Está en la página 1de 19

Student centred learning: Is it possible?

Introduction
Student centred learning and the drive to adopt it as the central pedagogy of university courses, has been part of vigorous discussions in teaching and learning for a number of years. Student centred learning has been recommended by many experts and influential reports. While references to student centred learning abound in the literature, definitions are often confused with other teaching strategies, for example:
o o o o o o o o o

Self directed learning Learner focussed learning Autonomous learning Independent learning Collaborative learning Experiential learning Authentic learning Problem based learning Constructivist learning

This paper will outline an interpretation of student centred learning, describe attempts to introduce student centred activities to mathematics teacher education courses, and discuss some of the issues arising from the adoption of these approaches.

Definitions of student centred learning


Gibbs (1992) offered a useful definition of student centred learning. He stated that student centred learning, "gives students greater autonomy and control over choice of subject matter, learning methods and pace of study" (p. 23). This view highlighted three core characteristics of student centred learning by promoting the idea that students should have more input into:
o o o

what is learned, how it is learned, and when it is learned.

An important implication of this definition is the need for students to assume a high level of responsibility in the learning situation and be actively choosing their goals and managing their learning. They can no longer rely on the lecturer to tell them what, how, where and when to think. They must start to do this. The recommendation for a shift of emphasis in responsibility from teacher to student is common in contemporary pedagogy. In a summary of the characteristics of effective learners, de la Harpe, Kulski and Radloff (1999) noted good learners:

o o o o o o o o

Have clear learning goals, Have a wide repertoire of learning strategies and know when to use them, Use available resources effectively, Know about their strengths and weaknesses, Understand the learning process, Deal appropriately with their feelings, Take responsibility for their own learning, and Plan, monitor, evaluate and adapt their learning process (p. 110).

In a parallel debate regarding lifelong learning. Candy (1994) suggested lifelong learners have, among other things, an ability to inter-relate aspects of knowledge, and a capacity to manage learning. Knowles (1984) outlined elements of learning needed for working with adults which also identified a role for the teacher that focussed on placing students at the centre of learning. Students were to be actively involved and take a high level of personal responsibility in learning. He saw self direction as the keystone to adult learning and argued that the needs and experiences of the learner should take precedence over the expertise of the instructor. Adults, he suggested, are self directed learners who are unique due to their personal experiences.

The need for student centred learning


While the rhetoric of theory and research is influential, personal experience is also a powerful motivator. Mathematics teacher education lecturers were actively engaging student teachers in the debate about the possibilities of student centred learning in schools. They reflected, with some irony, that the university course as it was modelled, was more focussed on teacher responsibility, control and effort than on student learning. Hogan (1996) voiced this realisation: I was struck by the irony that I did an enormous amount of reading and thinking about education in order to prepare my lectures, plan effective workshops and select readings and texts for my students, while the students did relatively little. I was the most active learner in my class - because I had total responsibility for what was learned and how it was presented for consumption (p. 79). She noted that she was doing the majority of the work in her classes, when she felt it should have been the students who were thinking. Her teacher directed style of working was not meeting her own expectations for student learning and further, it failed to demonstrate practically the theoretical advantages of one of the approaches the course itself challenged students to adopt in their teaching in schools.

Implications for teaching and learning


The group decided that they would reorganise the way they taught mathematics, and move towards a student centred model. As they reflected on what to do, a number of significant questions arose: 1. How is it possible to engage students deeply, working in ways like adult humans learn - multi-sensory, collaborative, solving real problems?

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

How is it possible to empower students by giving them control and choice? How can one focus on student needs rather than what one wants to give them? How is it possible to acknowledge individual differences in students? How is it possible to identify strengths, weaknesses and prior learning and incorporate these into a course? How is it possible to work with individual goals and pathways? How does the teacher find out what the students want to know and how they want to learn it? How is it possible to assess how well students know these things? How does one use these answers to develop student learning?

The learning context in the university classroom is complex (just like the school classroom). All classes have a diversity of students, with a range of backgrounds, experiences and a variety of knowledge about the subject under consideration. There were also dilemmas to wrestle. Many students, in particular surface learners, tend to want to be told what to do and what to think. There is often a feeling among students that the lecturer has been paid to teach and should set about teaching. The tradition of telling as teaching is strong. How far is one prepared to move from this tradition toward more student centred approaches and risk poor appraisals by students? Further questions occur as one moves to a student centred approach to teaching and learning. If diversity of student knowledge and needs are acknowledged, then how does one teach classes where each person has a different set of strengths and weaknesses and prior learning? Where is the balance between what 'is good for them to learn' and what they want to learn? If students already know and understand much of the material to be considered should they have to learn it again, or learn something else or be given credit for it? How does one support student centred learning? Does one establish individual goals and pathways in negotiation with the student or allow 'open slather', with the student deciding what to learn, when to learn it and how it might be assessed?

