Andrea's Conclusion:
I am very much for the
student-centered approach to teaching. Alfie Kohn and many others that came up
during my research indicate that students are much more intrinsically motivated
about learning when they are learning about something that they are interested
in. This point was also made in the Natural News article which talked about how
children are all different and therefore should not, and cannot be forced into
a one size-fits-all approach. Intrinsic motivation is much healthier and
beneficial for the students than rewards. Rewards only ensure that the students
do the work to the specifications provided, they do not ensure that they learn
and understand the material, nor does it encourage asking deeper questions or
critically thinking. Additionally, the student centered learning approach
attends to the whole child, it is not just about academics, but about becoming
a good person as well. Kohn mentions this point many times in his writing.
Children spend so much time in schools that whether it is viewed as one of the
primary functions or not, schools have a significant role in molding students
into adult citizens. Being part of society is not individual, people work
together and need to be good people as well as good thinkers.
I saw first-hand in my practicum classroom how student-centered learning can intrinsically motivate children to do good work that they are proud of while also learning how to collaborating nicely and effectively. I was doing a unit on non-fiction features in a grade two class, and was specifically working with the lower level students. The first week, we did not get anything done, and the students were not getting along very well with one another. Then I accidentally hit a common interest (I was lucky that all five of them were interested in the same thing) during one of the lessons that I had planned. They were so into frogs that I scrapped the rest of the lesson plans that I had already written and wrote new ones based around frogs. I let the students' interest in frogs guide the learning and not only did we hit upon the curriculum expectations that we were supposed to, these children worked collaboratively to write a book about frogs that they were extremely proud of.
This classroom did not have a plethora of resources (for example there was only one computer) that critics usually state is required, and yet we were still able to research and work together as a team to learn about non-fiction features through learning about frogs. Additionally, teachers do not need to be experts in every topic that might arise, I learned new facts about frogs while researching and talking to the students. I think the criticism about student centered learning, that it does not hit upon curriculum expectations, needs too many resources, is completely unstructured, etc, stems partly from fear of not preparing students for higher level learning, but also largely from fear of change. The banking system has been in place for so long, it is hard to view another approach as effective. Yet, even with the limited research done on student-centered learning, I found that even researchers who were skeptical had to admit that student centered learning is beneficial for students. Joel Westheimer mentioned in an interview we did with him that student-centered learning is mostly opposed at the top of the education food chain, ie, the administrators and ministry leaders who are more concerned about EQAO testing than looking into this new approach and how it benefits the students.
I do understand the concern when it comes to knowing basic math skills. This is the one point where I think there should be a bit more of a balance between student-centered learning and the more traditional rote approach. Students do need to know certain basic skills in order to be successful in math, yet there is still room for student-centered and inquiry based approaches. At the same time, I think part of my reasoning for wanting to have more balance in math is because of my own fear and lack of understanding of math (I was taught the traditional way) which I do not want my students to undergo.
I saw first-hand in my practicum classroom how student-centered learning can intrinsically motivate children to do good work that they are proud of while also learning how to collaborating nicely and effectively. I was doing a unit on non-fiction features in a grade two class, and was specifically working with the lower level students. The first week, we did not get anything done, and the students were not getting along very well with one another. Then I accidentally hit a common interest (I was lucky that all five of them were interested in the same thing) during one of the lessons that I had planned. They were so into frogs that I scrapped the rest of the lesson plans that I had already written and wrote new ones based around frogs. I let the students' interest in frogs guide the learning and not only did we hit upon the curriculum expectations that we were supposed to, these children worked collaboratively to write a book about frogs that they were extremely proud of.
This classroom did not have a plethora of resources (for example there was only one computer) that critics usually state is required, and yet we were still able to research and work together as a team to learn about non-fiction features through learning about frogs. Additionally, teachers do not need to be experts in every topic that might arise, I learned new facts about frogs while researching and talking to the students. I think the criticism about student centered learning, that it does not hit upon curriculum expectations, needs too many resources, is completely unstructured, etc, stems partly from fear of not preparing students for higher level learning, but also largely from fear of change. The banking system has been in place for so long, it is hard to view another approach as effective. Yet, even with the limited research done on student-centered learning, I found that even researchers who were skeptical had to admit that student centered learning is beneficial for students. Joel Westheimer mentioned in an interview we did with him that student-centered learning is mostly opposed at the top of the education food chain, ie, the administrators and ministry leaders who are more concerned about EQAO testing than looking into this new approach and how it benefits the students.
I do understand the concern when it comes to knowing basic math skills. This is the one point where I think there should be a bit more of a balance between student-centered learning and the more traditional rote approach. Students do need to know certain basic skills in order to be successful in math, yet there is still room for student-centered and inquiry based approaches. At the same time, I think part of my reasoning for wanting to have more balance in math is because of my own fear and lack of understanding of math (I was taught the traditional way) which I do not want my students to undergo.
