Introduction

            As a young teacher-in-training, I have spent many nights hashing ideas and theories out in my mind. There is so much research and theory out in the world already, it seems that the big challenge is to synthesize it into a cohesive theory. This semester I have been exposed to a very large variety of literature on the subject of teaching children to read and write. I was quite surprised to find that a great deal of it was in agreement with long standing feelings I already had on the subject. The idea of teaching children as people first, with real feelings and needs, has always been my guiding light through my work both in and out of the classroom. With this primary concept in my head, I will propose a personal theory of teaching and learning. A theory that combines research, current best practices in the field and most importantly, the concept of educating the child as a whole person, not merely a number to push through the system.

            There are so many labels available to describe various theories of education. Most of my life I have been wary of these labels, however, because of their lasting power to shape the policies that they are attached to. I came across a very moving article while skimming through Talking Points, which dealt with the labeling of teaching theory. It changed my outlook on the idea of labels and how they are used to define practice. Curt Dudley-Marling states that labels are indeed important, if only because they “build solidarity” (p. 15). He also makes the point that we must “worry about who’s doing the names and for what purpose” (p. 14). As a response to this I will label my theory from the start, so as not to have others label it for me. I would consider the bulk of my theory to be whole language, with small deviations here and there. I am for learning in a meaningful context, with active and authentic learning as my battle-cry. While the term whole language may hold different political meanings for different people, to me this is whole language in a nutshell. 

Definitions

            No discussion of theory would be complete without outlining the terms involved and what they mean to me personally. In my opinion two of the most commonly confused terms used in educational theory are education and literacy. Everyone has a different definition of what education is or what it means to be literate. Merriam-Webster defines education as “the process of developing morally, mentally, or aesthetically by means of instruction”.  This definition is very open ended, leaving much of the definition up to the purpose behind education, rather then education itself. Without a purpose, education can mean nothing, we must determine for ourselves what morals, ideas, and aesthetics we will teach our students. John Mayher powerfully sums up the purpose of education -- to “develop [the students’] full potential as language users to a level of critical literacy” (p. 45). This purpose leads us to yet another problem however. What exactly is “critical literacy”?

            The definition of literacy has been expanding year by year. It can no longer just mean the mechanics of decoding print. To be truly literate takes much more than this, especially in complicated industrial nations such as the United States. Critical literacy moves beyond the mechanics of print and includes the ability to reflect and synthesize information. Reading is the “process of meaning-making” (Mahyer, p.222), which in itself alludes to much more than sounding out words and stringing together sentences. All of the decoding skills in the world will get a person nowhere if they do not know how to make sense of what they have decoded. The ability to relate what is being read to background experiences and personal feelings is an important component of critical literacy as well.

            We now live in a period of text transformation. Just as when people switched from oral traditions to a writing system or when Gutenberg invented his printing press. The Internet and hypertext technology are changing the way people read and gather information. This too plays a part in the ever-changing definition of literacy. The power and influence of technology on education cannot be underestimated or ignored for much longer. These new technologies challenge our trued and true modes of linear print, they “make it possible to combine textual, visual, and verbal elements into new modes of communication that rival the printed word” (Hammerberg, p. 207).  Children are constantly being exposed to these new forms of text and we as teachers must equip them with the knowledge they need to utilize this new technology for their own future benefit. Reading and writing in hypertext require a new literacy, one which is non-linear and much more demanding in many cases that print based texts. According to Nancy Patterson, “hypertext reading requires the reader to make deliberate decisions about which path to take within a hypertext,” (p. 77). For the writer this means that they must give up some of their control of the text. The piece will not be read exactly as intended by the author; each reader makes their own way through the hypertext. This new technology flips much of what we have learned about reading and writing on its head. The definition of literacy is changing before our eyes and within our classrooms.

Classroom Environment

            Imagine walking into a classroom brimming with books of all kinds, students working in small groups or reading intently in corners. Imagine this space humming with energy and exhilaration, where children are excited to come to school each day and the teacher does not look like she could use two extra summer vacations. Impossible you say? This dream can become a reality, given the right environment. The classroom environment includes not just the walls of the room, but also the students, supplies, and philosophy that fill it.  Hillocks contends that “teaching creates environments to induce and support active learning of complex strategies that students are not capable of using on their own” (55). These environments must be caring and supportive of student voice, always encouraging discussion and creativity.

