6 The Language we Use

The language used when observing children is very important for several reasons. It shapes the way we interpret what we observe and our understanding of a child’s behaviour, and it impacts how information is communicated to families and colleagues. In this chapter, we’ll discuss how we can create documentation using language that is precise, objective and respectful to ensure that our observations are constructive, supportive, and inclusive.

Objective vs Subjective Observations

When we document our observations, we must always use objective language, and this means we state facts and only take note of what we see and hear without making any inferences or inserting our opinions and thoughts.

We need to avoid subjective language, which is when we go beyond what we see/hear and make assumptions about what we believe. The following are subjective terms that we should avoid:

• Happy
• Smart
• Helpful
• Angry
• Shy
• Likes/loves
• Dislikes/hates
• Sad

These terms are all either judgments or children’s internal conditions/emotions. For instance, we might suspect a child is shy because they come into the classroom on their first morning and don’t speak to anyone, but what if they’re normally very talkative and are actually feeling quite sick that day? If we observe this child and wrote down that they are shy, we would be incorrect. If we instead avoided assuming the child’s internal condition and just wrote “Cooper came into the classroom and quietly sat on the bench by his cubby for 15 minutes,” we are leaving room for a different interpretation.

Another term we should avoid is “because” since that word inherently means that we’re making inferences. For example, if we say, “Katie cried because another child took her toy,” we’re making an assumption about the reason why Katie was crying. While it might seem clear that this is why Katie started crying, it’s entirely possible that there was another reason. (For example, perhaps a loud sound occurred at the exact same moment that the other child took Katie’s toy, and the noise frightened Katie.) By documenting our assumptions, we’re not allowing ourselves or others who are reading our documentation to remain open to other interpretations. Instead, we can rephrase that subjective statement by saying, “Another child took the toy Katie had in her hands, and then Katie started to cry.” We might very well draw the same inference when it comes time to make sense of what we observed, but objective language allows us to remain open to other possibilities.

We also shouldn’t use “always” or “never” because we’re only supposed to be documenting what we see and hear during our observation, and when we use either of those words, we’re generalizing and likely letting our biases filter our perception. Following the previous example, if we were to say, “Katie always cries when playing with other children,” this is likely not an accurate statement and can result in inferences and follow-up supports that are not actually responsive to Katie’s needs. Similarly, if we were to say, “Katie never shares her toys,” we’re also going beyond what we observed and making sweeping statements that are likely untrue.

A good test to determine whether what you have documented is objective is if you ask yourself, “Is there any chance anyone could disagree with what I said?” If the answer to that question is no, then your statement is objective. For example, if you said, “Connie was angry,” perhaps her mother would have observed what occurred and said that Connie wasn’t angry at all and that the child often yells when she is really excited about something, although it can come across to people who don’t know her well as anger. On the other hand, if you had said, “Connie looked at the pile of stuffed animals and yelled loudly,” Connie’s mother couldn’t argue with that because you described exactly what happened.

Here are some helpful tips to clarify the difference between objective and subjective language:

Characteristics

Oftentimes we might be tempted to describe a child’s temperament in our documentation. This can include characteristics that set one child apart from another. For instance, we might notice that a child is being “affectionate” or “considerate” and want to use those terms, however, there are a few reasons why we should avoid characteristics. The first is that these terms are not objective and reflect our judgment and opinions. Another issue is that if we allow ourselves to include characteristics of children, we might include negative ones like “rude” or “bossy,” and this runs counter to appreciative inquiry that we discussed in an earlier chapter. You’ll recall that appreciative inquiry ensures that we are observing children through a positive, strength-based lens, so this is the lens we must always use. Someone might wonder whether they can just use positive characteristics and not mention any negative ones, but this brings up yet another issue. What if documentation of all of the children in our program except for two includes positive characteristics like “easy-going” and “thoughtful,” and our documentation of the other two children is just factual and does not contain any positive characteristics? The absence of those terms in itself reflects our biases and can impact how we interpret our observations and the way we respond to them.

Descriptive Observations

Let’s begin this section on descriptive language with the following question: Which of the following two statements paints a clearer picture?

1. Jacob went to the play structure

Or

2. Jacob sprinted to the play structure

In the first sentence, we know that Jacob made his way over to the play structure, but the change in the second sentence to a more specific word that described how he did so really helped us to envision what that would have looked like.

And what about these next two statements?

1. Amanda made a bracelet with the beads

Or

2. Amanda used her index finger to move around the colourful assortment of beads in the dish, selected the red one, and while humming a song from “The Frozen” movie, threaded the bead onto the string. For ten minutes, she repeated the same steps, continuing to choose only red beads to put on her bracelet.

