Educational Philosophy

Educational Philosophy

Literacy in the Classroom and Beyond

Melissa Mask Wilson

Sam Houston State University

As a teacher, I believe I have an obligation to consider seriously and often my views on literacy in the classroom. My beliefs directly affect those individuals under my tutelage. Therefore, as a professional educator, I believe my goals should include comparing my own observations and conclusions in the classroom with those of educational researchers and theorists.

My beliefs originate in my own classroom. I have taught in the public school system for eleven years, beginning as a fifth grade teacher to my present post as an AP junior English teacher and junior writing and reading teacher. My journey to the classroom proves a little unconventional as I began my teaching career with a provisional certificate, having previously earned a BA in English. I believe it is important that, at the time, to obtain the teaching certificate the on an "alternate" route required the "teacher" to return to college and complete the thirty plus hours in education that those on the "regular" route obtained. I believe I am better prepared to work with my students and have a clearer understanding of the educational philosophy supporting my teaching practices.

And when it comes to melding the educational philosophy with my findings, I believe my observations mesh with three theorists in particular: Camborne, Dewey, and Rosenblatt. Though I am a secondary teacher, I have the benefit of having taught several grade levels and observing students at different places in their literacy journey. I am also in the unique position of having taught many of the same students as they moved through the school system.

Through this experience it is my observation that maturity plays a large role in student learning, or the actual utilization of the abilities they possess. Regardless of the age group I taught at the time, each group appear to learn best and with the most motivation when conversation becomes an integral part of reading and writing. I believe that within a reading and writing classroom it is vital that each student understand the difference between determining facts and inferences that are found directly within a work (whether fiction or non-fiction) and the personal experiences and/or creativity that each individual student brings to the work itself. As teachers, we often spend a great deal of time not only on fiction but also connecting that fiction to the student's background knowledge, own personal experiences and creative ideas. This is a vital and important function in order to help students scaffold to a higher level of understanding, synthesize new learning with old, and take their present understanding to a new creative level. However, no matter how important this aspect is, it is just as important to help a student understand that, especially with non-fiction reading, it is also important to be able to take a work or facts at face value.

For example, though we want a medical doctor to be able to think creatively when necessary (especially if our case is a bit different from the norm), it is just as important, if not more, that he/she be able to read a medical journal or medical book for the specific facts found in the literature. I do not particularly want him/her to get creative when it comes to removing my tonsils. I also want him/her to be cognizant of which body part happens to be the tonsils as well as their exact location. When it comes time for the mechanic to fix my brakes and do a through check up on the car, I certainly hope he knows how to read a manual on mechanics and stick to the facts without becoming too creative.

I believe this idea follows along the same basic path as Rosenblatt's (Tracey & Morrow, 2006) theory speaks to two kinds of responses to reading: aesthetic and efferent. She also promotes the idea that there are different reasons for reading informational texts and literature. Understanding and determining the difference between the two, the manner in which both work alone and in tandem originates and grows from classroom conversation about the different genres available and read by the students and the teacher.

I also believe that all children (regardless of age) learn best in a secure and risk free classroom environment. Working hard and completing work well is important, but the knowledge that a piece can be redone and reviewed with the teacher tends to allow for a lot more creativity and risk taking when it comes to student work. If we are truly in the job of teaching, then it is important that the student be given every opportunity (of course he/she must choose to take it) to redo, rework, and rethink previous learning or product. When a student becomes comfortable enough with the teacher and the students around him/her, more risks are taken, and serious and sincere learning takes place – oftentimes, the student even finds it enjoyable and amazes himself/herself at what can actually be achieved. I believe this idea expands on the belief of Camborne's (McCauley, Garrett, & Daleo, 2003) that children learn best when these characteristics can be found in a classroom – as he found them in the home of strong readers:

• Emersion
  Demonstrations
  Used learning themselves (practice)
  Response – parent feedback (teacher feedback)
• Responsibility
  Predictability
  Engagement

I believe that when these characteristics are found in a risk free classroom, the students will learn, just as they did in these homes. One has to believe that the parents in such homes did not spend time "grading" the student or docking points for "late work". Though I know that these are important "responsibilities" for the student, especially when it comes to developing the character and maturity necessary to be a productive citizen, neither directly relates to cognitive learning. The students need to be able to redo work, correct errors and continue learning (scaffolding) by taking what they have learned and continuing to work with the teacher to master the new learning (synthesizing it with the old). Along these same lines, a student's "outside life" needs consideration. When life events occur, the student is not always able to focus at that moment on a particular "type" of learning (though whatever difficulty he/she is going through definitely constitutes and education of some type). When a student knows that the teacher has high but realistic expectations and that outside factors will be considered at times, there is less stress on the student – thus a calmer and more comfortable atmosphere in which to learn.

Most importantly, I believe that we enrich the lives of our students and the life of our country when we give our future citizens the resources to survive in and contribute to our society as a whole. When a child believes in himself/herself, has confidence in his/her ideas and abilities to promote or express those ideas, then we have created not only a better citizen but potentially a citizen who can make a difference to others, who can intelligently review information (both aesthetic and factual) and who will have the confidence (from successes in a no-risk classroom) to expand on the information and generate new ideas to promote or question governmental ideals. And I believe that the idea of teaching a student with the ultimate intention of creating a future productive citizen mirrors Dewey's (Simpson, Jackson, & Aycock, 2005) personal theory of learning. He believed a person should be able to vote intelligently, think individually, contribute competently, and be able to serve democratically. Words are power. And when we produce a citizen that can read critically, write intelligently, and think independently, we, as teachers, have contributed to the life of that child and the strength of our nation. "The pen is mightier then the sword". Truer words have never been spoken; however, while a swordsman's skill and power derives from understanding and honing his craft, the writer's power over the swordsman derives from understanding language and its ability to influence others through the power of ideas.

Works Cited

McCauley, D.J., Garrett, R.&Daleo, M. (2003). Foundations of Literacy. Language, Literacy
and Special Populations. Huntsville, Texas, USA: Sam Houston State University – Wildcatter Productions.

Simpson, D., Jackson, M., & Aycock, J. (2005). John Dewey and the Art of Teaching: Toward Reflective and Imaginative Practice. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on Reading. New York: Guilford Press.