Developing from teacher centred to student centred learning


In the face of so many questions, dilemmas and potential problems it is easy to understand why many university teachers choose to ignore both the theory and research, and stick with traditional teacher centred models. However, the group was determined to change their approach. Given the number of potential problems, it was decided to introduce specific student centred activities gradually, rather than radically restructure complete units. This had several advantages as a change strategy. It:
o o o o o

softened the shock of change, allowed for evaluation and refining of particular ideas as they were trialed, allowed individual academics to adopt, at their pace the ideas they preferred, provided a realistic time scale to rewrite course materials, avoided the need to define and accept a complete student centred model before initiating change

Described below are examples of some of the teaching and learning activities that have been tried by the group in primary mathematics education units. Self paced teaching booklets As part of the first year of a mathematics education course, Swan and Sparrow (1996) developed a series of booklets that attempted to give students flexibility in the time and place of their work. The booklets were designed to support workshop sessions, distance education and personal study. A non-negotiable core of tasks and knowledge was established, which was generally completed in class, although if the students preferred, these tasks could be completed at home or in other places and at other times. Students were encouraged to assess their own needs and focus their attention in the learning areas relevant to them. If, for example, they were confident about how to calculate using fractions, they did not have to complete that section. A wide range of optional tasks were also provided so that students could undertake additional work in areas of weakness Independent study modules and self directed learning kits An early attempt (Jones & Sparrow, 1994) to move the focus of learning replaced the usual teacher directed workshops, with an independent study module. Students were given some choice (two out of four themes) in subject matter. The lecturers structured the activities and supplied most of the support material needed (for example, Sparrow, Kershaw & Jones, 1995) in the undertaking. Students were encouraged to work in teams, select their place and time of working on the activity and consult the lecturer as needed. They were given four weeks to complete the modules. Swan (1996) elaborated on the study modules by developing a set of learning kits which incorporated a variety of resources (videos, journal articles, mathematical equipment) relevant to undertaking learning tasks. Poster presentations Poster presentations were used as part of a move to offer students flexibility in the place and content of learning. Students, in groups of three, were asked to construct a poster to be displayed and shared with their peers. The theme of the poster could be selected from a list of five themes given by the lecturer, which were related to the subject matter of the unit. A basic, non-negotiable structure for the poster was established, within this the students could enhance the content and style as they pleased. School based, action research projects (project partnerships) Project partnerships (Down, Hogan & Swan, 1997) required students to form small groups centred on common interests, and select from a range of tenders, for a school based project that matched their interests. They then negotiated with the school to undertake the project within the time limits established. The level of responsibility required of the students in this situation was significant. They negotiated and organised learning, and acted in a fully professional manner.

Self initiated assignments Flexibility related to content was more difficult to incorporate into a teaching programme, than choices of study place and time. Initial work by Swan, (1997) and Sparrow, (1999) used the idea of a negotiated assignment as an attempt to develop student choice in content. Within a minimal structure (the assignment must have a focus in mathematics and be supported by research findings), students were able to devise a personal content area to explore. Some students attempted known areas of weakness, for example the teaching of fractions, others selected an area of interest, for example teaching mathematics to autistic children, while some chose to explore a topic already covered on the course, but in greater depth.

What was learnt


The commitment to student centred approaches is continuous, but the engagement with activities described above have already enriched the group's professional understanding and development. Reflections on learning highlighted many insights. For example, the group members have:
o o

o o o o o

developed greater empathy for student teachers' struggle with the complexity of teaching within a student centred framework, discovered that exposing the complexity, and role modelling the approach for students, is leading to rich shared educational dialogues between student teachers and academic staff, learnt to rethink their own roles as teacher, replacing tight control of learning with thoughtful facilitation of learning, gained confidence in the "guide on the side" role, learnt that the teachers' subject expertise is critical. Students don't know what they don't know and they need expert guidance in selecting significant content, developed an appreciation of a developmental model of change, the slow steady adoption of negotiated change, the establishment of resources and materials necessary to support student centred learning requires a significant initial investment of time but it is well rewarded in the long term, a collaborative approach to change is effective for academic staff. It helps generate ideas, shares the workloads and provides support through risk taking experiences, an advantage of student centred activity is that it can release teaching time for critical work (e.g. preparation of learning resources and environments, availability to support students), many activities undertaken in university courses do not need the immediate intervention of the lecturer, students really can learn on their own, given the right support, students vary in their responses to student centred activities. Flexibility in time and place is particularly attractive for many students with out of university commitments such as caring for children or other family members, and part time

employment. However, some students find the responsibility for learning difficult, especially where it involves group work.

