Teaching the Whole Child: How Focusing on Students’ Unique Gifts and Building Relationships

are the Keys to Student Success in the Classroom

Anna Latimer

Wesleyan College

November 25, 2018

TEACHING THE WHOLE CHILD: CLASSROOM PHILOSOPHY 2

Having been through a full academic career from Kindergarten all the way up to a

continuing college education, I have experienced a variety of classroom environments. Each

teacher, of course, has her own unique style of teaching, but almost every action they take is

rooted in some kind of educational philosophy. Many teachers may not understand why they are

doing what they are doing, but an understanding and synthesis of the educational philosophies

are crucial for the developing educator to determine how she will run her classroom, and why

she makes the decisions she does. The majority of schools in the United States seem to be based

on the essentialist and behaviorist philosophies, relying heavily on a core set of standards and

testing, what B. F. Skinner called “programmed learning” (Edigar, 2006, p. 179). However, I

believe that students cannot be treated as if they are all the same, because they are not. Howard

Gardner proposes that all individuals possess varying levels of seven intelligences (1993), as

opposed to just linguistic and logical-mathematical, which are frequently tested. I believe that

teachers should run their classrooms with multiple intelligences in mind, teaching an [expanded]

essentialist core set of knowledge and skills, focusing on the individual learners (progressivism),

and function as a facilitator of learning as opposed to a disseminator of knowledge

(constructivism). Not only that, but the magic ingredient to student success in any classroom is

the teacher’s commitment to building relationships within a cohesive classroom community.

The first schools were developed under the perennialist school of thought, which held

that eternal truths are of utmost importance, and that instruction should stay consistent through

the ages (Webb, Metha, & Jordan, 2010, p. 70). While my younger self might have agreed with

this traditionalist perspective, I disagree with this because society changes over the years, and so

should education. In fact, education has somewhat stagnated over the past decades, while society
TEACHING THE WHOLE CHILD: CLASSROOM PHILOSOPHY 3

and technology are developing at rapid rates. Essentialists are very similar to perennialists; they

advocate a core set of knowledge and skills to be taught in the schools. They emphasize

discipline, regularity, and uniformity (Webb et al. 2010, p. 82). While I agree that a core set of

knowledge should be taught at the elementary level, uniformity is the opposite of what is

necessary for a successful classroom. Students are unique individuals and should be treated as

such. So, as elementary school teachers, we must nurture our students’ gifts from a young age

and encourage them to find what they are passionate about in life. Then, once students enter the

upper levels, they should be able to choose whether or not they want a pre-higher education

track, vocational training, or schooling that will help them to enter the workforce. Each student’s

unique ratios of multiple intelligences will guide her to the appropriate track; we can’t force

them all to go in a single direction (like we have been doing with the emphasis primarily on

college prep programs). We must give students the freedom to explore their interests so they can

discover what it is they want to do with their lives, as opposed to sending them all down a path

of uniform education and uniform goals for life after high school.

Speaking of uniformity, behaviorist teachers focus on controlling the environment to

promote desired behaviors in their students. They are also proponents of scripted programs that

present information from basic concepts to specific details, with measurable results as the

outcome (Edigar, 2006, p. 180). Teachers who utilize behaviorist strategies often use extrinsic

rewards in the form of charts, colored cards, etc., to motivate students to behave. In these

classrooms, students will generally behave just well enough to get the reward, or just badly

enough so that it doesn’t break the rule, thus making the behavior charts and expectations

meaningless. I believe that the classroom shouldn’t be a place where students’ behavior is
TEACHING THE WHOLE CHILD: CLASSROOM PHILOSOPHY 4

controlled for the sake of controlling it; instead, the teacher should foster a sense of community

and respect amongst her students. Yes, there should be guidelines for behavior, but these should

come secondary to the learning environment.

This brings me to progressivism. The classroom should be a democratic environment of

respect and security, where learning is valued amongst all. The ideal progressivist, however,

believes that the curriculum “would not consist of a given set of predetermined facts or truths to

be mastered, but rather a series of experiences to be gained” (Webb et al. 2010, p. 74). While

knowledge should indeed be gained through experiential learning, I believe that certain subjects

should still be taught. However, these subjects should be taught in ways that are accessible to all

types of intelligences, while focusing on meaningful learning experiences. Constructivist thought

goes hand in hand with this: students construct and build upon their previous knowledge when

they have these experiences. Teachers help students build on what they know by pushing them

into their zone of proximal development. However, Debbie Silvers brings up an important point:

“we sometimes behave in ways that imply the only way to get kids to do anything we desire is to

make​ them do it” (2011, p. 29). So many students hate going to school because teachers and

force them to do certain things. We as teachers need to make learning meaningful to students;

once we do that, they will be intrinsically motivated to learn, not only in school, but for the rest

of their lives.

