How would you currently describe your overall approach to teaching in your classroom: traditional, process mastery, or constructivist? What works well in your approach? What needs improvement?

[Austin]

My process is a blend of traditional and process mastery. I need to get better about providing more opportunities for students to take ownership of their work such as projects with different parts they can work on in the order they choose best too.

[Austin]

I think that I tend to lean more towards the process/mastery approach with some level of flexibility. I need to work on being more creative in my lessons and assessments but I do try to make the classroom fun and we learn with many hands on activities as well.

[Austin]

I try to blend elements from several approaches in my teaching, and I don’t know that these three labels can be used to sum up what happens in my classroom — or most classrooms today. At its core, the traditional approach makes me think of classrooms of former days that emphasized recitation/rote memory. Process/mastery, taken to extreme, could take us back to the outcome-based education experiments of the 1970s. I was a student in a school that got rid of interior walls (I’m not sure what that had to do with educational philosophy) and grades (both in terms of grade levels and grades for assessment) for middle school. Report cards were just a checklist of skills we had mastered. Doing away with grades took pressure off middle school students, but the approach had many flaws and has been tossed aside now, like so many fads in education. Constructivism brings to mind experiential classrooms envisioned by Dewey with project-based learning like the Foxfire Project. Depending on the population a teacher has, this approach to education could make sense, but it’s always seemed to me to be an inefficient approach for most students. None of the three approaches seems to capture what is common in my school — or in my own classroom. My classroom teaching might fit better under the philosophy of pragmatism, but I’ve never found that a perfect fit either. I don’t like the term itself — it sounds like the instructor has no particular beliefs — just do whatever works. Of course, it’s more complex than that, but the label nonetheless has always seemed problematic, particularly for a Christian.

[Austin]

I would say mine is a blend of traditional and process mastery. I believe there is value in memorization of facts, teaching spelling and grammar and learning signals for transitions and expected behaviors. Yet, each student learns differently and at their own pace, so the process is more important than the product, but the product is necessary to inform future teaching practices. I believe students should be actively engaged with as many senses as possible in a hands-on way that they can experience and be a real part of their process / educational journey. A blend of both of these prepares students for becoming productive members of society where they are not being “graded” but may need to memorize information as a crucial aspect of their job. They may need to take time to learn something and experience it in a variety of ways to be meaningful. Process mastery allows for inquiry based learning and creates a better atmosphere for asking questions. Traditional teaches needed skills for discipline and attentiveness, respect and routine.

[Austin]

I use a combination of all three.