Where to now
If one is to follow a student centred approach to learning then careful thought must be given to the use of teaching techniques such as web based learning. Generally this could offer flexibility in place and time but may not be useful in content choice. Reviewing of assessment towards portfolio development or the use of competency measures may have to be addressed. The issue of accrediting learning and prior experience need consideration. At another level there may be an emphasis on exposing our teaching methods for students to reflect on whole learning experience. More support has to be given to students in analysing their needs so that they can be used as part of the learning process. From a content stance there needs to be a clearer identification of core learning (what is non-negotiable) that must be achieved by students.

Conclusions
The title of this paper asks if student centred learning is possible. The answer appears to be yes, but with limitations. It is feasible to allow student choice of time and place but harder to provide student choice in content and to acknowledge and use student strengths and weaknesses. It is, however, a worthwhile direction to explore.

Teaching Research Method Using a Student-Centred Approach? Critical Reflections on Practice


Jo Barraket
University of Melbourne barraket@unimelb.edu.au

Abstract
This article presents a reflective case study analysis of an attempt to enhance student learning through the introduction of student-centred teaching methods in a masters-level social research methods subject. The introduction of a range of specific techniques, including case study teaching, problem based learning, groupwork, role-play and simulation, is reflected upon. The article concludes that the re-orientation of the curriculum toward student-centredness in this case had a positive effect on student performance, learning experience and subject evaluation. In particular, the use of studentcentred techniques facilitated a strong social context for learning, and provided students with a common experiential framework from which to explore the technical aspects of

the curriculum. However, the analysis also found that students continued to place value on more formal teaching methods, and that the value of student-centred techniques in this case rested in the way in which they were integrated with more didactic teaching practice. Keywords: research methods; student-centred learning; small group teaching.

Introduction
This article seeks to explore the practice of effective small group teaching of social research methods, using what might be broadly framed as a student-centred approach. The specific focus of analysis is the introduction of a range of interactive learning activities into the curriculum of a masters-level research methods subject in the area of policy studies. These changes to practice were made in response to the dual challenges of teaching effectively with experientially diverse student groups, and making the research methods curriculum interesting and relevant to these groups. The approach adopted was informed by an interest in the related concepts of effective teaching in small groups, and student-centred approaches to learning and teaching.

Student-centred Approaches Using Interactive Learning Activities in Small Group Teaching: The Enactment of Constructivist Learning Theory?
Pedagogically, student, or learner, centred approaches to teaching have emerged from changing understandings of the nature of learning and, in particular, from the body of learning theory known as constructivism. In the broadest terms, constructivist learning is based on an understanding that learners construct knowledge for themselves (Hein, 1991; Krause et al, 2003). As Maypole and Davies (2001) have observed, constructivist theories encompass a disparate array of philosophical, psychological and epistemological orientations. One of the key distinctions within this broad theoretical 'camp' is that between cognitive and social constructivism. Cognitive constructivism is based on Piaget's model, which emphasises the interaction between the individual and their environment in constructing meaningful knowledge, whereas social constructivism attributed to the work of Vygotsky - emphasises the importance of student learning through interaction with the teacher and other students (Jadallah, 2000; Maypole & Davies, 2001). Insofar as the changes to teaching practice discussed in this article subscribe to constructivist approaches to learning and teaching, they adhere to the social constructivist orientation. Hence, the emphasis in the teaching practices reflected on here is on building the social context for learning, and on facilitating student learning through small group activity and encouragement of high levels of peer to peer, and learner to teacher interaction. While constructivism encompasses a broad array of understandings of learning theory and practice, the common thread running through this body of theory is the value placed on student-centred learning (Maypole & Davies, 2001). The principal implication of constructivist understandings for the way in which knowledge is produced is that students are the key initiators and architects of their own learning and knowledge-making, rather than passive 'vessels' who receive the transmission of knowledge from 'expert' teachers.