Both statements capture Amanda making a bracelet with beads, but the second sentence reveals Amanda’s careful and intentional approach, her interest in “Frozen,” and her apparent preference for the colour red.

Something else we can do to ensure our observations are descriptive is to use adverbs. These are words that provide detail to a verb. So if we were to say “Alex walked” as opposed to “Alex walked briskly,” the second version creates a clearer image of how Alex moved.

Adjectives are another tool we can use, and these are words that describe a noun (which is a person, place, or thing). If we’re observing Brianna playing with a toy truck, we can elaborate and describe the truck by saying “The red tow truck.”

These extra details allow us to be more specific about what was going on, and this will be helpful when it comes time for us to interpret the observation and consider how we might want to follow up on what we saw.

People-First and Person-Centred Language

“People-first language” is an approach that ensures that we refer to people respectfully and accurately by considering which words to use and in what order those words are placed.

When documenting children with disabilities, when we mention the child first and the disability second, we reinforce the fact that disabilities do not define the child. A disability is something a child has, not something the child is. If someone has a cold, we do not call him or her a “cold person”; we indicate that he or she has a cold. If someone has green eyes, we don’t say she’s a green-eyed person, we say she has green eyes. Similarly, if a child we’re observing has ADHD, we would say “Ben is a child with ADHD.” Contrast that with “Ben is ADHD.” The first phrasing provides some extra information about Ben whereas the second presents Ben’s ADHD as the most important thing about him. It’s a small detail, but the implications of it are significant.

Using people-first and person-centred language also means reflecting and being respectful of children’s preference for gender pronouns in our observations in order to avoid the impact of bias and prevent stigmatization. Communicating with children’s families and/or the children themselves is key in ensuring we’re familiar with their preferences. Using People First Language—putting the person before the disability, gender, ethnicity—and eliminating old, prejudicial, and hurtful descriptors, moves us to observe and document accurately. People First Language is not political correctness; instead, it demonstrates respect and can change the way we see a person, and it can change the way a person sees themself!

Finally, when working with Indigenous families, it is important to have an open discussion about the terminology they would like you to use. Some might be comfortable with “Indigenous,” whereas others might ask you to refer to their distinct Indigenous group, such as “Métis.” In order to be respectful of children and their families while documenting your observations, be clear on which term you should be using.

Positive Observations

When we’re thinking about the language we use in our observations, we need to use positive language to ensure we’re clearly capturing what the child said and did. This seems obvious, but the key here is to describe what happened rather than what didn’t happen.

To clarify, consider the following statement: “During circle time, Jimmy wasn’t listening at all to the story.” This doesn’t paint a clear picture of what happened, especially when Jimmy was actually sleeping. That statement implies that he was displaying challenging behaviour and being disruptive when in actuality he was resting quietly after a busy morning of playing outside in the fresh air. If we were to rephrase that observation using positive language (by describing what happened instead of what didn’t happen), we would be painting a more accurate picture. For instance, “During circle time while the educator was reading a story, Jimmy curled up in the cozy corner and slept.”

Consider another example. If we said, “Fatima wasn’t being nice to her friends,” it’s hard to know what is needed to support Fatima because we don’t actually know what the problem is. Was Fatima hitting them? Telling them they couldn’t play with her? Keeping her back turned to them as they spoke to her? We should be explaining what Fatima did instead of what she didn’t do. One reason we document our observations is to figure out what needs to happen next, but if we phrase what we saw in negative language instead of positive language, we’re missing a great deal of useful information that can help us decide how we should follow up with Fatima to guide her in a more positive direction. Consider that Fatima did in fact just keep her back to her friends as they asked her to play. If you were to ask her why she did that, perhaps she would tell you that she didn’t hear her friends because they were all outside and it was very noisy. Our response to this scenario would be very different than if we just read the first version of the observation about Fatima not being nice to her friends.

It’s important to note that saying we need to use positive language doesn’t mean that we cannot make note of any challenging behaviour or difficulties we observe; we just need to frame everything in a way that is clear what happened instead of what didn’t happen or what was perceived to have happened. You’ll also notice that an added bonus of using positive language in our observations is that they automatically become much more descriptive and accurate.

Linguists and psychologists study how language is interpreted by people. Even the slightest differences in language use can correspond with biased beliefs of the observer. Seemingly harmless statements such as “girls are as good as boys at math,” can subtly perpetuate sexist stereotypes as it implies that being good at math is more common or natural for boys than girls. When we make concluding statements, inferences and reflections, our language matters.