Effectiveness of different teaching method styles

Education

The Value of a Very Open Teaching Style

Many teachers and administrators have expressed concern that traditional teaching methods no longer meet the needs of the American classroom (Brown 57:.Cuban 71; Classes are more culturally diverse, and are full of students who often have more technological experience than their teachers (Brown 57). Children continue to pose the problem that, despite similar age, they work at varying speeds and need help in individual subjects (Cuban 71; Liles 33; Wassermann 167). Many students are responsive to specific styles and disinterested in teaching using other styles (Heimlich and Norland 18). Using old materials and methods simply do not appeal to today's generation of students, and the result may be a lack of learning in some children due to boredom or apathy. A very open style of teaching, more than any other style, opens up more opportunities and addresses more opportunities for teachers and students. As such, a very open style of teaching is the best, most effective method.

This paper will explain some of the background and methodology behind an open style of teaching. Then, key definitions and terms will be discussed so that terms like "open classroom" are clearly understood in the context of an open learning style. The traditional method will be compared and contrasted to a very open style of teaching. Criticism concerning open teaching methods will be addressed and explained. Through comparing and contrasting different classroom styles it is possible to identify the reasons why a very open style of teaching is most effective at handling the most common classroom struggles. Additionally, it will be clear that a very open style of teaching is also the best method in teaching children.

Though teaching style is commonly discussed, many individuals are unclear on the term. Heimlich and Norland define teaching style as, "a predilection toward teaching behavior and the congruence between educator's teaching behaviors and teaching beliefs" (17). It is not the same as teaching method or teaching technique, nor is the adoption of a new curriculum the standard for determining what teaching style an individual incorporates (Heimlick and Norland 17). When considering what teaching style should be incorporated by teachers or within entire schools, the entire point of teaching should be considered. If the point of teaching is to "enhance learning, as Heimlich and Norland suggest, then everything a teacher can do to enhance learning is a valuable contribution to the goal of teaching (17). This important note should be factored into the discussion and decision making process of teaching style.

An open teaching style incorporates many of the ideals from the open classrooms that were popular in the 1960s and 1970s (Cuban 69; Dunn 20; Liles 31). The method, which aimed to encourage creativity following the Cold War, was observed in British classrooms before becoming quite popular in the United States (Cuban 69-70). The original open classrooms were literally large open spaces with learning stations or areas set up with a variety of activities available (Cuban 69). Children learned by doing. No testing of students occurred, no detailed curriculum was used, and the whole class did not generally participate in lessons as a group. Instead, children initiated much of the learning process through natural curiosity (Cuban 70). Following a flurry of open classroom acceptance and adoption, schools generally returned to traditional methods in the "back-to-basics movement" of the 1970s (Liles 31).

Despite a lower prevalence in use, open teaching methods and an open style of teaching can be found in many schools today. The open structures that appear in today's classroom range from many of the methods used in Montessori schools to self-directed and planned curriculums used in many gifted programs (Hertzog 530). Hertzog additionally mentions the use of "Project Approach," where children develop their own learning questions, pursue answers, analyze them, and share what they have learned (530). A number of approaches are available. Sometimes alternative schools, including Montessori and gifted schools, choose an open style based on the needs of the school or the community (Dunn 20-22). Others try open style methodology to address unanswered problems in schools with significant problems, including behavioral problems or multicultural classrooms (Dunn 20-22; Liles 33-34). Characteristic of open learning, these schools may teach in multi-age groups and focus on objectives set by the students themselves. Overall, open styles of teaching are child-centered rather than teacher centered, as children are the developers and goal setters; teachers are more like support staff (Cuban 70-71; Dunn 20; Hertzog 530-532; Wassermann 367).

Individual teaches may also have an open teaching style. This is most common in the elementary grades when children are still adjusting to the school setting and may do better in classrooms where they are free to move about (Cuban 71). However, a growing number of High Schools are using open methods since most high school aged students have diverse interests and an initiative to plan their own projects. Some teachers may also gravitate toward an open teaching style due to ideology or supporting research; indeed, many case studies offer strong support for classrooms that adopt an open style (Dunn; Hertzog; Wassermann).

In contrast to an open style, the traditional classroom is teacher centered. At its core, this makes the traditional classroom problematic. The common complaints from teachers in this setting include: dealing with behavioral problems; addressing the needs of children who learn faster or slower than the rest of the class; addressing the needs of a multicultural classroom; and getting children excited about learning / dealing with apathy (Brown 57-58; Cuban 71; Dunn 20). All of these struggles, common to the bulk of traditional classrooms, can be addressed by the adoption of a very open teaching style.

A traditional teaching style calls for children to learn by sitting, listening, reading, and responding. As anyone who knows children can tell you, children do not always excel when they are unable to physically move and respond to their surroundings. Children who sit in classrooms have many unanswered questions that are educationally valuable but do not come up because the subject they are currently learning is unrelated. In other words, each child has an interest in learning but the many interests present in a classroom make teacher-centered classrooms unable to address them all. As a result, children get bored, often acting out.

Other children have specific needs not met by the traditional classroom. Hundreds of studies have been done to address what ways exist to help these students, whether they are English Language Learners (ELL) or are simply working at a faster or slower pace than the rest of the group (Brown 57-58; Cuban 71). Because there is only one teacher in most traditional classrooms, the ability to meet these students' needs while also teaching the rest of the class is nearly impossible. However, in an open teaching style, students are not lectured and then expected to respond. Instead, learning is set in motion. Teachers can group children to work on individual learning projects and objectives based on their interest. Those children who need extra guidance will learn from peers in group learning Wassermann 387). More voracious learners will not be held back while waiting on the rest of the class; instead, they will be able to continue to their full potential. Finally, even ELL students will learn more since conversation in open and group learning encourage fluency (Brown 58).

A number of questions and concerns may be associated with an open style of teaching: Won't children just goof off and not learn anything? Won't children fail mandated standardized tests? Won't parents and teachers struggle with the lack of structure and the lack of progress indicators? What about children who need rigorous structure, or are accustomed to structure?

Children actually appear to have less behavioral problems in a number of case studies investigating open teaching style. Hertzog notes that fewer behavioral and social issues were reported by schools incorporating the "Project Approach" of open teaching (534). Additionally, the Irwin Avenue school highlighted by Dunn found that even middle school students were engaged in learning and so were more likely to reach learning objective rather than get frustrated or become disinterested (20-22). Because students are answering questions that they themselves are interested in, they are less likely to lose interest. If enough resources are available to them then curiosity and creativity will likely outweigh their need to stray from their education.

IN the age of No Child Left Behind, many teachers and administrators are concerned that an open teaching style -- particularly one that does not incorporate written tests -- will lead to children failing mandated standardized tests en masse. Not only would parents become concerned by low reported grades, but school funding could be threatened. This concern is unwarranted, as many open teaching school have high test scores (Dunn 22). Perhaps because they do not develop stress or concern related to poor tests from the classroom, children may be more able to answer questions effectively on standardized tests.

Parents do sometimes worry about an open teaching style. However, including progress reports that are not valued (no a and B. Or percentage grades) allow parents to follow a child's learning (Wassermann 386). This breaks the cycle of rewarding or admonishing children for subjects that may naturally be easy or difficult. Instead of creating situations that may lead to learning-related anxiety, progress reports give parents information while children continue along a natural learning process.