Systematic Teaching Approach - Coursework Example

Teaching Approaches A systematic teaching approach is necessary for optimum learning experience in a room and success in teaching a Thechoice of approach, method and strategies in teaching depends on several factors which address the needs not only of the students but those of the teacher’s and the environment as well. Through the years, these factors were comprehensively analyzed in several learning theories, which in turn, guide teachers in understanding the learning process and, hence, be more effective in their teaching practices. These learning theories are behind several approaches which seek to accommodate various needs of students and be instruments of successful learning and development. There are four major teaching approaches being adapted by teachers to educate students. These are the Process approach, Transmission approach, Discovery approach and Interactive approach. The US does not have core any instructional curricula that is why the use of these approaches is unregulated by most schools and usually up to individual teachers. Process Approach The Process-oriented approach of teaching focuses on the process a student engages in when constructing meaning. It uses varied classroom activities which features brainstorming, group discussion and so on. This approach may include a number of stages set in a typical sequence. Most writing/composition and language teachers use this approach, for it puts emphasis on the creative process and the independence of students – an aspect similarly found in task-based learning. (Steele) The Process approach is usually used as benchmark versus the product-oriented instruction. Transmission Approach Transmission-oriented teaching, on the other hand is the traditional and old-fashioned approach of instruction. Tishman (1992) said that in this model, the “teacher’s role is to prepare and transmit information to learners. The learners’ role is to receive, store and act upon this information. For instance, in a science class, a teacher may discuss Einstein’s theory of relativity while the students listen. In transmission, the learners are expected to commit information and procedures to memory and strive to become fluent and precise on the subject matter. The teacher may ask the students to explain a concept to determine whether he understood the lesson. Discovery Approach The acceptance of the discovery approach as a teaching method is largely credited to Jerome S. Bruner, a highly influential cognitive psychologist. The primary aim of the discovery-oriented approach to teaching is to encourage students to take a more active role in their learning process. This is usually done by answering a series of questions or solving problems designed to introduce a general concept (Mayer, 2003). Many educators believe that this method is effective in helping students organize new information by integrating it with stored information, and hence, increase retention of knowledge. There are two aspects that define the success of discovery approach – one is emphasis on experiences and contexts as motivation and, two, that the instruction should facilitate extrapolation. Interactive Approach The most important idea being espoused by the Interactive approach is that the students should have a very active participation in their learning. The interactive approach follows an oral, collaborative and lively manner of instruction. “It is a two-way process in which pupils are expected to play an active part by answering questions, working together collaboratively, for instance, during a scientific enquiry, contributing points to discussions, and explaining and demonstrating their methods, conclusions and solutions to others in the class.” (Science, 2006) It has been said that a good interactive teaching balances the teaching and learning methods during an instruction session. The Best Method There is a continuing quest among educators to find the best teaching approach in teaching. The emergence of various learning theories, influenced no less than by psychologists such as John Piaget, led to the creations of some methods which are in use or being given serious consideration in the academe. Two of the most notable fields today are: the one based on behaviorist principles and the approach based on constructivist point of view. Behaviorist vs. Constructivist The behaviorist approach has been in use on most Western educational system until recently when instructional methods tend to gear towards social constructivist principles. The idea behind this approach is that a behavior operates on the environment, which is a result of reinforcement or punishment. In this method, the teachers “often instruct students using a linear step-by-step approach.” (Melton et. al., 2003) In constructivist approach, "learning involves constructing ones own knowledge from ones own experiences" (Ormrod, 2003) According to Jerome Bruner and other constructivists, the teacher acts as a facilitator who encourages students to discover principles for themselves and to construct knowledge by working to solve realistic problems, usually in collaboration with others. Both of these methods have their respective disadvantages. For example, many teachers will agree that a behaviorist approach is sometimes boring to students because they are not that engaged in the learning process. On the other hand, while constructivist approach is focused on motivational activities, it is usually found wanting in content. Analyzing the merits and disadvantages of both behaviorist and constructivist methods, one is led to believe that choosing one single approach will not be effective to teach science to students. A combination of these two approaches may reduce the disadvantages and result to a more balanced method that could revolutionize how science is taught in the future. Furthermore, an alternative scenario would be that variants of these approaches might emerge as sub-models and may feature strategies that finally address each of their own limitations. One can therefore see positive developments in the future spawning from these two schools. Science Aptitude The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (Roth, 2006) have found that the United States have consistently lagged behind four higher-achieving countries, namely, Australia, the Czech Republic, Japan and the Netherlands. The research noted that the United States do not appear to have high-content standards in its teaching process as the country prefers science lessons which are “characterized as taking a variety of approaches, involving students in multiple types of activities (discussion, independent practical activities, independent seatwork activities, and motivating activities) without emphasizing one or two.” (Roth, 2006) In teaching science, we could learn a thing or two, from the aforementioned countries on how they have achieved higher science aptitude. In the Czech Republic, for instance, “students are expected to learn many new ideas and technical terms, about challenging and often theoretical contents… The students were regularly called upon to do science work in front of their peers, sometimes working problems on the board and explaining their thinking.” Meanwhile, in Australian and Japanese instruction, high content is also given emphasis, although in a different way. In these countries, students are faced with a potentially demanding task of connecting multiple sources of evidence to build a limited set of ideas. That is why I have come to the conclusion that the behaviorist approach can never be entirely omitted in the instruction process since science, after all, is a technical subject and is, thus, heavily weighted with tasks to be mastered in sequential manner. Doolittle and Camp (1999) stressed that constructivist principles or approaches which advocates independent thinking, interaction, and motivational activities have serious limitations in terms of the teaching of content to be learned in a specific sequence and to specific standards. In my view, the behaviorist strategy of direct transmission of ideas, if enhanced with motivational activities, such as those which featured in exploration or in Discovery approach would be the most ideal learning environment in teaching science. References Doolittle, P.E. & Camp, W.G. (1999). Constructivism: The career and technical education perspective. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 16(1), 23-46 Mayer, R.E., (2003). Learning and Instruction. Pearson Education, Inc: Upper Saddle River, 287-88 Melton, B., Zience, A., Leonard, S., Pick, E., Thomasson, L., Camp, W. G., & Broyles, T.W. (2003). A Comparison of Behaviorist and Constructivist-Based Teaching Methods in Psychomotor Instruction. Journal of Southern Agricultural Education Research. 2003 53(1). Retrieved April 25, 2006, from http://pubs.aged.tamu.edu/jsaer/pdf/Vol53/53-03-188.pdf Ormrod, J. E., (2003). Educational Psychology: Developing Learners, Fourth Edition. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 227 Roth, K.J., Druker, S.L., Garnier, H.E., Lemmens, M., Chen, C., Kawanaka, T., Rasmussen, D., Trubacova, S., Warvi, D., Okamoto, Y., Gonzales, P., Stigler, J., and Gallimore, R. (2006). Teaching Science in Five Countries: Results From the TIMSS 1999 Video Study (NCES 2006-011). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office Science Framework: The focus on direct, interactive teaching, (2006) The Standards site. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/keystage3/respub/scienceframework/strategies/direct_interactive_teaching/ Shari Tishman, Eileen Jay, and D. N. Perkins. (1992). Teaching Thinking Dispositions: From Transmission to Enculturation. Retrieved April 26, 2006, from Harvard University Website http://learnweb.harvard.edu/ALPS/thinking/docs/article2.html Steele, Vanessa, (n.d). Product and process writing: A comparison. Teaching English. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/write/approaches.shtml#two Read More