical issues present in the case? If so, what were they and how were they addressed? There was a possibility of legal/ethical issues related to the family’s frustration with Chase. If his parents had resorted to physical abuse, a CPS report would need to be filed. In addi- tion, with a possible relinquishment of Chase, DFCS could decide to look at the children still in the home (Chase’s adopted siblings) and consider removing them as well. Working With Children and Adolescents: The Case of Claudia 1. What specific intervention strategies (skills, knowledge, etc.) did you use to address this client situation? Specific intervention skills used were positive verbal support and encouragement, validation and reflection, and affect identification and exploration. Knowledge of child anxieties/ fear and psychoeducation for the client and her mother were also utilized. Child-centered play therapy was utilized along with sand tray therapy to provide a safe environment for Claudia. SOCIAL WORK CASE STUDIES: CONCENTRATION YEAR 100 2. Which theory or theories did you use to guide your practice? I used theoretical bases of child- (client-) centered nondirective play therapy. 3. What were the identified strengths of the client(s)? Client strengths were a supportive parenting unit, positive peer interactions, and the ability to engage. 4. What were the identified challenges faced by the client(s)? The client faced environmental challenges. Due to socioeconomic status, the client resided in a somewhat dangerous neighborhood, adding to her anxiety and fear. The client’s family also lacked an extended support system and struggled to establish legal residency. 5. What were the agreed-upon goals to be met to address the concern? The goals agreed upon were to increase the client’s ability to cope with anxiety and increase her ability to maintain attention at school. 6. Did you have to address any issues around cultural compe- tence? Did you have to learn about this population/group prior to beginning your work with this client system? If so, what type of research did you do to prepare? Language barriers existed when working with the client’s mother. I ensured that all agency documents were translated into Spanish. It was also important to understand the family’s cultural isolation. Their current neighborhood and culture is much different than the rural Nicaraguan areas Claudia’s parents grew up in. To learn more about this, I spent time with Paula, learning more about her experience growing up and how this affects her parenting style and desires for her daughter’s future. 7. What local, state, or federal policies could (or did) affect this situation? The client and her parents are affected by immigration legislation. The client’s family was struggling financially as a result of their inability to obtain documented status in this country. The client’s mother expressed their strong desire to obtain legal status, but stated that lawyer fees, court fees, and overwhelming paperwork hindered their ability to obtain legal residency. APPENDIX 101 8. How would you advocate for social change to positively affect this case? I would advocate for increased availability and funding for legal aid services in the field of immigration. 9. How can evidence-based practice be integrated into this situation? Evidenced-based practice can be integrated through the use of proven child therapy techniques, such as child-centered nondirective play therapy, along with unconditional positive regard. 10. Describe any additional personal reflections about this case. It can be difficult to work with fears and anxiety when they are rooted in a client’s environment. It was important to help Claudia cope with her anxiety while still maintaining the family’s vigilance about crime and violence in the neighborhood. Working With Children and Adolescents: The Case of Noah 1. What specific intervention strategies (skills, knowledge, etc.) did you use to address this client situation? I utilized structured play therapy and cognitive behavioral techniques. 2. Which theory or theories did you use to guide your practice? For this case study, I used cognitive behavioral theory. 3. What were the identified strengths of the client(s)? Noah had supportive and loving foster parents who desired to adopt him. He quickly became acclimated to the foster home and started a friendship with his foster brother. He started to become engaged in extracurricular activities. Noah was an inquisitive and engaging boy who participated in our meetings. 4. What were the identified challenges faced by the client(s)? Noah faced several challenges, most significantly the failure of his mother to follow through with the reunification plan. He has had an unstable childhood with unclear parental role models. There may be some unreported incidences of abuse and trauma. Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtaj20 Transactional Analysis Journal ISSN: 0362-1537 (Print) 2329-5244 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtaj20 Scripts in the Sand: Sandplay in Transactional Analysis Psychotherapy with Children Cinzia Chiesa To cite this article: Cinzia Chiesa (2012) Scripts in the Sand: Sandplay in Transactional Analysis Psychotherapy with Children, Transactional Analysis Journal, 42:4, 285-293, DOI: 10.1177/036215371204200407 To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1177/036215371204200407 Published online: 28 Dec 2017. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2655 View related articles Citing articles: 1 View citing articles https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rtaj20 https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rtaj20 https://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1177/036215371204200407 https://doi.org/10.1177/036215371204200407 https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rtaj20&show=instructions https://www.tandfonline.com/action/authorSubmission?journalCode=rtaj20&show=instructions https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1177/036215371204200407 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/mlt/10.1177/036215371204200407 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1177/036215371204200407#tabModule https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/citedby/10.1177/036215371204200407#tabModule Vol. 42, No. 4, October 2012 285 Scripts in the Sand: Sandplay in Transactional Analysis Psychotherapy with Children Cinzia Chiesa A bstract This article discusses sandplay as a thera- peutic tool in clinical w ork w ith children. The origins of san dplay are described and its possible use w ithin the theoretical and methodological approach of transactional analysis are described. Several clinical ex- amples illustrate how sandplay can be used w ithin the child-therapist relationship to highlight certain aspects of script and its transformation. ______ Figure 1 Figures in the Sand (Used with the permission of Kal Khogali) The Birth of Sandplay D escribing the origins of sandplay in child psychology means talking about two women: M argaret Lowenfeld, an English pediatrician who conceived the idea, and Dora Kalff, a Swiss psychotherapist and pupil of Jung who promoted its dissemination. W e owe the idea of using sand as a therapeu- tic tool to the pioneering and visionary work of M argaret Lowenfeld. In 1928 she founded a psychology clinic for children in London that, in a few years, became a meeting place for psychotherapists from all over the world. She dedicated herself to researching tools for under- standing those fantasies and experiences of chil- dren that cannot be expressed with words. In contrast to the prevailing interpretational approach in the psychoanalytic world at that time, Lowenfeld understood play as a natural function of the child’s being and connected play