Student-Centered Learning Methods vs. Teacher-Centered Learning Methods

Abstract

The different types of student-centered learning methods are described and compared to teacher-centered approaches. Different studies were researched with mixed results. Student-centered methods, when applied to secondary education students and above, provide social and emotional value to the students and improve reasoning and creative ability. Teacher-centered methods work best in the primary grades and with students faced with low SES.

Student-Centered Learning Methods vs. Teacher-Centered Learning Methods

All educators in America would agree with what is considered to be the most important goal of schooling our children. It is to promote student learning so our children grow and develop to become productive members of our society. Yet in our education system, the debate of exactly how to go about doing that, has raged for over one-hundred years. Are student-centered methods or teacher-centered methods the best way to educate our children? Since the beginning of the debate, it has been highly political as well; those in favor of student-centered methods represent progressive reformers and associate the terms democratic, permissive, insight, affective and student growth with their methodology. On the other hand, those in favor of teacher-centered methods represent the old guard and have terms such as authoritarian, fascistic, knowledge for its own sake and content-centered associated with their cause. What is true and what is stereotyped about each of these descriptions? Adding fuel to the fire in the debate are the statistics, showing over the past sixty years our children have struggled to achieve at the same rate as children of other industrialized nations, especially in the core content of reading, writing, math and science. High achievement in the core content has become the focal point of our country’s civic and legislative education leaders’ strategy. Which learning method best supports these objectives? Is it possible both methods have a proper place in today’s school system? First, let’s take a look at exactly what encompasses each learning method. Teacher-centered approaches provide a more traditional method of learning. In an article entitled “Instruction Paradigms” by Mayflor Markusic, teacher-centered instruction is described in the following ways. In the teacher-centered environment, the teacher is the primary source of knowledge and students acquire their knowledge passively through lectures, textbooks and presentations. When using the teacher-centered approach there are only two answers to problems; right or wrong. Formal assessments are made and students are graded and compared with their peers, in order to interpret their progress (Markusic). In contrast, Markusic describes student-centered methods in the following ways. In student-centered learning, the activity is shifted from the teachers to the students. Sources of knowledge are the combined efforts of students and teachers. Students actively involve themselves when seeking out knowledge and its meaningfulness by addressing real life issues and problems. During assessment, correct answers are not as important as creating better questions and the results of tests are compared individually and used to discover difficulties with the material (Markusic). There are several types of student-centered learning approaches. Michael Prince and Richard Felder break them down into categories in an article entitled “The Many Faces of Inductive Teaching and Learning”. The categories are: active, cooperative and inductive. In active learning students solve problems, answer questions, formulate their own questions and brainstorm to acquire knowledge. Cooperative learning involves students working in teams on problems or projects and creates interdependence and individual accountability. Inductive methods begin when the teacher presents students with a specific challenge to solve. Different forms of inductive teaching include: inquiry method, case-based, problem-based, project-based, discovery and just in time teaching (Prince & Felder 14-20).
Results
Studies conducted on each method, in order to find out if there are any significant differences in achievement between one, and or the other, have proved to be a mixed bag of results and thus have clouded the picture further. The results reported by Prince and Felder show the inductive learning methods they discussed were more effective in science, medical and other health related fields. Specifically in college level courses (14-20). A similar study reported by W.J. McKeachie at the University of Michigan concurred with Prince and Felder on tests involving reasoning and creativity. However, test scores of the students in teacher-centered environments were higher for overall achievement (McKeachie 147-149). In a book by Jeanne S. Chall entitled “The Academic Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom?” the author makes several key points. Teacher-centered methods are generally found to be more effective. The effects are particularly evident in children with low socioeconomic (SES) status. Across the board, higher achievement scores are maintained in teacher-centered environments. These scores are most noticeable at the primary grade levels and begin to even out in the secondary levels where the focus of classes shift towards the use of more reasoning and problem solving (Chall 117).
Discussion
There is no doubt; education in America is at a crossroads. Despite record amounts of money being poured into the system by our local, state and federal government our public education system continues to struggle to keep up with other industrialized nations. There are many reasons and many problems to explain why this is so. Most go much deeper than the question of what learning methods to use. Nevertheless, taking advantage of the best methods available can only help to stem the tide; setting our children up for a better and brighter future. Research over the past sixty years points to the effectiveness of both teacher-centered and student-centered methods, in the right environments. A teacher-centered curriculum, with its structured environment, has proved to be most effective in the primary grades. In those grade levels, the student’s basic knowledge is not as strongly developed so the structure and expertise of the teacher is needed. A student-centered curriculum is most effective in the secondary grades and above. In that environment, students use their basic knowledge of content to think and create more freely. In a student-centered environment, the students thrive both socially and creatively and they are also able to retain more overall knowledge. Most importantly they are able to implement that knowledge towards real world situations and problems. If we combine the best of both methods our students will have a better chance at bridging the gap in achievement levels thus providing a better future for both themselves and the fate of our nation.

References
Chall, J.S. (2000). The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom?. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Markusic, M. (2010). Instruction Paradigms: Learner-Centered versus Teacher-Centered. Retrieved from http://brighthub.com/education/5486.aspx
McKeachie, W.J. (1952, September). Student-Centered Versus Instructor-Centered Instruction. In Dr. P. Symonds (Chair), Student-Centered Versus Instructor-Centered Instruction. Paper presented at an APA symposium sponsored by divisions 2 and 15 at the University of Michigan.
Prince, M., & Felder, R. (2007). The Many Faces of Inductive Teaching and Learning. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36 (5), 14-20. Retrieved from http://www3.ntsa.org/main/news/stories/college_science.php?news_story_ID=53403