In order to make learning meaningful, we have to teach in such a way that students will

learn - and want to learn. Not every student learns well (or enjoys learning) from a lecture or

from a discussion. We need to involve all of the multiple intelligences: musical, visual-spatial,

verbal-linguistic, logical-mathematical, bodily-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal

TEACHING THE WHOLE CHILD: CLASSROOM PHILOSOPHY 5

(Gardner 1993). Now, this doesn’t mean that we have to include them in every lesson (that

would be extremely difficult), but we should make the effort to accommodate every student’s

needs. Not only that, but we should take the opportunities that we can to make learning come

alive. This can take place through classroom transformations and themed lessons that promote

high levels of engagement, such as scavenger hunts and review games. In this way, we can

ensure that maximum learning takes place. For example, when I taught states of matter to my

second grade placement in fall of 2017, I dressed up as a witch and made ‘witch’s brew’ with

lime sherbet and Sprite to introduce solids, liquids, and gases. Then, I involved students in

playing with oobleck, a substance that possesses qualities of both solids and liquids. Finally, I

showed a video about the states of matter and discussed with students specific characteristics of

each state of matter. Throughout this unit, I was able to attain high levels of student engagement

because I was able to capture a variety of the intelligences: verbal-linguistic, visual-spatial,

interpersonal, and bodily-kinesthetic.

In the process of trying to attain this maximum learning, we could get caught up in

forcing our students to learn. We don’t have to do that - children are born natural learners. They

are always changing and responding to the environment, building on their prior knowledge

through what is happening both in and out of the classroom. It is the teacher’s job to create

experiences in the classroom that will contribute to the natural learning process of our students -

rather than impede it. They are social creatures, and much of their learning happens through

cooperative work with others in their academic community. The teacher is there to guide the

students to the right actions and to facilitate the learning process, not to be an authoritarian

presence that the students are afraid of. At times, the teacher will be a disseminator of knowledge
TEACHING THE WHOLE CHILD: CLASSROOM PHILOSOPHY 6

– but students should not be “passive recipients of knowledge” (Windschitl 1999, p. 755). So,

she will do all she can to let learning be a process of discovery and exploration, rather than

standing at the front of the classroom speaking at length about the information to be covered.

During my fall 2018 placement in 4th grade, I sought to be a facilitator of knowledge by

engaging students in group readings and discussion about the freedoms guaranteed in the 1st

amendment. Any step we can take as teachers to be facilitators of the learning process is a step in

the right direction. The school, in turn, should function as a model of democratic society with an

atmosphere of respect for all individuals (Webb et al. 2010, p. 74). The facilitators of such a

community should prepare students to be lifelong learners.

As teachers, we have the power to inspire students to become lifelong learners. However,

this doesn’t mean that the curriculum should entirely focus on student interest. Elementary

schools nationwide should all cover basic skills in reading, writing, and math, because these are

essential for succeeding in life. In addition to these skills, students should also learn about a wide

variety of topics in social studies, science, art, music, etc. The arts should have an equal place in

the curriculum as science and math because they synthesize all the disciplines, providing “unique

and vital opportunities for students with a wide range of learning styles…to find and make

meaning” (Davis, 1999, p. 27). Students who engage in arts education are more creative, are

more likely to develop a growth mindset, and even demonstrate improved performance across

academic areas (Swapp, 2016). The curriculum of my elementary school years was primarily

reading and math, with little emphasis on art, social studies, or science. As a teacher, I believe

that the curriculum should be equalized, while still focusing on students’ individual needs in
TEACHING THE WHOLE CHILD: CLASSROOM PHILOSOPHY 7

every subject. In this way, we can invigorate every child’s education, while providing an

individual boost to those students who have musical and artistic strengths and passions.

When I was a child, I loved everything that was traditional about school. I enjoyed when

my teachers gave me typical pencil-paper writing assignments, spelling homework, and activities

during which I could work independently. As I grew up thinking about becoming a teacher, I

thought that I would emulate these models of teaching. I couldn’t have been more wrong. While

I still value these types of lessons, in order to teach students as individuals, I have to take into

consideration different learning styles and intelligences so I can ensure that my students learn to

the best of their abilities. In addition, the highlight of my entire academic experience was

attending gifted class one day every week during elementary school. Every year, we would focus

on three subtopics, and we would do all kinds of activities and research that would support those

topics. I think that, while we can’t just teach kids about pioneers, oceans, and Greek mythology,

students of all learning abilities would benefit from the kind of instruction I received from my

gifted teachers. These methods include group work, independent research, hands-on activities,

and much more variety that would accommodate students of all learning styles, intelligences, and

abilities. Students will be much more engaged with the material and the assignments if it is

geared to accommodate their needs, interests, and abilities.