with emotional development in children. She recounted, in a piece published for the first time 6 years after her death, the birth of her ap- proach in the use of play in therapy with children: M y own approach to the use of a toy appa- ratus with children derives from a memory of H. G. W ells’ F loor Games (1911), the first edition of which had made a deep im- pression upon my youth. W hen, therefore, I came from orthodox pediatrics to the as- sociated study of emotional co nditions in childhood, I began to put this memory to use. I collected first a miscellaneous mass of material, colored sticks and shapes, beads, small toys of all sorts, paper shapes and match boxes, and kep t them in what came to be known by my children as the “W onder B ox.” (Lowenfeld, 1979, p. 3) T he next step was the construction of two metal sandboxes in which children could play with dry or wet sand and place objects in the “magic box.” T hus was born the method that Lowenfeld studied and deepened for the rest of her life: the world technique. Here is how Lowen- feld (1979) described it: T here is a gap between a child’s world and that of the adults of his environment, and thus a lack of mutual understanding. . . . Further, . . . many things are more easily “said” in pictures and actions than in CINZIA CHIESA 286 Transactional Analysis Journal words. It is explained to the child that this is a natural way of “thinking” and that this is what we would like him to do for us here. T he W orld apparatus is then intro- duced and the child invited to make “what- ever comes into his head.” (p. 5) Lowenfeld believed that in constructing their world in the sand, children gained the ability to observe and transform certain aspects of their emotional world, thoughts, and memories. From this emerges a vision o f the child as a com- petent and active subject in the regulation of his or her own psychic processes. T his is now a widely shared vision, thanks to studies con- ducted in the field of infant research, but they were groundbreaking when Lowenfeld began her work. Equally innovative was the role that Lowen- feld (1993, 2008) attributed to the therapist. Along with the child who is in the process of constructing his or her world, the psycho- therapist is called to discover, together with the child, that which slowly emerges. T he attribu- tion of meaning through interpretation is avoided. Instead, the therapist is invited to cap- ture the sense and emotional quality that the objects have for the child who uses them. D ora K alff met M argaret Lowenfeld in Zur- ich in 1956 during one of her conferences on the world technique. She was struck by the technique and, maintaining its methodological system, described the processes observed in the sand, making use of concepts from Jung’s ana- lytical psychology. Kalff (1 966) called this therapeutic tool sandplay and contributed to its promotion and awareness around the world, in- cluding by founding the International S ociety for Sandplay T herapy in 1985. Sandplay Today Presently, sandplay finds its application even in therapeutic contexts that have theoretical models that differ from a Jungian approach. It is done now with children and adults, in groups or with individuals. Even in transactional analy- sis we can find examples of the use of this tool. Romanini (1997/1999a) discussed it in her clini- cal work with children, and Kottwitz (1993) and D ay (2008, 2010) have described using it with adults. In this article I present the way in which I, as a transactional analyst, perceive and use sand- play in psychotherapy with children. I think that this therapeutic tool fits well into the child- therapist relationship and can be used to work on various core points of the script as well as to bring survival conclusions into focus. T he script model I use is the one conceptua- lized by English (1977, 1988, 2010). I use the concept of survival conclusions in a develop- mental perspective, as conceived by English and later referred to by Rotondo (2001). Eng- lish emphasized the function of the script in infant development, with the child needing to give structure to time and space, to provide meaning for relationships with caregivers and meaningful others, and to make sense of reality (English, 1977, p. 290). During its formation, the script organizes itself in temporary gestalts, that is, in shapes that transform themselves over time into survival conclusions. I think of survival conclusions as creative re- sponses: the best that could possibly be found in a certain moment of development. Led by the Little Professor, they organize themselves as a form of “mediation between the vital needs of the child and what he perceives as environ- mental dem ands” (Rotondo, 2001, p. 17). B e- cause of their role in this process, and therefore survival, these conclusions may become, over time, self-restricting and repetitive, precluding exploration of new approaches to experience. I think that the representations children cre- ate in sandplay may be observed through the theoretical frame of this script model, with par- ticular reference to survival conclusions. T he scenes created in the sandplay can be concep- tualized as organizations of the internal and ex- ternal reality that the child exp eriences in that particular moment. T hrough these representa- tions, the child’s survival conclusions find ex- pression, within both the space of the play and the relationship with the therapist. A Play Space B etw een Protection and Permission Lowenfeld suggested using a sandbox of 57 x 72 x 7 centimeters, with a blue bottom that can represent water when needed. These dimen- sions are related to the child’s potential field of SCRIPTS IN THE SAND: SANDPLAY IN TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS PSYCHOTHERAPY WITH CHILDREN Vol. 42, No. 4, October 2012 287 vision at a distance of a half meter. T he sand- play technique uses dry or wet sand and a variety of small objects with which the child is invited to construct a scene inside the sandbox. I will describe each of the elements that make up this therapeutic tool: the sand, the objects, and the sandbox. Sand is a natural, malleable m aterial that is capable of preserving the traces of even a deli- cate gesture when it is dry and of assuming a definite and complex form when wet (M arinuc- ci, 2003; M ontecchi, 1993). T hese characteris- tics make it a sturdy but modifiable medium, capable of embodying polarity and opposites. A ccording to the quantities of water with which it is mixed, sand can be dry as pow- der or wet and heavy. W hen pure and clean, it can conjure up order: each grain of sand is found in a precise place. Sand, however, can also be muddy and dirty and represent chaos. Sand can be suitable for construc- tion, but as quicksand it can suck down anything that is solid. . . . Images made of sand are easily altered and yet their de- struction offers the possibility of new uses. (Pattis Zoja, 2010, p. 97) W e can associate the idea of this material with the idea of transform ation that character- izes the child’s psychological development, with the evolution of subsequent representa- tions of his or her being in the world that can lead to the structuring and restructuring of script. Sand and psyche have many things in common: movement, moving in search of a new form, and having reached the new form, beginning to flow again. T he plasticity of sand gives three- dimensional expressivity to children through involvement on a kinesthetic level (touch and movement) and the use of the visual channel. T he centrality of the corporeal and sensory activation renders the use of this material in the therapeutic field fit to energize the child. I link the importance of this therapeutic intervention with the hypothesis developed by Romanini (1991/1999b, 1997/1999a) that