Through the Eyes of the Child

INTRODUCTION-
Children’s knowledge is undeniably important. Knowledge is essential for
conceptual development and long-term academic achievement. First, knowledge is
both cumulative and exponential children with rich knowledge bases are more
successful at learning new information. Second, knowledge helps scaffold the
encoding and retrieval of new information. Third, knowledge facilitates critical
thinking by assisting working memory and freeing up resources that can be
devoted to comprehension and analysis. The caring teacher tries to look through
students’ eyes, to struggle with them as subjects in search of their own projects,
their own ways of making sense of the world. People found that when they have
high expectations and get to know each child as a unique individual, then the
opportunities for teachers and students to learn together were limitless. In this
research, the conscious decision to look through the eyes of the children and allow
this new view of learning to help us better understand how our children develop
skills in literacy. As Taylor had “What is a low-income prereader?” As teachers,
we had often heard and used labels to describe our students. As we discussed these
issues, we came to hypothesize that the children who appeared deficient, and in
some cases were labeled, may actually possessknowledge but were being limited
by the forms of assessment chosen by the teacher. In the IET program, we had read
works by Dewey (1919), Belenky et al. (1986), Greene (1988), Ashton-Warner
(1963), Avery (1993), Routman (1991), Hagerty (1992), Fisher (1991), Schwartz
and Pollishuke (1991), and many others, which caused us to be intrigued by the
prospect of finding alternative ways to assess students.
STRENGTH
IMPLICATION

We knew that children needed the freedom to talk, explore, discuss, invent,
and collaborate to fully learn and understand, not only the curriculum, but the
world around them. We learned to listen carefully, question in nonthreatening ways
and pay close attention to the smallest detail or interaction among students. This is
where the depth of our children’s knowledge first was illuminated. We utilized
open-ended, child-directed centers as avenues to offer alternative assessments,
advance the learning, and gather invaluable data on our children’s knowledge and
learning paths. We also collected data in the form of work samples derived through
a writer’s workshop. Examining and reflecting on the children’s writing, we came
to believe and theorize that becoming a writer is not a linear step-by-step process.

CONCLUSION
The Conclusion of this article is it is a process of development that takes each
child on a uniquely progressive learning journey based on that specific child’s
experiences, strengths, weaknesses, and confidence in the acquisition and
consistent practice of skills. By closely examining and reflecting on the children’s
writing, they came to believe and theorize that becoming a writer is not a linear
step-by-step process. On close examination, research shows children do not
develop linearly from one shelf to the next but move freely in and out of the
specified stage to move freely in and out of the specified stage. and in teaching an
underage we need to use a method, with a method we can apply it to the learning
process and give freedom to them to develop the skills they have. and we must
involve students by issuing words that they think are right and introduce the letters
of the alphabet to them.
 REFERENCES
McKeon, R. (1944). Discussion and resolution in political conflicts. Ethics, LIV, 235–262.
Stout, J. (1988). Ethics after Babel: The languages of morals and their discontents. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.
Sevcik, A. (1984). Thinking about names. ETC. A Review of General Semantics, 41(4),
387–388.
Sevcik, A., Robbins, B., & Leonard, A. (1997). The deep structure of obscene language.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 29(4), 455–470.
Sockett, H. (1989). A moral epistemology of practice? Cambridge Journal of Education, 19(1),
33–41.
Stout, J. (1988). Ethics after Babel: The languages of morals and their discontents.
Boston, MA: Beacon Press.