Purposeful Communication
Ken Breeding
Staying Purposeful
Everything we do in raising and teaching children should be purposeful. In all my guidance classes, we begin by brainstorming and listing all the words that would describe children when fully grown into the humans we want them to become. Respectful, responsible, caring, involved, connected, capable, ethical, honest, reliable, empathic, moral are always among the many words that come up. In the thousands of groups that have done this, “obedient” or “wealthy” have never been part of those lists.
What is our purpose, our ultimate goal for what we do in guiding and managing children’s behavior? This process of guiding and managing, although not listed as a specific area of the curriculum we address, presents the most potent learning opportunities for helping children develop all of the critical social and emotional skills needed to be successful in life. When we manage the process of guiding children well, we help them achieve those most important educational outcomes of all.
When we help children develop those skills and use them, we create environments that not only address the most important educational outcomes described above but also allow children to learn all of the other academic goals we have for them as well.
We use the word “guidance” instead of “discipline” because the original meaning of that word had changed, probably through the dynamics that support the prevalence of Jackal language in all of our cultures. The word “discipline” actually derives from the Latin word “disciplina”, which means instruction, knowledge, or training.
Honesty is one of the goals people agree on we want from children. Imagine walking into a classroom and seeing a student throwing a ball across the room to another that accidentally hits and breaks something in its path. “Did you just throw that ball?” could be an unthinking response from the teacher.
What do you think the student’s response might be? “I did it. I can not lie,” is not going to happen. When people feel psychologically unsafe, they stop engaging in rational, open processing of information. Instead, they become defensive, prioritizing self-protection over learning or constructive dialogue.
Key Takeaways
Jack R. Gibb (1961) described a progression of defensive responses:
- Avoidance. The first reaction to a perceived threat is often to withdraw or disengage. This may be physical (leaving the situation), mental (tuning out), or emotional (shutting down). The student might try to physically leave or say “Me? Oh, sorry, I have to go the bathroom.”
- Denial. If avoidance is not possible, individuals may respond by rejecting the reality of the threat. They may insist that there is no problem, dismiss the issue as unimportant, or blame external factors. “No, I didn’t do it.”
- Fabrication. If pressed further, individuals may resort to distorting reality or making up excuses to justify their actions and avoid blame. This response is an effort to maintain self-image and control in the face of growing pressure. “I saw the ball come through the door. I don’t know who threw it.”
All of the communication we use in guiding children needs to stay focused on our ultimate goals of children learning to control and manage their emotions and relate productively to others. A much better response instead of confronting the student who accidentally broke something would be to acknowledge the situation honestly and engage the student in learning something important from it.
Responding assertively but with empathy for the student would produce much better outcomes. “I saw you throw the ball that broke X. We will need to talk about what needs to be done to fix that. I know you probably didn’t intend to break something. How are you feeling about that? What do you think will need to be done?” These kinds of statements and questions invite learning and growth.
References
- Gibb, J. R. (1961). Defensive communication. Journal of Communication, 11(3), 141-148.