the Child ego state holds a central position during the whole of childhood. She (1991/1999b) intro- duced the concept of the real ego to represent the ego state that is more consistent with the chronological age of a person. During infancy, the ego state energized as the real ego is the Child ego state. Romanini stated that a child is a product of his or her environment (external recognition). For these reasons, she represented a diagram of the ego states during childhood in an unusual way, with the Child ego state in the middle referring to the location of the real ego. “Plotting in a diagram the C hild between the Parent and the Adult seems a better expression of the childhood personality. It marks the func- tion of the real ego that makes the contamina- tion between tho se two ego states more diffi- cult” (Romanini, 1999b, p. 58). W ith adoles- cence begins the transition of the real ego into the Adult ego state that becomes central in the usual ego state diagrams. The child who plays with the sand can choose between many miniature objects set out on shelves: human and imaginary figures, animals, trees, houses, vehicles, stones, shells, and piec- es of wood. T he objects offer a representational system to draw on and, as Romanini (1997/ 1999a) emphasized, allows for the use of fan- tasy even in very young children. T he objects used in sandplay perform an analogous role to that of the transitional object d escribed by W innicott (1971). T hey are positioned, in fact, in that area of intermediate reality that allows for a connection between the internal and the external, between inside and outside. For this reason, I am interested in the meaning that a certain object has for the child who is using it in that moment and in the relational field in which both therapist and child are involved. I do not see the objects as being specific symbols to decode. G iven this way of perceiving the o bjects, I have developed a variation of the technique as originally conceived by Lowenfeld. I allow the child to construct an object (with paper, wood, or clay) that can then be p laced in the scene that he or she is creating or to bring a small object from home and put it in the sandbox T he child’s Little Professor (B erne, 1972) is there- by stimulated to look creatively for a shape or object that will render his or her emotional state expressible and externally visible. I use this variation with some children, particularly when I perceive that the youngster’s Free Child energy, within the dynamic of the play, seems CINZIA CHIESA 288 Transactional Analysis Journal suppressed by worry about making mistakes or by the desire to please the therapist’s expecta- tions. In these cases, asking a child to be active in creating or bringing an object into the scene helps to reestablish an atmosphere within the therapeutic relationship of double OKness, a definition that Romanini (1997/1999a) used to underscore the intersubjective, unique, and crea- tive exchange between persons in the O K /O K position. T his supports the permission that “it is O K to be yourself, to express your ideas and desires.” For example, during our first m eeting, and before choosing the objects she wanted to use in the sand tray, Sophia asked if she was sup- posed to depict the real world or the world that she wanted. W hen I told her that she could choose whatever she preferred, she decided to create her desired world (Figure 2). T his in- volved a place in which she could play in the company of people she was connected to: her mother, her father, her brother, and her friends. I suggested that if she thought that something was missing in the scene she had built, she could create it using the available materials. Sophia enthusiastically accepted my proposal and constructed a border, which represented something that was m issing for her. T o make the border of her world safe and protective, she created some waves out of blue and white paper. Figure 2 The Desired World T he use of sand and objects takes place in a container that defines, by means of its borders, a horizontal space, inside of which the child is free to play and create what he or she wants. For this reason, I think of the sandbox as a creative space that is developed within an atmosphere of protection and permission. I use the terms protection and permission as de- scribed by Crossman (1966) because I think that within the play space of the sand tray, the child can experience some permissions within a protected relational frame, for which the therapist is in charge. I will propose some argu- ments for this hypothesis. O ffering the child the chance to play in the sand in our “company” (Alvarez, 1992, p. 184) means transmitting the permission “It’s OK to be a child,” a central therapeutic tenet in the trans- actional analysis approach in child psycho- therapy (Romanini, 1997/1999a). Protection is linked to the size of the container, which em- braces the visual field and o ffers a contained view of the contents expressed by the child in the sand, shared and equally observable by the child-therapist pair. T o appreciate the signifi- cance of the protection offered by the confines of the sandbox, it is useful to reference the image of an em pty fram e, with which M ilner (1952) correlates containment and creativity in the therapeutic process: I said that in conditions of spontaneous action in a limited field, with a malleable fragment of the external world, it seemed that an internal force, capable of organiz- ing and creating, was released. . . . In order for this to happen, there needed to be an empty space, an empty frame. . . . I believe that the frame demonstrates that that which is inside must be perceived and interpreted in a different way than that which is out- side; it marks an area in which that which we perceive must be considered a meta- phor. (p. 105) In the empty frame created by the sandbox, the child can access that portion of experience that W innicott (1971) defined as potential space, a place of play and creativity in which reality and fantasy are mixed but never completely lose their boundaries. Real objects are overlapped by a fantasy dimension, which transports them SCRIPTS IN THE SAND: SANDPLAY IN TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS PSYCHOTHERAPY WITH CHILDREN Vol. 42, No. 4, October 2012 289 into an area in which the illusion created by the play temporarily suspends reality without elimi- nating it. As the therapist, I participate in what is happening in this area of play inside the child-therapist field. T ogether, in the area of the sandbox, the objects, and the sand, the child and therapist share a sp ace that I define as transactional in that it is an organizer and acti- vator of verbal and nonverbal transactions from inside to outside. I agree with Kottwitz (1993), who, when speaking of her work with sandplay, wrote, “I do not see myself as an analyst who interprets symbols, but as a partner in a verbal and non-verbal transactional process” (p. 77). T he therapist uses empathic transactions (H argaden & Sills, 2002) aimed at the reality in which the child finds himself or herself in the moment and at sustaining and stimulating quali- ties that the child cannot recognize or that have not yet developed. In the presence of the thera- pist, children can dialogue with the images that they have created in the sand and enter into contact with their emotional world, relive cer- tain distressing situations without being over- whelmed, and activate possible transforma- tions. T he space and time of the play are differ- ent from the ones in real life. B y playing in the presence of the therapist, the child has access to an intermediate portion of experience be- tween subjective and objective, between the internal and external worlds. W ithin the bounda- ries of this