This article was a case study of a student who reacted and
responded in two completely different ways in two very different
classrooms. He transferred from the
first classroom and moved to the one at a Child Development Center that was
based on the whole language philosophy.
When Matt was given the freedom to create and write in a way that made
sense to him.
When his former teacher was approached about his promotion
to first grade her description of Matt was the polar opposite of the child they
had experienced in the past seven months.
She refused to agree that he could move on to first grade and be
successful. Her structure of how she
relayed information in her classroom was very ‘old school’. The article states ‘What a teacher believes
about teaching, learning, and the nature of children will expand or limit the
opportunities for his or her children to achieve their potential.’
I agree that each student deserves an individual and
integrated approach to learning. They
can grow from so many different ways to approach learning. The challenge as
teachers is having the freedom and the time to differentiate instruction and
learning for each student. It was
encouraging to see how Matt responded to the whole language approach. I feel like I give my students many different
ways to express themselves but this article definitely encourages me to strive
to find more ways to give each and every
student those opportunities.
Same student, two environments, two belief systems, and two completely different outcomes! My heart is in whole language, and I learned last year that there is actually a whole conference devoted to it (WLU, a part of NCTE). I think whole language is more meaningful for students because it keeps literacy in context!
ReplyDelete