            I view the classroom as a social community.  Mayher discusses this idea in depth, understanding that “learning is as much a collaborative social process as it is an individual one” (p. 105). To view learning in this light gives us a new perspective for approaching teaching and learning. The idea of the classroom as a social community has strong implications for all areas of study, but influences writing pedagogy perhaps most of all. Writing is a communicative art. Though people can and do write for their own fulfillment, such as in a diary, students will more commonly be writing for the expressed purpose of communicating ideas to others. This social community can be taken one step further and become a community of authors. The “conception of learning to write as an ever-evolving and ongoing process of participation in a community of authors,” is very motivating (Larson, p. 91). As teachers we must create an environment for active learning and ownership of text. This can teach all children that they are authors and that an author is not just an elite position they can never attain.

Katherine Schultz studied this idea of the classroom community and found that “the social interactions that shape and are shaped by writing are critical to our understanding of writing curricula” (p. 389). We cannot create writing curricula in a vacuum, if children and their interactions are not at the forefront of our process, than how can we expect to ever keep them engaged. Schultz also found that “writing occurred throughout the day and was embedded in nearly every aspect of classroom life” (p. 385). This can be a powerful and meaningful way to encourage students to write. Letters, journals and creative stories are all forms of writing which should be equally valued in the classroom. Adults write with purpose, not for a grade. Why should we be expecting success from children who are writing for the opposite reason? Are we teaching them that writing is a hollow activity that they will be able to ignore once they make it through their mandatory schooling? We must teach children that writing can be used in every day life and that it can and must have real purpose.

How can we create this community? I believe that it must start with the teacher’s heart. The teacher must open up and create a classroom that is warm and loving. The process of writing opens people up and most are not willing to do this unless they are positive that they and their work will be accepted and viewed as important. I believe that classroom discussion is a vital part of creating this type of environment. Student meeting where real issues are openly dealt with are very useful and can be a great opportunity for bringing children closer together and creating the support system that so many of them need. In these meeting the teacher should model how to share feelings and concerns, as well as how to respond to the concerns and feelings of others. Starting with this basic activity can be a strong foundation for a writing community.

Role of the Teacher

            It may seem to some that the teacher does not have a role in this new classroom. In my view the teacher’s role has only grown from the tradition idea of a teacher as the transmitters of knowledge (Mahyer, p. 19) to the idea of a teacher as a guide. The teacher’s role then “is to coach and prompt, to ask questions that push the edges of student ideas, and to sustain the interchange among students” (Hillocks, p. 65).  If this is to be our role as teachers, than it becomes easy to see how complex it actually is. Often, classrooms such as the one I have described above seem rather chaotic and it is easy for an observer to confuse this with the idea that the teacher is doing nothing. However, in a classroom where lessons are taught in context and children are guided through discovery, the planning is immense. Not only must the teacher plan lessons and themes out in steps so that children may be guided through discovery, but they are “always improvising, always creating a climate for learning through the art of teaching” (Mahyer, p. 8). I see three main traits that must exist in a great teacher: passion, reflection, and creativity.

            “Passion is contagious,” (Harvey, p.12) and it is a contagion that we want to spread. Teachers are models for the children in their classroom and modeling passion is an easy task that can evoke a great response from students. Sharing your passions means sharing yourself. By sharing our passions with our students we can “share the learning struggle with them” (Harvey, p.53) as well. If we open up and share ourselves, it becomes more likely that our students will feel safe in sharing their passions. If they open up, then we will also have to listen and have the students themselves become our passion. Joanne Larson conducted a study of Maryrita Maier, whose “students knew her likes, dislikes, and life passions and she knew all of theirs,” this is a perfect example of a passionate teacher (p. 75). If a teacher is to be a role model, they must let students see them as human beings, complete with the passions and struggles that make us who we are.