imaginative experience, similar to an immersion in the world of fairy tales, some distressful experiences can become more im- mediate and observable but at a safe distance. M eanwhile, because of the actions that the child can concretely put in place within the play field (i.e., move some objects, take out others) and the sharing process with the therapist, some psychological content can be reorganized into new shapes. I think back to a child who placed a bridge in the sand (Figure 3). T his image is particularly evocative of the relational significance that sandplay acquires in therapeutic work. W e can consider it as a communication tool, a bridge that allows for a connection between the thera- pist and the child. I included this im age here thinking of Resnik (1996), who referred to the bridge as a metaphor of the b ond: It is a conjunction, a connection, and, at the same time, it allows movement from our own point of view to that of another. Figure 3 The Bridge Traces in the Sand: The Script in Action In sandplay, the child creates in the presence of the therapist a physical and visual story, made up of objects, that can be considered to be three-dimensional “words” in which the arrangement is regulated by rhythm, gesture, and movement. W e can imagine that there is a link between the body, emotions, im ages, and words. Each one of these expressive outlets can be seen as an access door that allows the child’s experience to be expressed. I have worked with children who began with words as they re- counted a story, others who touched the sand in silence, and still others who stared for a long time at the objects, as if to compose an image in their mind before creating it. Constructing a scene in the sand is a creative exp erience connected to the way in which the child connects his or her feelings with external reality. U sing W innicott’s (1971) words, we could say that it depends on how this child “encounters reality.” T he process of creating a scene in the sand can begin from any of these points: from ges- ture, expression of an emotion, a visual por- trayal, or verbal communication. In looking at the gestures with which children construct their scenes in the sand and the forms that these creations assume, I have to make reference to the methodological approach suggested by art therapist and psychoanalyst M imma Della Cagnoletta (2010). Starting from Ogden’s (1986) theoretical conceptualization of the different ways in which an individual gains experience, Cagnoletta identified three possible methods CINZIA CHIESA 290 Transactional Analysis Journal with which objects and materials are approached within the creative process in a therapeutic environment: • B ody concentration: a form of sensory ex- perimentation by way of touch, movement, and the rhythm of the body • Formal resolution: order and structure are given to the elements with which one interacts • Symbolic narration: seeking a form through which to tell about oneself and one’s own experiences T he hypothesis is that these three modalities follow an evolutionary path and correspond to growth transitions. E ven when symbolic narra- tion has been achieved, the other two modali- ties can continue to be present and usable at the same time. I have observed that children begin by predominantly using one of these modalities and then transform to an expressive-communi- cative level over the course of the therapeutic process. A good example of this is the case of a 5- year-old child whom I will call “T ommaso.” I worked in therapy with him for a serious sphinc- ter retention disorder accompanied by a state of anxiety that caused him to abandon any type of experimentation (food, new activities) because he was afraid he would not succeed. T ommaso used the sand only at the end of our therapy. In doing so, he approached this experience with his body, exploring the wet sand, touching it gently, and molding several forms without using objects and without speaking. W atching him stroke the sand, I was aware that his body was slowly but surely abandoning its tensions and that an old need for contact and sensory 0experimentation (somatic Child/C ) was reemerg- ing. It was not yet time to use words. Little by little, the forms that he constructed in the sand became more defined, organized, and accom- panied by comments until, in one of our meet- ings, he began to tell me the story of some seeds that wanted to be planted in order to sprout. He chose a few pieces of colored corn and planted them in the sand, asking me to water them and await their flowering with him (Figure 4). In working with T ommaso and watching his flowering, I thought several times of physis, Figure 4 Seeds in the Sand which B erne (1972) described as an innate drive toward life that allows us to activate pos- sibility and change, a positive force of sponta- neity and creativity. T he relationship between physis, creativity, and lucid activity during development has also been highlighted in re- cent neuroscience research, which sees play as a function of self-regulation and spontaneous psychic processing (Tronick, 2007). T hrough play, guided by his or her fantasies, a child can experiment with new behaviors and express his or her own emotional world. It might be considered a way to practice being script free (B erne, 1972). Some children have trouble playing and seem to have lost faith in their own gestures, images, and thoughts. I believe that the richness of the expressive channels that sand- play involves make this therapeutic tool adept at reactivating the energies of the Child and, in particular, the intuition of the Little Professor. As a transactional analyst, I often think of the child who inhabits this space of free and protected play in the presence of the therapist as if he or she leaves traces of his or her survi- val conclusions in the sand, “a creative re- sp onse, the best in that moment, that the child m anages to give in order to put together and integrate herself and the environment” (Roton- do, 2001, p. 17). I look at the child’s creation as an organization of a part of experience, a portrayal of his or her being in the world. I agree with Kottwitz, who affirmed, “I see the SCRIPTS IN THE SAND: SANDPLAY IN TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS PSYCHOTHERAPY WITH CHILDREN Vol. 42, No. 4, October 2012 291 possibility of identifying notable information in the depicted scene regarding the script origins of certain difficulties” (p. 76). T hrough the following clinic example, I will show how sandplay can improve the compre- hension of some script issues and start a pro- cess of reconsidering the client’s survival stra- tegies and looking for more functional options. The Little Crocodile At this point I want to describe the symbols created in the sand by 7-year-old Fabio, whom I met while he was having problems at scho ol that were characterized by defiant behavior. T his had become serious enough that his teach- ers had started to define him as an “impossible child.” Sandplay was a part of almost all of the meetings between Fabio and me, and they con- tributed to the creation of a shared narrative thread, even with his parents, around which the entire therapeutic process developed. W ith mastery and precision, Fabio repeatedly lined up two armies in the sand, hidden be- tween plants or behind rocks, arranged on a bridge or on the shore of a river: opposing sol- diers in an endless war, with no winner and no loser (F igure 5). During therapy, I watched Fabio, admiring the care with which he man- aged to construct the scene of battle, each time inventing new hid ing places and creatively organizing the space. At the same time, I was struck by the sense of immobility that I per- ceived in that scenario of infinite war. Action seemed frozen in the soldiers’ posts. Even Fabio, active