Student-centred learning (and teaching) has itself been variously defined as a process by which students are given greater autonomy and control over the choice of subject matter, the pace of learning, and the learning methods used (Gibbs, 1992), a mechanism for higher education reform, by which students have individual control over higher education finance via a voucher system (West, 1998), and a broad approach to teaching that ultimately holds the student responsible for their own educational advances (Nanney, no date). For the purposes of this discussion, I draw on the thinking of Weimer (2002), who is concerned with learner-centred teaching as an exercise in changing teaching practice. Specifically, Weimer identifies learner-centred teaching as encompassing five changes to practice:

shifting the balance of classroom power from teacher to student; designing content as a means to building knowledge rather than a 'knowledge end' in itself; positioning the teacher as facilitator and contributor, rather than director and source of knowledge; shifting responsibility for learning from teacher to learner; and promoting learning through effective assessment.

As is suggested by Weimer's five changes, shifting towards student-centred learning encompasses changes to the learning environment (social and physical), changes to the nature and communication of learning content, and changes to the assessment of learning. In the following discussion, I am particularly concerned with learning environment and learning content. While recognising that the nature of assessment is a central concern of student-centred educational design, the changes in teaching practice considered below were introduced after the fact with regard to design and promotion of the subject to the students involved. As such, significant deviations from originally planned assessment were not possible. While this somewhat constrains the analysis of learning outcomes achieved in the shift in educational design, it also reflects the real-world dynamics of adapting curricula in University contexts.

The Case Study Context


The contextual focus of this article is changes to teaching practice in a Public Policy Research Methods subject at the University of Melbourne. Policy Research Methods (PRM) is a Masters level elective subject in the Department of Political Science's Public Policy and Management Program. The subject is also available to students from the 4th year undergraduate program (including honours and pass degree students), the Master of Social Policy (a distinct, but related, program) and the Master of Development Studies (a program run by another department with different entry prerequisites to the Master of Public Policy and Management). The student cohort includes full time employed

professionals with significant middle management experience in their public policy fields (which range from economics to science to community services) and students with no professional experience of public policy. The group includes those in the final stages of a four-year degree and those who are taking up study for the first time in up to 10 years. It includes domestic students with experience in the Melbourne University environment and international students who are entering the Australian higher education system for the first time. In brief, the student cohort is diverse! The PRM class focused on in this discussion comprised 23 students, including thirteen masters students, two honours students, and eight pass degree undergraduates. Students in the class were citizens of Australia, Singapore, Sri Lanka, India, the United States, and Malaysia.

Methodology
The methodology employed in this analysis is a reflective case study approach loosely based on an action research methodology. In brief, the action research methodology may be described as an iterative process of change or intervention, data collection and analysis, and reflection leading to action outcomes. Attributed to the work of Kurt Lewin and later, Paolo Friere, action research in the context of education has been defined as a form of systematic inquiry that produces direct impacts on an educator's practice and empowers them to reinvigorate their classroom environments and promote improvements to instruction methods. (Glanz, 1991) In this case, significant changes to classroom teaching methods, which are discussed in further detail below, were introduced to the research methods subject. Qualitative and quantitative data were collected via formative and summative subject evaluations, student performance in assessment, and classroom observation. These data were comparatively analysed with similar data collected in the same subject in the previous year, with an emphasis on qualitative findings and descriptive statistics. The reflections discussed in this article form the basis for further curriculum changes in the future.

The Challenge
The primary learning objectives in the Policy Research Methods curriculum are to develop students' critical and reflective thinking about and practical skills in designing, implementing or managing empirical research relating to public policy (including applied research in the public and non-profit sectors and academic research about public policy issues). There are several practical and pedagogical challenges involved in effectively designing this subject. The practical challenges centre around the diversity of the student cohort. In brief, it is challenging to teach this subject in a manner that effectively accommodates the different educational and professional backgrounds of the class, particularly because, as a group, they have not had any common learning experiences. This is an increasingly common issue for educators teaching postgraduate coursework programmes, where degree

flexibility in the form of student choice in the pace, combination and order of subjects taken is encouraged. The practical challenge in this case is, in a nutshell, to build the common experiential ground necessary to facilitate students' engagement with substantive issues of the subject. The pedagogical challenge of this subject is a well-known one. Primarily, the challenge is one of making the research methods curriculum interesting to students (see Benson and Blackman, 2003). With regard to shifting from a teacher centred to a student-centred approach to teaching, the pedagogical challenge is one of moving away from a standard didactic approach of transferring technical information about research methods to students, to the creation of an interactive environment in which students are able to master that technical information through processes of communication, experience, reflection and collective analysis. While social research methods teaching is traditionally characterised by the former, my own experience of teaching this material in four different programmes at three different universities is that this results in a very 'instrumental' understanding of the process of conducting effective research. The main pedagogical objective in shifting toward a more student-centred approach was to enhance students' experiential understanding of the complexities and creativity of conducting effective research in political environments.