            The ability to reflect upon one’s own actions is a powerful tool for developing as both an educator and a person. To be able to reflect upon our teaching processes, we must become dedicated and meticulous observers of ourselves, our students, and the relationships in our classrooms. We can begin this process by being “teachers who listen to [our] students and observe what they can and cannot do in classroom discussions, in dealing with texts, in writing, and so forth” (Hillocks, p.61). These daily observations take place in between all of the time spent on mandatory state tests and go beyond a simple measure of whether the children can answer a, b, or c. This observation can teach us about how the children in our class go about solving problems both in the text book and on the playground, how they react to change and new ideas, and even catch that exact moment when the last piece clicks in and the child is excited over understanding a new concept. From these observations and mental notes it becomes more possible to see what is working on our classroom and what is not.  It is my belief that a lock-and-step curriculum is not a good fit for all children. It takes this observation and reflection to mold the curriculum each year to the individuals of the classroom, rather then molding the students to fit the curriculum. A teacher who reflects “will analyze a new idea in light of its appropriateness to the students and their present knowledge…and its probability of success” (Hillocks, p. 37). This implies that not only do we have to become aware of the characteristics of each individual in our classroom, but also be sensitive to which methods of learning they are comfortable with and come up with new ideas to reach all of these differences.

            Creativity leads the way in classrooms where children are actively learning and teachers are practicing reflective teaching. New ideas and unique teaching methods are required each day in a classroom where a teacher is passionate and reflective. It takes great creativity to develop new ideas and approaches to be tested in the classroom setting. These new approaches are then reflected on by the teacher who can then either toss them or refine them so that the process of teaching is constantly evolving and moving forward. Anne Dyson notes that “learning to write involves work of the imagination on the part of both children and teachers,” (p. 397) meaning that it is as much our part as teachers to find ways of reaching the students as it is their job as students to be active and receptive. Some think of teaching as a science, with sure-fire methods that can be memorized, while others think of it as an art. I agree with John Mayher, it “combines knowing and doing, technical knowledge and artistry” (p. 9). Good teaching does take a vast amount of technical knowledge; however no amount of study can provide a teacher with passion, reflection and creativity – these we must develop within our selves, as a sort of personal quest without an end.

Role of the Student

            My goal is a student-centered classroom and curriculum, so the student’s role is very important. I really like Mayher’s view of the student as an “initiator and questioner” (p. 77). They play a large part in curriculum planning as the teacher and are a great resource for new ideas and inspiration. This means that not only do we, as teachers have to be great listeners, but also that we need our students to want to share with us. I have outlined above an environment which encourages students to speak and share. To accomplish this ideal we must provide students with materials to get them interested and thinking. I agree with Mayher’s assertion that students will “express their own puzzles and problems with a text they are sufficiently intrigued with to want to understand it better “ (p. 226). It is when students are interested and asking questions that the real process of student action and therefore, student-teacher transaction takes place. Students must be provided with a wide variety of options and materials. With this available to them, students can “determine their own purposes and topics”(Schultz, p. 387). Once students do this, teachers can help them explore and develop. When “student ideas remain the focus of attention,” (Hillocks, p. 65) then classrooms are active and engaging. This is exactly the way that we want them to be.

            A student must be confident in order to succeed in school, and more importantly, in life. It is my belief that children are confident from birth and it is through the work of adults that this confidence either dissipates or grows. We must do all that we can to build confident learners who trust themselves to answer questions and speak up when they need to. This confidence can be built in classrooms by allowing children “become their own experts” (Mayher, p. 188) and encourage children to seek each other out as “important resources in the quest for knowledge” (Harvey, p. 20). We can make them feel proud that they found the solution to a problem by themselves, rather then being spoon fed grammar exercises from a text book. The confidence to raise your hand in class to answer or ask a question is a quality that will continue to be important for students throughout their academic careers and even further into their lives. Parents and teachers seem to pay much more careful attention to younger students then they do older students. Children are expected to either sink or swim as they move into high school and beyond. Confidence and the knowledge that they deserve a good education will keep them from falling between the cracks of our school system. No one pays attention to whether you are reading your texts in high school and college; you have to be willing to fight for your education. Confidence goes a long way in education. Mayher states that “learners are, finally, responsible for their own learning” (p. 105). In order to keep them fighting for their education beyond the walls and safety net of elementary school, we need to provide them with the opportunity to build the confidence they need to know that they deserve a great education and will settle for no less.

