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?

I use a combination of all three.

I teach more process mastery but with built in flexibilities.

I teach middle and high school math and my approach and that of my current school is very much traditional. It works well to ensure that all the concepts we need to cover are covered for the year. However, I definitely need to figure out a way to incorporate more hands-on learning in the classroom and giving student more choice about the types of activities we do as a class. I’ve been able to incorporate hands-on projects in Geometry, but Algebra 1 and Calculus need a bit more work in that regard.

I think I take a process/mastery approach. My fear is that my curriculum is not creative enough to engage the students well in the work of learning.

Traditional with some constr in the hands-on portions of lab. I would like to design labs in which advanced students may individually dig deeper.

Perhaps more towards traditionalist, although there’s a bit of all. I think we should use wise discernment into what works best for each students’ learning style as well.

I would say that there are times when all of these are used in my classroom.

I do believe the author/speaker is off base with this. Constructivism is about meaning making. I am definitely a constructivist and that is derived from the idea that everyone’s experience is different. I liken it to the fact that there are 4 gospels … because eye witness accounts change as people change. So we are all individuals. I don’t equate individualism with social media. That problem is borne from adults who are unwilling to limit/censor the addictive equivalent of nicotine (the Internet and having smart phones) from people. Quite literally screens produce dopamine that we ALL are addicted to. I will say that “selfies” are a troubling trend, but again an opportunity to reconcile popular culture with biblical teaching. Thank God He made all of us different. The individualism that makes sense to embrace, is to recognize how we are all parts of the body of Christ and what works for one of us will not work for another one of us. We can set general guidelines and limits (like Dad can’t pay to get his offspring onto sports teams) but all students must earn an certain percent in a class to pass … while also supporting the needs of individual students. The more we resist and push back on experiences – the less influence we’ll have on folks. Again, God is BIGGER than all this. All truth is God’s truth. If someone in my family (those who are my responsibility) tells me they are severely anxious and depressed, they must be required to do the hard work (sanctification/therapy) to work through that. They need to lean into the work. If I honor that (from this perspective, “made up or exaggerated” set of feelings) and let the person work through their issues – they WILL run into themselves. God will show up. It’s who He is, it’s how He works! If I dismiss it or minimize it (as it sounds to me like this lecture is suggesting) … then that student/child will feel unheard and unseen and won’t consider Jesus … if I’m the example of Jesus to them.

The overall approach to teaching is my classroom is process mastery and constructivist. Both of them work well but I love when the students use creativity in the lessons.

I would say that I use a combination of all three approaches to teaching. I have found that structure within the constructivist model works very well, by holding students to the same standard but giving a variety of methods and approaches to meeting that standard.

My approach is more traditional, but I need to let go a little and allow the children make some of their own choices.

My approach is traditional and process mastery with a little of constructivism. I believe that traditional and process mastery works well but the traditional can use a little improvement.

I would describe my approach as primarily traditional and process mastery…. and just a flair of constructivism when opportunities arise. I’m not sure what works well in my approach. We will see how this year goes, and I will make adjustments as necessary. Sometimes giving students too much freedom of choice can lead to more confusion, so we will see….

I honestly think that my overall approach to teaching in my classroom is a mixture of the different approaches. My students are held to certain requirements, but they have a chance to select how they would like to demonstrate mastery. I think by combining the benefits of each approach the students will have a better experience.

I teach history and science. For history, I use mostly a traditional approach but for science I use a more constructivist approach. To be honest, my history lessons could use more variety. I plan to push myself to do more project with the students. My science lessons could use more structure, and I plan to incorporate more vocabulary review and activities.

I am currently in line with a traditional and process mastery approach but I build in activities every day that allow students to make selections on what they would like to do. One of the areas that I need improvement on is allowing for more flexibility in my classroom. I tend to be overly structured at times.

I would say that I am mostly traditional and process/mastery; however, I do incorporate a hands-on approach and choices usually once or twice a semester.

I think my overall approach is mostly traditional but varies based on what we learning at the time. I am the one making most of the decisions about what will learn and where we are going, but I often incorporate a process/mastery approach as well when I feel students need that approach. On certain projects I do like to give the students as much choice as I can because I see how they get much more involved when they have ownership. The part of constructivism that I find helpful is the hands on approach to learning. I think we can find ways to use the appropriate approach, pulling out the best parts of each of them, and adapting as we find what works for our lessons.

I would say that over the past 2 years I am moving away from a purely traditional approach to more of a hybrid of mastery/constructivist. I do give the students some choices and project based learning, but I get them to follow processes, like in learning to write essays. I think areas that I need to improve in are incorporating more traditional learning for things like vocabulary building and grammar in order for ESL students to build a strong foundation.

Traditional. I am able to help the largest number of students when I use a traditional approach, but I know there are some students who benefit from other approaches. I need to tell more stories and I need to incorporate more Bible stories into my lessons.

I teach art so my overall approach to teaching in my classroom varies. I like variety and the wonderful thing with art is there is so much hands-on done by the students, so I would have to say the majority of my teaching is constructivist. This approach does work well, but I know I need to improve by having more focus on the content that I am teaching. My middle school and high school students do not want to hear about the elements or principles of art, they just want to start on their project. I know I need to discipline myself to include the not so fun parts too.

My teaching approach varies depending on the children in my class. I always start my year by making a very detailed plan of what we need to learn and how long I think it will take to teach. From there I gauge my approach based on what I think is best for that particular class. Sometimes this varies chapter by chapter too. Sometimes I am able to be more hands off and let them set the pace as they tend to move quickly in mastering a concept. Other times I need to slow them down to make sure they’re not just flying through it without really understanding. I tend to be very organized and I have the final say, but I let me students voices be heard too.

I would describe my approach was traditional with some process mastery. I think it works well because my students seem to enjoy and learn music in my class. I do need to provide more process mastery for a few of my students.

I would say traditional would best describe my approach. I keep the class moving. Some students may get bored before we move on, some may get done early, but I get to gauge the students progress. I do a lot of hands on work. I like to see students engaged. I don’t think lecture is king. I think hands on is with instruction in the process. I like the idea of some flexibility like a paper versus an oral report. Give the students some options. I think my assessment strategy need to be more varied.

I would describe my overall approach to teaching is that of traditional, process mastery. I do build in critical thinking and problem solving with projects and hands on activities, however, at the primary level there are skill sets that need to be mastered in order for the child to be able to make selections for themselves in a reading workshop or writing workshop or STEM center. They need to be able to read, use context clues, comprehension strategies, they need to be able to write proper letters, correctly spelled words, complete sentences, and paragraphs. These skills need to be taught and practiced.