Guiding children is part of raising them. As adults, we know more about how the world works, and children are, in many respects, still apprentices. We organize their days, establish rules, anticipate difficulties, and help them navigate situations they aren’t yet equipped to handle independently.
As children grow, we gradually loosen our grip on the steering wheel, allowing them to make more decisions and find their own way.
But this transition may take a different course when a child has developmental or communication difficulties.
From an early age, such a child may be surrounded by their own “advance security team.” As parents, teachers, and therapists, we are constantly running ahead, spotting potential hazards and filling in potholes before the child gets anywhere near them.
We set goals, arrange learning opportunities with appropriate prompts, and monitor progress. And for good reason. Structure helps children learn, and predictability helps them feel secure.
Indeed, some studies have found more directive interaction styles among parents of children with developmental or communication difficulties, possibly as an adaptation to their children’s needs.
But even necessary adaptations can have unintended side effects.
When we consistently determine what happens next, children may have fewer opportunities to initiate, choose, or redirect events.
Over time, we can all become accustomed to our respective roles: we provide direction, and the child becomes increasingly experienced at following it.
This brings us to the concept of agency: the capacity to act intentionally and influence what happens in one’s life. In short, it means having a say in the decisions and events that affect us.
Communication is one important way to exercise it, but some communicative acts give a child more influence than others. Consider the functional difference between sharing an experience and making a request.
When a child points to an airplane and says “Look!” the usual response is social: someone looks, comments, or shares the experience.
When a child says “Again!” to get another push on the swing, the intended outcome tends to be more specific and direct. Someone does something. Similarly, “Stop!” can bring an unwanted activity to an end.
For some children with communication difficulties, these direct outcomes may be more motivating than social responses, providing a particularly compelling reason to communicate.
And with just a word or two, a child can influence what happens next, rather than merely follow someone else’s lead.
That is one of the strongest arguments for prioritizing requesting in early communication intervention.
Requests aren’t easy to teach, but having a say in what happens to you matters.
Read Part Two: Why don’t we teach more requests?
Clever people got there first
For the curious, some research and ideas behind the argument.
Flynn & Masur (2007): On the gradual shift from parental control to supportive guidance as children develop.
Lederberg & Everhart (2000): On parental directiveness in interactions with children with communication difficulties.
Bondy & Frost (1998): On encouraging self-initiated requesting through PECS.
Prizant & Wetherby (1989): On developmental-pragmatic approach using “communicative temptations” to encourage spontaneous speech.
Sundberg & Michael (2001): On creating opportunities for spontaneous communication through communicative temptations.