and vital in arranging the two armies and constructing the scene, seemed to shut down and immobilize himself in the face of his creation. His free and creative move- ments at the beginning of the play became more and more rigid. T hey eventually stopped and left space for a silent observation that conclud- ed with a request: “C an we take a picture of this battle? Even though this time no o ne won and no one lost?” At one point in the therapy, I collected all the pictures of the battle scene I had taken over the course of the therapy until then. T his allowed me to share with Fabio the evolution of the pro- cess of the play that took place within the sand tray. Looking at and talking about them and Figure 5 The Endless War giving meanings to his creations in the sand promoted a reflective/mentalizing process. This process facilitated the communication of Fa- bio’s feelings and fed a progressive emotional literacy in him as he gave voice to the mean- ings of his creations in the sand. For several months our meetings were occu- pied by the depiction of this conflict without solution: move or stay still, feel or freeze. These polarities appeared to be an emotional impasse in which Fabio seemed suspended, just as the soldiers were. T his play space played the part of a container in which he could create a form that rendered this impasse communicable and observable. In the sand, Fabio portrayed his script con- clusions (English, 1977). In the sandplay, war- riors were doing battle just as Fabio did at school, provoking and “doing battles” with his classmates and teachers. I imagined his survival strategy as follows: “T o be seen and important and to be recognized by others, I’ll fight and I’ll provoke battles and I’ll get others mad at me, even if this means to set aside and hide my real needs and genuine/real emotions.” N ext to him, I countertransferentially felt his tension and confusion, his rage and fear, and I developed an action of reverie, supporting him in elaborating those emotions that were still not expressible. I am referring here to the well-known concept of reverie, intro duced (for the first time) by B ion (1962) and reconceptualized by CINZIA CHIESA 292 Transactional Analysis Journal G iusti (2008) in transactional analysis therapy with children. T he therapist promotes within himself or herself … Sandtray and Solution-Focused Therapy Elizabeth R. Taylor Texas Christian University Both solution-focused (SF) and sandtray therapies have been shown to have effective healing properties. SF, a primarily verbal therapy, uses carefully worded and timed questions and comments that solicit the clients’ already existing strengths and resil- iencies to solve the current and future problems. Sandtray therapy relies primarily on nonverbal communication through the use of carefully selected miniatures within the confines of a sand tray to facilitate clients’ healing and strengthen internal resources. Because these therapies at first appear to be so different, it is not surprising that their combined application is rarely mentioned in the literature. Yet, similarities between the two therapies do exist and may be combined to provide an empowering and brief experiential therapeutic journey. A brief background and theoretical orientation to SF therapy is provided, accompanied by illustrations of the merger of these two approaches. Also discussed are similarities between SF and sandtray therapies and the advantages of combining them in work with children and adolescents. Keywords: solution-focused, sandtray Regardless of age, ethnicity, or gender, sand is a medium that crosses all boundaries. It is difficult to resist moving one’s hands through the sand, touching and feeling its fine grain, moving it from one side to another, making paths, and building mountains. With sand and carefully selected miniatures, one can move through the past, present, and future; describe unspeakable events; confront one’s demons and overcome challenge; become a new person while retaining the best of the old; and create the potential self and its many possibilities. Indeed, the use of sand and its miniatures is an established therapeutic ap- proach with children, adolescents, and adults (Homeyer & Sweeney, 2005). A primarily nonverbal method of intervention, the “work” is done through the sand material and the carefully selected toys the client uses to construct and sometimes to play out his or her world. Because sandboxes are familiar to most children, sand play is not likely to be threatening and more likely to be a safe way to express what may seem to be unacceptable feelings and impulses (Oaklander, 1988). Sandtray therapy has other benefits as well. For clients who are less prone to verbal communication or who may not be language proficient, the sand and the miniatures become the language through which the child can communicate (see Vinturella & James, 1987), producing tangible results (Hunter, 2006). For those who are stuck in old ways of problem-solving, sandtray therapy opens up new perspectives from a “three-dimensional field” (Bainum, Schneider, & Stone, 2006, p. 36). Unlike other Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elizabeth R. Taylor, College of Education, Texas Christian University, TCU Box 297900, Fort Worth, TX 76129. E-mail: [email protected] tcu.edu 56 International Journal of Play Therapy © 2009 Association for Play Therapy 2009, Vol. 18, No. 1, 56 – 68 1555-6824/09/$12.00 DOI 10.1037/a0014441 types of expressive techniques, such as drawing or writing, skill is not required for creating scenes, so that self-consciousness and fear of judgment are not so prob- lematic (Bradway, 1979). For some, the sand itself is so relaxing that deep and painful issues are less frightening to discuss in the therapy session (Homeyer & Sweeney, 1998). Beginning with Margaret Lowenfeld in the early 1900s, the use of sandtray began as a therapeutic approach, which she called the “World Technique.” Clients used miniatures as a vehicle for communicating and expressing their emotions and resolving conflicts in their internal and external experiences (Turner, 2005). In 1956, Dora Maria Kalff, a Jungian therapist, studied with Lowenfeld, applying Jungian concepts to the World Technique, subsequently developing Sandplay. Both Kalff and Lowenfeld believed the goal of sand work was to uncover the nonverbal, but Kalff believed that the creation of a series of sandtrays led to healing at deeper, unconscious levels. Lowenfeld was much more active with the client during the creation of the sandtray, talking with the client, asking questions, and making interpretations; whereas, Kalff believed such dialogue was intrusive and focused more on the completed tray with the role of the therapist being one of an observer (Homeyer & Sweeney, 2005). Since that time, several theoretical approaches to play therapy have been applied to the therapeutic and healing property of sandtray work, including Adle- rian (Bainum et al., 2006), Jungian (Peery, 2003), Gestalt (Oaklander, 2003), family (Carey, 2006), and group play (Hunter, 2006) therapies. Clinicians using these different theoretical approaches employ, to different degrees and in different formats, sand and its miniatures as a method of assessing, communicating, and facilitating the healing process; however, most of the literature on therapeutic sandtray addresses Kalff’s Jungian approach (Bainum et al., 2006). Recently, postmodern clinicians have drawn upon the healing aspects of min- iatures and the sandtray, including narrative (Freeman, Epston, & Lobovits, 1997) and solution-focused (SF) therapies (Nims, 2007), the sandtray becoming another component of the therapy process. Little has been written, however, about the application of SF philosophy and therapeutic techniques to sandtray with children