Purposive Communication

MINI CRITIQUE - Isagani Cruz (The Philippine Star) - September 4, 2014 - 12:00am

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 20,
series of 2013, issued on June 28, 2013, which spells out the revised General
Education Curriculum (GEC) for 2018, has two parts: the body and the appendices.

The body consists of Background and Rationale, Curriculum Overview (Article 1),
Transitory Provisions (Art. 2), Repealing Clause (Art. 3), and Effectivity (Art. 4).

Article 1 consists of Goals and Context of General Education (Section 1), General
Education Outcomes (Sec. 2), Revised Core Courses (Sec. 3), and General Education
Electives (Sec. 4).

The appendices consist of Brief Explanation of GE Core Courses (Appendix A),

Rationale for Change (App. B), College Readiness Standards Goals (App. C), Senior
High School Curriculum and General Education (App. D), Differences between Present
and the Revised General Education Curriculum (App. E), Implementation and Timetable
(App. F), and Documentation of Public Consultations (App. G).

The CMO differentiates between the theoretical and the competencies-based or

practical outcomes of the GEC. The theoretical outcome is “knowing the self, Filipino
society, the world, and the environment, and how these intersect.” The competencies-
based outcomes are categorized in Sec. 2 of Art. 1 into three: Intellectual
Competencies, Personal and Civic Responsibilities, and Practical Skills.

I took the trouble of listing all the parts in order to emphasize that the CMO must be
read as a whole and not in part. Sections of it should not be taken out of context.
Looking at the entire document and not only at parts of it is the way to understand the
course explanations in App. A.

Let us use as an example the core course entitled “Malayuning Komunikasyon /

Purposive Communication.”

Sec. 3 of Art. 1 describes it as “Pagsulat, pagsasalita, at paglalahad para sa iba’t ibang

madla at iba’t ibang layunin / Writing, speaking, and presenting to different audiences
and for various purposes.” App. A adds: “The five skills of communication (listening,
speaking, reading, writing, viewing) are studied and simulated in advanced academic
settings.”

Taken out of context, those sentences make it appear that this is just a continuation of
the language courses (Filipino, English, Mother Tongue, Foreign Language) in the K to
12 curriculum. Seen within the context of the entire document, however, the course
looks radically different.
Take the example given in App. A – “writing minutes of meetings.”

What would be the difference between minutes written by a Grade 12 student and that
written by a GEC student?

A Grade 12 student should be able to write minutes according to the standard format
(date, time, location of meeting; members and guests present; summaries of
discussions for every agenda item; decisions made; actions taken; date, time, location,
and suggested agenda for the next meeting; his/her name; notation or approval by the
chair and/or members). Most minutes taken by non-college graduates adequately cover
these items.

A student of “Purposive Communication,” however, will be thinking about much more

than the format. The GEC student has to think about questions such as the following:

Who are going to read the minutes? How would an outside group (say, an accrediting
association, an external auditor, media) interpret these minutes? How will these minutes
contribute to the general advancement of the group (financial if a for-profit corporation,
advocacy if a not-for-profit one)? How would a future corporate historian read these
minutes? What are the ethical implications of the statements to be recorded? What
might be read between the lines?

In short, what is the purpose of the minutes? Is it just to have a record of what
happened or is it to further the cause of the group? In an age of desired transparency
(the Facebook era), meetings have implications not only for the group that meets but for
various other groups.

Like any other GEC course, “Purposive Communication” must be academic. The GEC
teacher has to be familiar with the academic research on this subject.

The term “purposive communication” has a particular meaning in scholarly discourse.

Hebb and Thompson’s classic “The Logical Analysis of Animal Communication” (1954),
for example, says that “the essence of purposive communication is that the sender
remains sensitive to the receiver’s responses, during sending, and by modification of his
sending shows that his behavior is in fact guided by the intention (expectancy) of
achieving a particular behavioral effect, in the receiver.” Purposive communication
cannot be appreciated without behavioral science.

“The outstanding fact,” continues Hebb and Thompson, “is man’s capacity for a varied
combination of symbolic acts.” The mention of symbolic acts brings to the fore cultural
criticism, a specialization of literary critics and philosophers.

Nowadays, purposive communication is sometimes even identified with Development

Communication, which is taught by Departments of Communication rather than
Departments of English or Filipino. A 2011 article in the “Global Media Journal,” for
instance, is entitled “Development Communication: A Purposive Communication with
Social Conscience – an Indian Perspective.”

In college, the writing of minutes of meetings cannot be approached merely as a

language skill, but must involve organizational communication (for the management
implications), the social sciences (for the developmental implications), critical theory (for
the non-verbal implications of the words), accountancy (for the significance of the
financial data to be reported), philosophy (for the ethical implications), and other
disciplines.

Read within the context of the entire CMO, “Purposive Communication” is a

multidisciplinary course.