Tina's Conclusion:
After doing research on student centred learning as well as the traditional schooling system, I have to admit that I like both approaches. Looking at the student centred approach, it means that learning is self directed and only facilitated by the teacher, whereas, the traditional approach is the “banking” system as defined by paulo Freire. I do not think that one is better than the other, although some might disagree with this. I think that student centred learning is important, however, I think that a bit of the traditional teaching system is also important to maintain. I say this because while the student centred approach sounds really good so does the traditional approach. While school classrooms may have changed in terms of they set up inside, teachers still should be mentors and educators not just facilitators in the classroom. Depending on the grade level I would say that the student centred approach would be best for the younger ones and the traditional teaching approach for the older ones, however, I am not sure that that would be the case. Depending on the subject and grade level, both approaches should be combined for maximum student success. I personally do not think that the traditional approach works that well for some students as well as teachers but from the research done for the website as well as my personal experience in school as a teacher and student, I can honestly say that classes should focus student centred learning by investigating various topics in depth based on students constructing theories and teachers as facilitators. However, the other side of this may be that they should be tested in some way of the knowledge that have gained, whether it be hands on test or the traditional tests used thus far in school.
Students should be focused on learning the “how” as well as the “what” from both approaches. If we took away the traditional system, then students would not necessarily follow any curriculum set forth but rather investigate and learn about subjects that they are only interested in. There are some subject that need to be teacher directed as well as teacher centred for the students to learn specific learning objectives, such as math. What would a grade 6 classroom look like if it was all based on student interests? I am not sure how much learning would be happening, if we let the students decided what to learn, when and how to learn it. The traditional system is based on students competing and I personally think that a little bit of competition is healthy, when it comes to grades and assessment. It allows for students to measure their progress based on set forth criteria. If we took a little bit of the traditional system and from the student centred approach, I believe we would have an ideal schooling system, where students would be able to construct understudying on subject matter that needs to be covered. Also, there is nothing wrong with telling students how something should be or needs to be, as well as showing them, and then giving them the opportunity to test the hypothesis and find out for themselves if they came to the same conclusion.
As a teacher, I look forward to implementing a little bit if both approaches in my future classrooms.
Lucia's Conclusion:
The research that was done for this project naturally expanded my view on the topic and made me realize just how complex this debate on student-centred pedagogy is in our present educational system. It also made me understand how clearly demarcated the lines are becoming between those who wish to continue implementing progressive educational policies and those who wish to pursue standardized testing. It is safe to say that there is a definite push toward standardized testing, hence a need to keep traditional teaching methods that will answer to that.
The push against student-centred learning unfortunately involves a lot of misinformation. Despite the many instances where student-centred learning is being implemented with positive results (pilot projects at the elementary, high school and university levels), the negative backlash reflected in the media is appalling. There is a clear mandate to discredit this methodology by describing the practice as chaotic, unstructured, unguided, and lacking in curriculum content. According to the recent research in both the U.S. and in Canada, this view is patently false, but it will likely become more insistent as student-centred learning philosophies begin to discredit the practice of standardized testing.
I do realize there can be a gap between the researched methods of student-centred teaching strategies and the less structured interpretations of this concept in the actual classrooms. This is not necessarily a problem, in my opinion, nor an argument against this teaching practice, when the differences are not discrepancies but variations on the theme. After all, this is what inquiry-based approaches will produce in that they are local and specific to the needs and circumstances of a specific community. Student-centred learning, by its very nature, will reflect the needs and reality of a specific educational community and these schools should be able to pursue and develop what proves effective for them. As Professor Westheimer states, there should be more power at the local level so that schools can implement these inquiry-based, student-centred practices without being hindered by political hierarchies. I believe that an inquiry-based approach is what creates democratic school communities and classrooms. These social and democratic values, I believe, are reflected in a student-centred approach to learning. It is a logical manifestation of inquiry-based practices.
Although the issue has been raised that student-centred learning would not suit all students, my argument is that no other teaching methodology to date has achieved that, either. In fact, many methods have failed quite a large number of students, if one considers the alarming drop-out rates, past and present. In researching this issue, one argument that came up often is that student-centred learning is problematic for students with poor self-regulation. This, of course, is loosely tied in to the notion that student-centred learning represents a chaotic class environment with little structure. I personally find this to be a weak argument and does not reflect the student-centred, inquiry-based classrooms I have either seen or read about. I rather believe the opposite, that student-centred learning promotes self-regulation, and might actually be an authentic, effective way for a student to develop self-regulation, self-awareness, self-efficacy, and self-actualization. These qualities go hand-in-hand with critical thinking skills, and I firmly believe that this is at the centre of student-centred teaching methods.
One thing I am absolutely convinced of is that it is an effective way of teaching higher-order thinking skills, and very much worth implementing for this reason. As with everything, there is a learning curve, so it will be a while before we see more teachers, schools and administrators efficiently integrate student-centred pedagogies in their learning communities. I also believe this evolution is inevitable, since the research and school pilot projects I have come across continue making valuable contributions to the pedagogy of inquiry-based, student-centred teaching.