and adolescents; therefore, it is the author’s aim to address this void and demon- strate the practical application and integration of SF theory and techniques to sandtray and its miniatures. The reader is encouraged to examine the writings of well-known and experienced practitioners and researchers, including those of Hom- eyer and Sweeney (1998, 2005), Hunter (2006), and Turner (2005) regarding the specifics of sandtray, including selection of miniatures, tray and sand options, and interpretation, as these will not be addressed here. SF THERAPY AND ITS APPLICATION TO SANDTRAY WORK Basing their work on the communication approaches of Gregory Bateson and Milton Erikson, Steve de Shazer and Insoo Kim Berg developed, researched, and wrote extensively on SF therapy. Unlike other therapies that are based on already established philosophies and techniques, Berg and de Shazer based their work on inductive procedures of attending to what worked with clients and what clients had 57Solution-Focused Sandtray to say about what was useful in therapy (De Jong & Berg, 2008). Researchers (Corcoran, 2006; Franklin, Biever, Moore, Clemons, & Scarmardo, 2001) have demonstrated that SF therapy is an effective approach not only with adults, but also with children and adolescents, so that it is increasingly being adopted in schools as an alternative to the more pathology-oriented focus on problems (Gingerich & Wabeke, 2001). Berg and Steiner (2003) and Selekman (2005) discuss the use of SF therapy with younger children using developmentally appropriate language and reliance on playful and concrete approaches, such as art, games, and stories. The philosophy of SF therapy rests on the resilient nature of the individual and the already present strengths that can be employed to solve current and future problems. Taking the focus of therapy off the problem, the therapist works to assist the client in identifying personal strengths, much like searching for hidden treasure. Not ignoring the past, the therapist validates personal pain and difficulties and brings to clients’ awareness their abilities and coping skills to endure, conquer, and overcome past difficulties. Clients are often surprised by the very different focus on strengths in the present and how these can be employed in the future rather than delving into lengthy stories of past problems and traumas (De Jong & Berg, 2008). The SF therapist attends to and focuses on clients’ key words, carefully explor- ing exceptions and successful attempts in dealing with problems, thus assuming clients have the resources necessary to solve their problems, want to change, and can visualize hopeful futures. Not dwelling on problem descriptions, SF therapists are continually impressed with clients’ successes and curious about how clients have been able to manage and cope so well in challenging circumstances (De Jong & Berg, 2002; Gingerich & Wabeke, 2001). SF and sandtray therapies share several underlying principles that might generate potential for their convergence into theoretical applications that stress resiliencies, strengths, and possibilities without the limitations that primarily verbal approaches often demand. Both sandtray and SF therapies seek to help clients by “empowering them to be masters of their own lives. . .capitalizing on their competency areas, respecting their defenses, and giving them room to tell their painful stories, when, or if, they are ready to do so” (Homeyer & Sweeney, 1998; Selekman, 1997, p. 4). Both focus on the interpersonal processes involved in healing the self, not techniques. Homeyer and Sweeney (1998) state that it is not the technique that heals, rather, people are healed through their interac- tions with self and others. Healing involves inner, relational, and heart pro- cesses. SF therapists believe that “communication is considered the process by which system members define self in relation to other and simultaneously create the ongoing nature of their relationship” (Beyebach, Morejón, Palenzuela, & Rodrı́guez-Arias, 1996, p. 301). The SF therapist is similar to several of the known sandtray therapists. For example, the SF therapist working with sandtray employs the observer role of the Kalff therapist but also Lowenfeld’s active role during creation of the sandtray. The SF therapist combines the stance of observer with interviewer, collaborator, and explorer (Homeyer & Sweeney, 1998, 2005; Hunter, 2006; Siegelman, 1990). Both Adlerian sandtray and SF therapists are goal-directed and believe that movements toward change are necessary (Bainum et al., 2006; De Jong & Berg, 2008). 58 Taylor FOCUSING ON STRENGTHS Three different approaches used to find and amplify strengths and develop goals that are both unique and common to SF therapy are compliments, relation- ship questions, and exception-finding questions. Each, used throughout the therapy process, can easily be illustrated using the sandtray and its miniatures. Compliments Compliments in SF therapy can serve to open doors that might seem closed, particularly to those mandated to come to counseling, but also to the discouraged who seem unable to uncover personal strengths and resources. Therapists can enlist three different types of compliments throughout the session— direct, indirect, and self-compliments. The direct compliment is a statement that recognizes what the client is doing that is successful. It is not a compliment without substance; rather, it is based on factual data, which may or may not have been recognized by the client. For example, the therapist might state to Anna, a middle school girl having difficulty completing her homework, “I am amazed at how much work you have done since I saw you last week.” The indirect compliment enlists relational aspects into the solution by helping clients to indirectly compliment themselves through the recognition of what others might notice or say. An example of an indirect compli- ment could be “I wonder what your mom might say about the hard work you have been doing in school.” The self-compliment allows the client to speak at the expert on his or her strengths and success and is often considered the most credible. For example, the therapist might ask, “How did you manage to get your homework done?” (Berg & De Jong, 2005). Compliments in sandtray therapy may augment the client’s feelings of empow- erment and facilitate the sandtray process. For example, one client demonstrated his ability to run away from his father who was inebriated, illustrating his actions through sandtray fences, buildings, and figures. The author using a direct compli- ment pointed out his good problem-solving skills and his ability to think quickly. Using the indirect compliment, the client was asked what others in the sandtray might say about his actions to which he responded that he had done just as his mother had instructed, and he thought she was proud of him. Relationship Questions SF is an interactional theory, in that the way clients view themselves is based on how others view them, so that although change is discussed in future terms, it is also discussed in interactional terms through relationship questions. These questions assist clients’ understanding of their behaviors and how changes in those behaviors affect others, which in turn affects the clients. Three types of relationship questions are commonly used in SF therapy. The most direct relationship question is in regard to how the client perceives others’ viewpoints and behaviors about the client’s changes. For example, the therapist 59Solution-Focused Sandtray might ask Anna, the young girl having difficulty completing her homework, “Who will be the first to notice when you are getting your homework completed?” A second type of relationship question places the emphasis on the client’s significant support member, for