The Change to Practice


In seeking to develop a more student-centred approach in this subject, I focused specifically on the role and nature of small group activities. As Hativa (2000) has identified, student-centred instructional methods include discussion, group work, roleplaying, experiential learning, problem based learning and case-method teaching. All of these methods were utilised in various combinations throughout the semester. Table One sets out the specific changes made within the subject in the year in question (2004), compared to the lesson design of the previous year (2003). In brief, the changes made included, increasing the number and diversity of small group activities within class time; changing the order of class events so that small group activity and class discussion generally preceded any formal lecturer presentation; and drawing explicitly on primary resources (such as newspaper articles, research reports and policy documents) in the design of small group activities wherever possible. For the purposes of brevity, only two specific topics covered in class (research ethics and designing effective research instruments) are discussed in detail below. However, significant changes were made to the educational design of each topic covered in class. It should be noted that more didactic teaching practice - in the form of formal presentation from the lecturer - was not done away with altogether. Rather, this aspect of teaching was de-emphasised in favour of small and large group interaction using primary source material wherever possible. Subject Topic Introduction 2003 Class Design 2004 Class Design

Ice-breaker, subject overview Ice-breaker, subject overview and and preliminary presentation preliminary class discussion

Philosophy of Social Research Ethics Principles of Effective Research Design Sampling methods

Lecturer presentation followed by scenario exercises General discussion and lecturer presentation Lecturer presentation and small group discussion Lecturer presentation and general discussion Group analysis of existing instruments (examples of good practice and bad practice), lecturer presentation Computer workshop and lecturer presentation Lecturer presentation and general discussion Not covered

Scenario exercises followed by lecturer presentation 4 way case study followed by lecturer presentation Individual exercise, large group discussion, small group exercise, and lecturer presentation Small group scenario exercise, large group discussion, lecturer presentation Group participation in formative evaluation of the subject, group reflection on the survey instrument, lecturer presentation Guest lecturer, small group scenario exercise, small group critical reading exercise and class discussion Small group scenario exercise and lecturer presentation Role plays drawing on two scenarios drawn from current public affairs

Designing Research Instruments

Data Analysis

Evaluation Politics in Research

Table 1: Changes in Class Design, 2003-2004

Reflections on Changes to Class design:


1. Ethics The specific objectives of this topic were to ensure students' understanding of the range of legal, moral, and practical issues that inform the conduct of effective social research in a public policy context, and the complex of needs of different policy actors in relation to research ethics. Further, the learning objective was to encourage students to move beyond viewing ethics as simple a matter of compliance, towards a critical understanding that ethical practice is also constitutive of effective practice in policy research.

In 2003, this class was based on a general class discussion about research ethics in context, followed by formal lecture presentation. In 2004, however, a four-way case study method was utilised. The case-study scenario was based on an actual research project being commissioned by the state Government at the time, and four different 'stakeholder positions' (ie the government, the subjects of the research, the commercial team contracted to do the work, and the workers whose work might be affected by the findings) were allocated to the students, who were divided into four small groups. This was followed by a class discussion, focusing on the different needs and expectations of stakeholder groups regarding ethical considerations in the research. The session was concluded with a formal presentation to augment students' understanding of epistemological approaches to research ethics, and the practical considerations involved. Reflections: While the format employed in 2003 did not appear to have adverse affects on student understandings of research ethics, the extent to which the 2004 format enhanced student learning and subsequent knowledge was notable in the more advanced level of large class discussion that occurred immediately following the case study activity. Students in the 2004 class demonstrated an understanding and engagement with the diversity of perspectives that inform ethical choices in research, and moved significantly beyond a discussion of compliance into a broader critical engagement with the philosophical frameworks that underpin research ethics. Just as importantly, the case study provided students with a common 'experience' which proved valuable when they were introduced to the more formal aspect of the class, as we could draw on this commonality to provide examples to support some of the broader conceptual issues being discussed. In this sense, the interactive small group activity became an important 'technology' (see Cooper, 1979) in the educational design for this topic. In terms of enhancing the social context of learning (see Bruffee, 1993; Jarvis), 1995, the exercise also provided students with opportunities to further get to know each other, and the small group and class discussions were characterised by broad participation, a higher level of peer to peer engagement than in previous classes, and much laughter and hilarity! 2. Designing Effective Research Instruments The objectives for this topic were to get students thinking about the principles of designing effective instruments, such as surveys, interview schedules and focus group questions. This included thinking about the micro-features of the instruments themselves, the quality of overall design, and the potential impacts of the external environment on that design. In 2003, this topic was based on students critically analysing existing research instruments that had been brought to class as practical examples. In 2004, however, this exercise was extended through a process of modeling practice. That is, the session was based on an anonymous formative evaluation questionnaire of the subject, which was administered at the beginning of class. Following students'

