While educational philosophy
is not a topic I typically ponder on a daily basis, this issue has been more
relevant to me lately as I begin my new job assisting in a 4 year-old classroom
this week. Since my daughter attended the school, the lead teacher has
integrated more elements from the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood
education in her class. So, to be more useful in the classroom, and just
because I am curious, I am attempting to learn a bit more about this
perspective. Here is an article from the January 2006 issue of Language Arts, “Teachers and Children
Inquire into Reggio Emilia.” (The first thing I learned is that Reggio Emilia
is a place, a town in Italy, where this philosophy originated and is still
practiced.) This article is useful for a beginner like me because it gives a
clear overview of Reggio and also discusses how three teachers unfamiliar with
the philosophy integrated it into their classrooms, including their doubts,
questions and challenges along the way.
Some key elements of Reggio are: a focus on child-centered learning, where teachers follow the lead of the students in designing inquiry-based long-term projects. The examples from the article are projects on mushrooms, seeds and an on-site pond. Children and teachers work to document their investigations on panels or posters displaying artwork, artifacts, photographs and excerpts of conversations. Multiple intelligences, especially the arts, are essential in the investigations, as children use a variety of modes and materials to “observe, investigate and represent their world” (Multiple Paths to Learning section, para. 2). The role of the teacher is as a “researcher and collaborator,” who assists in “planning for possibilities,” suggests directions for projects and helps “provoke and sustain children’s interests” (What is Reggio Emilia section, para. 9). To put the Reggio perspective into the educational philosophy terminology we discussed last week, it aligns mostly with the Progressive perspective, with a healthy dose of Reconstructionism--the Gardner multiple intelligences. That’s good, since that is where I would place myself.
That’s all great, but what does this have to do with emergent literacy? Is this (and not just Reggio, but other Progressive/Reconstructive approaches) an effective method to teach kids how to read? Some pluses: The first and most obvious is that this method engages kids and gets them actively involved not just in class but in actually designing their learning, rather than being passive vessels to be filled by the teacher’s knowledge. Secondly, Reggio has a broad view of literacy. By employing the panels displaying not just print, but also artifacts, artwork, and photos, children who have a variety of strengths will be validated and engaged in school. This benefit was explicitly mentioned by the teachers in the journal article. Yet, despite my leanings toward this child-centered philosophy, I also have doubts. Can all the “basics” that children need to learn in order to become competent readers and writers be taught through this inquiry-based method? Are there some elements, such as letter formation, sound-letter correspondences, and phonics conventions, which are better taught in a more systematic, teacher-directed way?
I suppose that my answer at this point is that a combination approach may be most effective. Even my daughter’s self-declared Progressive school has a separate, daily learning time for phonics in grades K-2, in addition to the more Progressively appropriate Readers’ and Writers’ Workshops. But, I am not convinced that this is the “right” answer, and I will continue to explore this essential question.
