The Christian EducatorA publication of North Valley Baptist Schools

Enriched Learning

Prior to my years as a kindergarten teacher, I was employed at a day care through a local public school. I accepted the job as a means of financial support. I was also excited and hopeful that this work experience would enable me to gain knowledge as a future teacher. I was naïve then, and early into my position I believed and supported their system. As I developed a better sense of the curriculum I realized how extremely liberal their program was. Instilling any kind of moral value or biblical influence was strictly observed and limited. I was often frustrated by the lack of structure and neglect of correction between the teachers and students. Despite their opposing methods, I remained on staff for three and half years. Why did I stay?  I hate to say it, but I needed the money. Aside from the disagreeable style of teaching, I had grown to love the kids that I worked with. Even though I detested their methods, I did notice there were certain aspects in the curriculum that did help me develop a closer relationship with the students and a better sense of how a child’s mind works and learns.

 The basis of their curriculum stems from the teachings and research of Maria Montessori.  In an era when education was not readily practiced or encouraged among women, she was able to bring about one, if not, the most influential theories on classroom education that has not only been accepted, but cultivated in schools across various parts of Europe and now widely among our nation. Montessori’s theory was a product of her own study of the learning capabilities and development of children. Her early methods first began with work she did to help mentally disabled children. She taught “unhappy little ones,” as she called them, to excel at such a level that when they were tested for State examinations, they passed above the average level. Their success proved to her that if children on the lower end of the learning spectrum could excel then so could students on the opposing end. If you were me, just learning the ropes, training to be a future educator, wouldn’t you easily believed in a system like this too? What teacher wouldn’t want his students to test well and succeed? This is how I was “tricked” into thinking their secular curriculum worked and was necessary in helping children develop to their fullest potential. 

I first discovered a flaw in this philosophy when I was asked to do some lesson plans. I was first assigned a “small group.” In small groups, the students were categorized by age and they were encouraged, not forced, to participate in various age appropriate activities planned by the teacher. I was also given an “area of enrichment” in the classroom.  I was responsible for improving this area with various games and manipulatives of all sorts. Some of the first items I ordered were prepackaged crafts. I was looking forward to using my items, but when they arrived, I was interrupted with ridicule and correction. I remember my boss saying, “I am sorry, but you can’t use those. They have premade pieces and the kids will be limited to the use of their creativeness.” I didn’t understand but I was apologetic for the mistake. I asked what was wrong with the craft, and with a very inexplicable answer, I was simply given a curriculum book and was asked to use it for future preparation of my lesson plans and craft ideas. The book provided several great activities, but they all had one thing in common that scared me. They did not promote the teacher to do much teaching. Rather, each lesson gave suggestions and “enrichment” ideas on how to make the students “reach a better sense of their emotions and creativity.” This was Montessori’s theory in a nutshell. She believed, “Scientific observation has established that education is not what the teacher gives; education is a natural process spontaneously carried out by the human individual, and is acquired not by listening to words but by experiences upon the environment.” I was shocked and taken aback slightly. Thus was their system. Students were never corrected for their wrongs, guided into any order, or taught to believe they could make a mistake. Instead, they were encouraged to do what they felt and learn through their emotion at their own pace. The children were encouraged to embrace these teaching through dramatic play-enriched areas. The enriched areas were what really helped me connect with the students and help them to learn. Each area had a specific purpose. There was a home area, science area, art area, writing and phonics area, math area, and a library. The students were permitted to use these areas as they pleased to stimulate their craving to learn. In these areas, the teacher was allowed to observe and play but never to direct or explain anything or how it worked. As a teacher, under the restrictions of the day care, I was told I had to adhere to their philosophies. So I did; however, I put my own twist on their philosophy so that I could both adhere to their way of things, and still feel that I was compromising my beliefs of education. The students seemed to respond well, and I was not reproved for my methods.

What I did learn through that day care was that there is some truth in their methods.  Children do learn through play. I also took to heart that children learn at their own pace. When I became a teacher, I wanted to apply these two ideas and give them a God-glorifying application. I remembered the often quoted I Corinthians 14:40, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” Although this was not a priority at the day care, I knew it was biblical truth and must be implemented if I were to incorporate these two ideas in my class. As a kindergarten teacher, I planned to implement these ideas correctly.  At first, I did not set up enrichment area. Instead, I put together a plastic tote.  It contained phonics games, puzzles, matching games, fake money, miscellaneous manipulatives, and coloring books. I set up a reading area with various books.  Unlike Montessori’s way, I did not allow students to use these things whenever they wanted. I used them as incentives and time killers for fast workers.  I also used this area as a supplement to reinforce phonics and math lessons. At times I would play with the students, or allow them to play with a partner.  As I was able to gradually gain more space and storage, I created more areas. My class now contains art, game, and reading areas. The art area doubles as a creative place to teach science and math lessons. When we do science experiments and class projects,  I will allow the students to display them in the art area. Occasionally, I will set rotations for different groups of students.  These areas are also used for students who arrive early or stay late.

Over the past four years, I have seen how beneficial these areas are. My students are motivated to get to the areas after seatwork time.  Although the toys are truly learning supplements, the students enjoy playing with them.  My slower students especially benefit from these areas.  In one case, as we were studying the value of money, I played a buying and selling game.  As he played the game he began to eagerly grasp the concept.  When I saw that he was struggling with his worksheet later, I brought the game back to his memory, and he was able to finish his worksheet in a timely fashion. This is just one of the many stories I use to boast about how this method can work if used correctly.

Do not make your classroom a glorified play ground, but do make it exciting!  Do something to enrich your room and to encourage your students.  Over time, you too will see the benefits.

Click here for the PDF version of this article.