On a final, positive note in favor of student-centred educational environments, I will also argue that this can be considered a big step toward empowering students, who still represent that segment of the population with the least rights. In my opinion, the greatest benefit in fostering higher-order thinking skills through a student-centred pedagogy is that it will allow students to develop the critical skills necessary to advocate more effectively for themselves. We might, finally, have that "room full of critical thinkers" that everyone is so afraid of.
Students should be focused on learning the “how” as well as the “what” from both approaches. If we took away the traditional system, then students would not necessarily follow any curriculum set forth but rather investigate and learn about subjects that they are only interested in. There are some subject that need to be teacher directed as well as teacher centred for the students to learn specific learning objectives, such as math. What would a grade 6 classroom look like if it was all based on student interests? I am not sure how much learning would be happening, if we let the students decided what to learn, when and how to learn it. The traditional system is based on students competing and I personally think that a little bit of competition is healthy, when it comes to grades and assessment. It allows for students to measure their progress based on set forth criteria. If we took a little bit of the traditional system and from the student centred approach, I believe we would have an ideal schooling system, where students would be able to construct understudying on subject matter that needs to be covered. Also, there is nothing wrong with telling students how something should be or needs to be, as well as showing them, and then giving them the opportunity to test the hypothesis and find out for themselves if they came to the same conclusion.
As a teacher, I look forward to implementing a little bit if both approaches in my future classrooms.
Lucia's Conclusion:
The research that was done for this project naturally expanded my view on the topic and made me realize just how complex this debate on student-centred pedagogy is in our present educational system. It also made me understand how clearly demarcated the lines are becoming between those who wish to continue implementing progressive educational policies and those who wish to pursue standardized testing. It is safe to say that there is a definite push toward standardized testing, hence a need to keep traditional teaching methods that will answer to that.
The push against student-centred learning unfortunately involves a lot of misinformation. Despite the many instances where student-centred learning is being implemented with positive results (pilot projects at the elementary, high school and university levels), the negative backlash reflected in the media is appalling. There is a clear mandate to discredit this methodology by describing the practice as chaotic, unstructured, unguided, and lacking in curriculum content. According to the recent research in both the U.S. and in Canada, this view is patently false, but it will likely become more insistent as student-centred learning philosophies begin to discredit the practice of standardized testing.
I do realize there can be a gap between the researched methods of student-centred teaching strategies and the less structured interpretations of this concept in the actual classrooms. This is not necessarily a problem, in my opinion, nor an argument against this teaching practice, when the differences are not discrepancies but variations on the theme. After all, this is what inquiry-based approaches will produce in that they are local and specific to the needs and circumstances of a specific community. Student-centred learning, by its very nature, will reflect the needs and reality of a specific educational community and these schools should be able to pursue and develop what proves effective for them. As Professor Westheimer states, there should be more power at the local level so that schools can implement these inquiry-based, student-centred practices without being hindered by political hierarchies. I believe that an inquiry-based approach is what creates democratic school communities and classrooms. These social and democratic values, I believe, are reflected in a student-centred approach to learning. It is a logical manifestation of inquiry-based practices.
Although the issue has been raised that student-centred learning would not suit all students, my argument is that no other teaching methodology to date has achieved that, either. In fact, many methods have failed quite a large number of students, if one considers the alarming drop-out rates, past and present. In researching this issue, one argument that came up often is that student-centred learning is problematic for students with poor self-regulation. This, of course, is loosely tied in to the notion that student-centred learning represents a chaotic class environment with little structure. I personally find this to be a weak argument and does not reflect the student-centred, inquiry-based classrooms I have either seen or read about. I rather believe the opposite, that student-centred learning promotes self-regulation, and might actually be an authentic, effective way for a student to develop self-regulation, self-awareness, self-efficacy, and self-actualization. These qualities go hand-in-hand with critical thinking skills, and I firmly believe that this is at the centre of student-centred teaching methods.
One thing I am absolutely convinced of is that it is an effective way of teaching higher-order thinking skills, and very much worth implementing for this reason. As with everything, there is a learning curve, so it will be a while before we see more teachers, schools and administrators efficiently integrate student-centred pedagogies in their learning communities. I also believe this evolution is inevitable, since the research and school pilot projects I have come across continue making valuable contributions to the pedagogy of inquiry-based, student-centred teaching.
On a final, positive note in favor of student-centred educational environments, I will also argue that this can be considered a big step toward empowering students, who still represent that segment of the population with the least rights. In my opinion, the greatest benefit in fostering higher-order thinking skills through a student-centred pedagogy is that it will allow students to develop the critical skills necessary to advocate more effectively for themselves. We might, finally, have that "room full of critical thinkers" that everyone is so afraid of.