Just as instructional methods should vary to accommodate students’ needs, so should

assessment practices. While essentialist schools of thought favor standardized testing, this

approach does not give a fully accurate picture of the child as whole. Instead, we should seek out

assessment methods that demonstrate the learner’s capabilities, from her multiple intelligences

too her strengths and weaknesses in a variety of disciplines. These could include but are not
TEACHING THE WHOLE CHILD: CLASSROOM PHILOSOPHY 8

limited to: “a well-rounded portfolio…of student schoolwork…an art project…science

experiments…dramatization…[and] physical skills…in athletic endeavors” (Ediger, 2006, p.

181). An accurate assessment should reflect the types of instructional methods utilized in the

classroom, both of which take into consideration the diverse individuals present in the learning

community.

A classroom management system should revolve around the integrity of this learning

community: the students will, with the teacher’s guidance, devise rules they will abide by in the

classroom. In this way, the students will take ownership of the rules and be more likely to

maintain the respectful and courteous learning environment. Disruptions of the learning

environment are to be dealt with fairly and appropriately. Because every child is unique, there

should be a unique, appropriate consequence that meets that child’s needs.

However, this learning environment will not be the positive one that it needs to be unless

the teacher builds relationships with every student and facilitates positive relationships among

the students in the classroom. The care that the teacher demonstrates for her students is

absolutely key to the students’ success. Her belief in their capabilities may be exactly what is

needed to foster their own belief in themselves. For some students, creating these solid

relationships may be difficult at first; however, these students are the ones who will benefit the

most from a teacher who does not give up on them. In my experience, the students who struggle

academically or behaviorally always possess a special place in my heart. Though all student

successes are worthy to be celebrated, I will be especially proud of these students who improve

academically and behaviorally. My goal as a teacher is to build relationships with every single

one of my students and to have a positive impact on them that will last beyond the time they
TEACHING THE WHOLE CHILD: CLASSROOM PHILOSOPHY 9

spend in my classroom and extend beyond the scope of what they learned academically during

their time with me. The ultimate triumph for me would be to inspire a love of learning in my

students that lasts far beyond their school years. In order to do this, I will have to modify my

methods and approaches to teach and bond with each student, but it will be well worth the time

and effort as I see their difficulties transform into successes.

Just as every child is different, so is every teacher. Each educator, whether she realizes it

or not, has developed a philosophy that guides her in the classroom. I have taken the curriculum

of the essentialists and combined it with the classroom foundation of the progressives and the

instructional methods of the constructivists to create a philosophy that is distinctly my own.

However, I must ensure that I do not stagnate. The most effective educators are open minded and

are always pondering a variety of new ideas; they actively seek to change and adapt to best serve

their students. While this may be my current philosophy, this may very well change as I

encounter more diverse perspectives. This is only the beginning for me; I cannot wait to see

where my path leads in the field of education.

TEACHING THE WHOLE CHILD: CLASSROOM PHILOSOPHY 10

References

Ediger, M. (2006). Present Day Philosophies of Education. ​Journal Of Instructional

Psychology​, ​33​(3), 179-182.

Gardner, H. (1983). ​Frames of mind : The theory of multiple intelligences.​ New York: Basic

Books. ​http://www.gbv.de/dms/bowker/toc/9780465025

Hoffman Davis, J. (1999). Nowhere, Somewhere, Everywhere: The Arts in Education. ​Arts

Education Policy Review​, ​100​(5), 23.

Silver, D. (2011). Using the 'zone' to help reach every learner.​ Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48​(1),

28-31. Retrieved from

http://proxygsu-wes1.galileo.usg.edu.wesleyancollege.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://searc

h.proquest.com.wesleyancollege.idm.oclc.org/docview/903978557?accountid=14961

Swapp, N. (2016). Creativity and Academics: The Power of an Arts Education. Retrieved from

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/creativity-academics-power-of-arts-education-neil-swapp

Webb, L. D., Metha, A., & Jordan, K. F. (2010). ​Foundations of American education.​ Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill.

Windschitl, M. (1999). The Challenges of Sustaining a Constructivist Classroom Culture. ​Phi

Delta Kappan,​ ​80(​ 10), 751.