Implications

            The theory of learning and teaching I have set forth has several important implications for the classroom. These implications also serve as a framework for building curriculum and social relations among students and teachers. At the heart of this theory is the impact of learning in context. The idea of learning in context rules out the use of workbooks and vocabulary drills. Instead we make learning authentic and do not try to separate knowledge from its use. Vocabulary drills and worksheets only show learners pieces of a giant puzzle. They could spend years trying to piece it all together only to find out that they have been working toward the wrong shape. Mayher tells us that “unless the learner can clearly see the connection between the part and the whole, practicing the part is likely to be either useless… or even counterproductive” (p. 85). Now show these same learners the picture of the puzzle they are working on. All of a sudden the pieces begin to click into place. Only when knowledge is given a context does it truly become useful. This context includes showing children how language and writing relate to other fields of knowledge such as math and science, or the arts and physical education. Curriculum integration is a wonderful way to provide children with a context for learning.

            Most people perform much better when they have a purpose that they care about. Children are the same way. This is where the idea of authentic, and therefore, meaningful learning comes in. Children do feel passionately about things when given a chance. When they are given opportunities to write for various audiences and not just for a grade, excitement ensues. Publishing and sharing their stories can also work wonders. Adults do not often write for a grade, but rather with a purpose. Schultz has a powerful point when she states that “any attempt, such as a workbook exercise, to isolate language from a meaningful context will result in a simulation of writing rather then in authentic writing. Children need a chance to have a voice and write to powerful people. They also need a chance to be recognized in their won right as author sand share their work with others for praise from their peers instead of grades from the teacher.

            An important part of my theory is the idea that students are the center of a classroom. This means that we must focus “on student learning rather than on teaching” (Mayher, p. 215). Though this idea seems to flip the whole science of education on its head, the change is a rather obvious one. We were all students once and we can all think of a time where we were utterly confused. Thinking back to that event, was the material confusing? Or just the way it was being explained? For me it was most often the approach that was being used to present the information of the fact that the information was not really being explained at all, just presented. If we can concentrate on how students are learning and provide them with the supplies and experiences that they need, we can begin to function as a guide for their explorations. Humans are “active meaning makers,” (Mayher, p. 79) so why should we just treat students as empty vessels to pour ever increasing amounts of decontextualized, memorizable information into? There is a great “need for active discussion of ideas and language” (Hillocks, p. 7) in our classrooms, students need to be able to voice their questions and get the answers they need not from the back of a workbook but from hashing it out with each other and discovering new ideas as they go.

Conclusion

            In this essay I have argued for a whole language based theory of teaching writing. This is a theory based on a substantial body of research. Real research, conducted in classrooms across the nation. Some people see whole language as being too lenient and even wishy-washy at times. I do not believe that this is the case. As I have outlined in this essay, I am a whole language teacher and I hold very high ideals and standards for my students. The main difference in my opinion is that rather than having me as the leader and the students as followers, I view education as a journey we are embarking on together. We need to learn how to become a team and work together so that they can learn the skills that they need to be successful in life. My definition of success goes beyond the ability to make money in a career. It includes becoming a well-rounded person who can and does read and write for both pleasure and purpose. With a goal like this, how can educators go wrong?

Works Cited

Dudley-Marling, Curt. “I’m not a Communist, a liberal, or a whole language teacher (and

I don’t beat my wife)”. Talking Points. 10.3 (April/May 1999) : 14-6.

Dyson, Anne Haas. “Coach Bombay’s Kids Learn to Write: Children’s Appropriation of

Media Material”. Research in the Teaching of English. 33.4 (1999) : 367-402.

"Education." Merriam-Webster. 12 Mar. 2005.  <http://www.m-w.com>.

Hammerberg, Dawnene D. “Reading and Writing ‘Hypertextually’: Children’s Literature,

Technology, and Early Writing Instruction”. Language Arts. 78.3. (Jan. 2001) : 207-16.

Harvey, Stephanie. Nonfiction Matters. Canada: Pembroke Publishers Limited, 1998.

Hillocks, George, Jr. Teaching Writing as Reflective Practice. New York: Teacher’s

College P, 1995.

Larson, Joanne & Maryrita Maier. “Co-Authoring Classroom Texts: Shifting Participant

Roles in Writing Activity”. Research in Teaching English. 34.3 (2000) : 468-97.

Mayher, John S. Uncommon Sense. Portsmouth, NH: Boyton/Cook Publishers, 1990.

Patterson, Nancy. “Hypertext and the Changing Roles of Readers”. English Journal.

(Nov. 2000) : 74-80.

Schultz, Katherine. “ ‘I Want to Be Good; I Just Don’t Get It’: A 4^th Grader’s Entrance

Into a Literacy Community”. Written Communication. 11.3. (July, 1994) : 381-413.