example, “What will your mother say when you get your homework done?” A third type of relationship question beckons the client to prove him or herself to the significant person with a challenge, “What will it take to prove to your mother that you do not need to be bugged anymore about doing your homework?” or “What has to happen, so that your teacher does not think you have to come here anymore?” These last two questions are often effective with those who are mandated to come to counseling or who are reluctant to admit responsi- bility in the problem or its solutions (De Jong & Berg, 2008). Sandtray provides a vivid action picture of what happens in relationships when change occurs. For example, the therapist might work with the client to create a genogram, a graphic display of at least three generations that provides clues to individual and family patterns and functioning (for symbols and information on genogram construction, see McGoldrick, Gerson, & Petry, 2008). The therapist may begin by stating “I would like to get an idea of who everyone is in your family, and since it is difficult for me to remember names, I find it easier if I try to make a family map.” Gil, the first to demonstrate the use of genograms in sandtray therapy with families, suggests that the therapist use a large sheet of easel paper on which to draw the genogram for the family members, and then have clients select from the miniatures those that represent themselves and place them in the drawn boxes or circles representing the respective family members. The genogram need not be limited to just family members but may also include the family pets and friends. The client(s) is then asked to talk about his or her selection (Gil, McGoldrick, Gerson, & Petry, 2008). With some children and adolescents, it is possible to set up the genogram directly in the sand rather than on paper, so that the sand itself can be a component with which to work. The therapist might go to each miniature asking what would be noticed, which of the miniatures would notice, and what the reaction would be if changed occurred. Further, the figures might talk to one another, asking questions about the strengths the client exhibited in reaching her goal or provide ideas about ways the goal might be reached. Each of the three relationship perspectives can be illustrated effectively and concretely through the miniatures as they talk to one another, giving the sense that all are in the room. Shifts can be further demonstrated as the young client purposefully places the miniatures to represent relationship changes or support. Exploring for Exceptions Problems rarely occur all of the time or at the same severity. Invariably, exceptions occur. Exploring for exceptions, the therapist first listens and watches for times when the problem may not have occurred, when the client used inner and external resources to assist in solving the problem, or when the problem should have occurred but didn’t (De Jong & Berg, 2008). The therapist explores in detail what happened during those times the problem should have occurred but didn’t, who was present, what the effect was on the client, and how the exception affected 60 Taylor others. Exceptions also include asking the client what he or she would like to be different, how it will make a difference if these changes occur, what it would be like, and if, perhaps, the client is already experiencing some of these changes (Walter & Peller, 1996). For example, Anna might be asked to create in the sand a time when she did her homework or even part of it. By asking this question through sandtray, Anna is forced to think about the details, who was present, and where she was when this exception occurred. The therapist would then ask questions regarding what was most helpful in completing her work, who provided or could provide assistance, what it feels like to be successful, who notices, and other details that allow her to rehearse the successful sequence of events and begin to note how this might be repeated. Anna’s sandtray also informs the therapist of the client’s strengths but also the obstacles or challenges that may require attention. STAGES SF therapy contains five stages: (a) “describing the problem,”( b) “exploring for exceptions,” (c) “developing well-formed goals,” (d) “end of session feedback,” and (e) “evaluating client progress”(De Jong & Berg, 2008, pp. 17–18). Primarily, SF therapists rely on verbal language to process and progress through each stage; yet, sandtray therapy offers a more nonverbal alternative, both client and therapist using the sandtray to communicate to one another. Stage I: Describing the Problem Just as many sandtray therapists do, it is appropriate in the beginning of therapy to ask the client to “create a world,” “build your world,” “build a scene,” or “select a few miniatures that really speak to you. Place them in the sand. Then add as many you like to create a world in the sand” (Homeyer & Sweeney, 1998, p. 60). As the client initially constructs the world in the sandtray, therapist com- munication should be carefully considered. This may be likened to the client’s verbal discussion of pain, problems, and resolution of past and present life events, because the miniatures and sand are the means through which communication takes place (Homeyer & Sweeney, 1998). As the client constructs the sandtray, the therapist listens and attends more through body language and less through words. Just as a sandtray therapist would use person-centered techniques, the SF therapist employs the similar techniques of paraphrasing and reflection on content and feelings (De Jong & Berg, 2008; Vinturella & James, 1987). As the relationship between the client and therapist builds, questions are minimal, and the therapist remains open to the client’s story. Who and What Are Important to Clients Questions are used by the therapist to explore who and what are important to the client, indications of past successes, and to identify key words the client uses in 61Solution-Focused Sandtray identifying the problem. Questions should not be used to get the client to say something the therapist already knows or has in mind but rather for a better understanding of the client and how he or she experiences the world. The therapist would then use the client’s key words and sometimes ask about their meaning (De Jong & Berg, 2008). Just as in sandtray therapy, the therapist does not assume meaning of specific miniatures or that items stand for something, since the meaning of the item is specific to each child (Vinturella & James, 1987). Instead, the therapist asks questions about miniatures and how they are related to one another and to the world the client created. Questions would naturally address the current and past problems, feelings, and associations, but SF therapists do not dwell on the discouraging aspects of a problem or the negative feelings associated with it, as this tends to amplify the problem and focuses attention on the painful aspects of clients’ lives rather than on the clients’ strengths and power to cope and find solutions (Gingerich & Wabeke, 2001). Another approach to helping clients to discuss what is important to them is through the construction of a genogram. The genogram may be constructed in the beginning sessions to obtain an understanding of the family and friends and their relationships to one another and the client. For example, in one situation an adolescent selected miniatures to represent family members, including those who had died, which he buried in the sand using skeletons and gravestones. Then, next to these gravesites he placed bottles depicting alcohol use and wrecked automo- biles, in addition to police and ambulance vehicles, providing a graphic display for both the adolescent recently accused of substance abuse