Educational Philosophy!

My Perspectives as Objectivist, Constructivist, or a Combined Integration Approach
My philosophy of how students learn most effectively is rooted in a combined integration approach that blends both objectivist and constructivist perspectives. I believe that learning is both a process of acquiring foundational knowledge through structured instruction (objectivism) and an active, personalized process of meaning-making through experience and reflection (constructivism). I do not think one model is universally superior; rather, each has strengths that can meet different learning needs, content types, and classroom contexts. The objectivist model helps students master core skills and content that provide a solid base, while constructivist strategies help students apply, internalize, and connect that knowledge in meaningful ways. This balanced integration reflects my belief that education should be both efficient and transformative. 

Teaching/Learning
From the objectivist perspective, learning is a transmission process where the teacher delivers information and students are expected to absorb and retain it. This works well for clear-cut content like math procedures or grammar rules, where precision and structure are necessary. However, the constructivist side emphasizes that students bring their own experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives into the classroom. They build understanding actively, through inquiry, exploration, discussion, and collaboration. I believe effective teaching uses both sides—providing direct instruction when clarity and structure are key, and then offering opportunities for students to interact with content, pose questions, challenge assumptions, and construct deeper understanding in their own terms. Learning is most powerful when students can see the relevance of the material and engage with it authentically. 

Methods
In my classroom, I integrate teaching strategies that reflect both philosophies. From the objectivist model, I rely on explicit instruction, guided practice, modeling, and scaffolding, especially at the beginning of a new unit. I want students to feel confident in what they’re learning before being expected to apply or evaluate it. On the constructivist side, I incorporate group projects, problem-based learning, student-led inquiry, and discussions that let students explore ideas more deeply. Technology also supports both approaches: I use digital platforms for drill-and-practice (objectivist), but also discussion boards and creation tools for collaborative learning (constructivist). The methods I use depend on the goals of the lesson, the needs of the students, and the level of complexity in the content. 

Instructional Needs and Problems Targeted
This integration approach helps address a variety of instructional challenges. For students who struggle with motivation or engagement, constructivist methods give them voice and agency, making learning more relevant and connected to their lives. For students who need structure, objectivist methods provide clarity and step-by-step support. It also helps bridge learning gaps by ensuring all students get foundational instruction while also having space to grow as independent thinkers. Diverse learning needs, whether due to language, disability, or background experience, are better met when we combine structured, teacher-led instruction with flexible, student-centered exploration. This approach also encourages inclusive participation by valuing different ways of knowing and expressing understanding. 

Assessment Methods
Assessment in my integrated model also draws from both traditions. From the objectivist side, I use traditional tests, quizzes, and rubrics to measure mastery of content. These assessments provide clear benchmarks and accountability. From the constructivist side, I use formative assessments like student reflections, peer assessments, presentations, portfolios, and projects. These tools help students demonstrate understanding in multiple ways and allow me to see their growth over time. I believe assessment should inform instruction and support learning, not just rank students. A balanced approach gives a fuller picture of student progress and ensures that assessment is both fair and meaningful.