This paper argues that a very open teaching style is the most effective method for meeting the diverse needs of today's students. Drawing on case studies and educational research, it traces the historical roots of open classrooms from the 1960s and 1970s, defines key terms such as "teaching style" and "open classroom," and contrasts open methods with traditional, teacher-centered approaches. The paper addresses common criticisms — including concerns about standardized testing, parental anxiety, teacher adjustment, and student structure needs — and demonstrates that most objections can be answered. Ultimately, it concludes that open teaching best serves multicultural students, English Language Learners, and learners who work at varying paces.
The paper demonstrates effective use of compare-and-contrast argumentation. By systematically laying out the shortcomings of the traditional classroom before presenting open teaching as the solution, the author creates a logical, reader-friendly structure that makes the thesis feel earned rather than asserted. Embedding refutations of common objections within the body — rather than dismissing them — further strengthens the persuasive arc.
The paper opens with a problem statement and thesis, then provides historical and definitional context before moving into the central comparison. A dedicated criticism-and-response section addresses likely reader objections one by one. The conclusion restates the thesis while broadening its significance to equity concerns (multicultural students, ELL learners, varied-pace learners). This classic problem–context–argument–rebuttal–conclusion structure is well-suited to persuasive academic writing at the undergraduate level.
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 challenge that, despite similar age, they work at varying speeds and need help in individual subjects (Cuban 71; Liles 33; Wassermann 167). Many students respond well to specific teaching styles while remaining disengaged when taught through other approaches (Heimlich and Norland 18). Using older materials and methods simply does 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 challenges for both teachers and students. As such, a very open style of teaching is the best and most effective method.
This paper explains some of the background and methodology behind an open style of teaching. Key definitions and terms are discussed so that concepts like "open classroom" are clearly understood in the context of an open learning style. The traditional method is compared and contrasted with a very open style of teaching, and criticisms concerning open teaching methods are addressed. Through this comparison it becomes possible to identify the reasons why a very open style of teaching is most effective at handling the most common classroom struggles, and why it is also the best method for teaching children.
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 surge of open classroom acceptance and adoption, schools generally returned to traditional methods during the "back-to-basics movement" of the 1970s (Liles 31).
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 an 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 (Heimlich and Norland 17). When considering what teaching style should be incorporated by teachers or within entire schools, the whole 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 that goal (17). This important point should be factored into any discussion and decision-making process around teaching style.
Despite 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 classrooms range from the methods used in Montessori schools to self-directed and planned curricula used in many gifted programs (Hertzog 530). Hertzog additionally mentions the use of the "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 persistent problems in schools facing significant challenges, including behavioral issues or multicultural student populations (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 function more as support staff (Cuban 70–71; Dunn 20; Hertzog 530–532; Wassermann 367).
Individual teachers 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 the 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).
While critics of open classrooms, or proponents of traditional classrooms, may have reservations about an open teaching style, most of their concerns can be addressed. Furthermore, a very open style of teaching allows children to flourish and learn to the best of their abilities, while also supporting those children traditionally "left behind" in conventional schools: multicultural students, ELL students, and those who work at a different pace. Since teaching is fundamentally about the enhancement of learning, the value of an open style of teaching is clear. A very open style of teaching is, therefore, the best and most effective means of instruction.
You’re 46% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.