and the therapist of just how much death and alcohol use had impacted him and his family. Once an understanding of who and what are important to the client has been established, the client might be asked to set up the “hoped-for future” when things are different (Gil et al., 2008, p. 257). This approach follows the SF philosophy of focusing on positive futures while allowing the young client to visualize through sandtray therapy what could actually be different and how change might affect and be affected by family members. STAGE II: DEVELOPING WELL-FORMED GOALS Goal-setting is one of the main pillars of effective SF therapy (Iveson, 2002). SF therapists believe goals should be: (a) formed using solution language, not the absence of a problem; (b) specific, concrete, measurable, and behavioral; (c) doable and realistic; (d) described within a social and interactional context; and (e) valuable to the client (Berg & Steiner, 2003). A variety of approaches assist in goal setting, but well-formed goals are actually set by the client from his or her frame of reference using imagined alternative futures and affirmations of what is already occurring or what clients have already done. This can be accomplished through several different types of questions, including the miracle question, exception questions, and scaling questions (Berg & Steiner, 2003; De Jong & Berg, 2008). 62 Taylor Miracle Question Once the client has discussed the problem situation, the miracle question is asked, inviting the client to project what life will be like without the problem. The answer to the miracle question becomes the goal and focus of treatment (Rita, 1998). This question helps clients develop new perspectives on problems and widens the area of possible solutions (Walter & Pellar, 1996). The following illustrates the miracle question and how it might be used with sandtray. “Suppose that you go home this afternoon, you get a snack, and maybe do some homework and watch TV. Then, you go to bed with your favorite pillow and fall gently to sleep. While you are sleeping, a miracle happens, so that the problem that is troubling you is gone. However, since you were sleeping you didn’t know the miracle happened, but when you wake up in the morning the problem is gone. Create in the sand what your world will look like if this happened” (adapted and modified from De Jong & Berg, 2008). Of course, the sandtray miniatures, such as wizards, fairy godmothers, angels, and other mystical figures can be used to actually ask the miracle question. With younger clients, it is appropriate to substitute more familiar language for “miracle,” such as a fairy godmother who waves her magic wand (Berg & Steiner, 2003). Being able to manipulate one’s world in the sand in ways that goals are already achieved provides the client with sense of control, a chance to rehearse the behaviors needed to make change occur, and the opportu- nity to notice the interpersonal impact that the change might have. The therapist is provided the opportunity to ask the client in a more concrete approach who or what may assist and support him or her in reaching goals. Occasionally, clients will answer the miracle question with something that is unrealistic, such as divorced parents reconciling or a deceased grandparent being present. When this happens, it is better not to argue that it is unrealistic but rather to ask, “What will you be doing that you aren’t doing now?” Often, the answer to this question can be expanded (Berg & Steiner, 2003). For example, a client might state, “I would be going to the park with my dad.” From this the therapist could ask the client to construct times when the client has been to the park that may not have been with his or her dad or to construct times when the client has felt as he did when he went to the park with his dad. The focus is then on what the child is doing or feeling and how this behavior might be already occurring or could be repeated rather than focusing on the unrealistic components. This takes place around the miracle world the child has created in the sand with questions focusing on strengths, exceptions to problems, and possibilities for the future (De Jong & Berg, 2008). Scaling Questions Scaling questions are often used to develop goals, as well as to assess motiva- tion, success, feelings of efficacy, and other cognitive, behavioral, and feeling states (Berg, 1994). Scaling questions can be used to assess the current condition and then plan what needs to happen for the situation to get better. For example, the therapist might use a scale of 1 to 5 for younger children or 1 to 10 with older children asking, “On a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 you are doing horrible and 10 you are doing great, the best ever, what number would you say you are right now?” 63Solution-Focused Sandtray Not all children are ready to verbalize, and some are not capable of under- standing the concept of scaling questions. Using the sandtray, the therapist might use different sizes of sticks (cars, blocks, and other miniatures) to represent each of the numbers, with the smallest stick representing the more negative feelings. The child may then point to the stick size that signifies where he or she is. With older children, it is sometimes useful to have them select from the different mythological, animal, or people figures what might represent each of the numbers on the scale. For example, the author observed one adolescent choose different types of super- heroes, city workers, and horror movie figures for each of the scaled numbers. One day, he chose a worker with a shovel to represent a 5, which was the number he gave himself. This seemed to be an effective visual to communicate the feelings and thoughts he had about taking care of his siblings, protecting them from an abusive parent, and keeping his family intact. Once the current situation is assessed using a scale, the second question could be, “What would it take for you to be a 7?” Using the previous example, the therapist might ask, “What would it take for you to be Spiderman (the figure the child had selected to represent the 7)?” For clients who are reluctant to make changes or who seem hopeless about change occurring, one might ask, “What would it take to move from a 5 to a 5-and-a-half?” This would represent such a slight change that little effort would seem to be necessary, yet clients are often willing to suggest something, which is often just enough to initiate forward move- ment. Another approach to this exercise might be to ask the child to make three different scenes in the sandtray representing three different events that occurred since the last session. The client might then scale each of these events and discuss what the elements were that made these events successful, or what times during these events that just a little success occurred. Questions might then be asked to determine what could happen to help these successful events materialize in the future. The answers to these questions would then become future goals. A timeline might also be useful in setting goals. For example, with middle schoolers, the author asked clients to depict their lives on a timeline. A marker was provided to indicate the present. Clients often used miniature babies and children to represent themselves, as well as siblings and friends. Gravestones representing the death of loved ones and street signs for markers of positive and negative events in life were used frequently. Clients were then asked the miracle question in terms of the more distant future: “Suppose tonight that you go to bed and while you are sleeping a miracle happens. In the morning you wake up and find that it is 20 years into the future, and all of the things you want to happen have happened. What will you notice is different …