completion of the questionnaire (and after these had been collected and put away), class discussion about the design and administration of the questionnaire was facilitated. Students were encouraged to reflect on their own experience of completing the questionnaire and any problems of interpretation they experienced, while I reflected on the ethical and practical challenges of designing the questionnaire. This interaction continued through the more formal presentation phase of the class, which aimed to draw in information about a broader range of research instruments drawing on set readings on the topic. Reflections: The class exercise used in 2003 was effective in encouraging students' critical analysis of existing research instruments from an external perspective. The exercise used in 2004 also encouraged critical analysis, but this time students related to the activity as actual participants in the research itself, which appeared to enhance their experiential understanding of the power of good (and not so good) research design. In addition, the process of administering the questionnaire gave me the opportunity to reinforce points from this and earlier classes by modeling how to administer a questionnaire appropriately. Finally, the results from the formative evaluation provided an opportunity to assess students' experience of the subject, and to adapt subsequent classes to meet stated needs. Impacts of the Approach on Students' Learning Experiences The outcomes of taking a more student-centred approach within the context of teaching PRM appear to have been consistently positive. With regard to student performance in assessment as a measure of learning outcomes, the mean result for 2004 was somewhat higher than it was in 2003. This information needs to be interpreted very cautiously, however, as the two classes are not directly comparable in terms of size or cohort. Perhaps more convincingly is the quantitative and qualitative evidence derived from student evaluations. In 2003, students rated the quality of teaching in the subject as 4.2 on a five point scale (N = 9), while in 2004, the mean quality of teaching score was 4.8 (N = 18). Mean satisfaction with the overall quality of learning increased considerably, from 3.1 in 2003 to 4.6 in 2004. Further, in response to the statement "This subject was intellectually stimulating", the mean response in 2004 was 4.4, compared with 3.7 in 2003. Interestingly, despite the significantly increased levels of group-based activity in 2004, there were no notable differences in student responses to the statement "I felt part of the group", with each cohort responding favourably to this questionnaire item. This may in part be an effect of the fact that the class size was considerably smaller (N=10) in the earlier year. Given the limitations of comparatively analysing statistical responses where class sizes are different and extraneous factors have not been controlled for, the qualitative evidence is of particular significance. There was considerably stronger qualitative feedback from students in 2004, with comments such as:

Practical elements were very good and helped everything sink in and use our skills Group work helped me understand other people's perspectives and approaches Lecture arrangements such as group work were great...considering I had no idea of policy research to begin with, I've learnt quite a fair bit Five stars to case studies and class exercises! They're really enabling me to relate class content and readings in public policy (which is exactly the point, yey!) With regard to the teaching methods used, the themes that emerged strongly from qualitative feedback in 2004 included:

Repeated group work helped students to understand different perspectives and think more critically and reflectively about their own assumptions and values in relation to doing research; Students enjoyed getting to know each other, and felt confident to express themselves in class as a result of feeling comfortable with each other; The use of primary source material kept the subject matter interesting and relevant; and Formal presentation of content from the lecturer remained important.

Anecdotally, several students also indicated during the course of the subject that they had found that the group work processes developed had directly assisted them in the workplace and/or in their study techniques in other subjects. Two of the international students involved in the subject also indicated that they particularly valued the high level of social interaction in the subject, as it had helped them to make friends with domestic students, which they had found difficult in other classes. This illuminates the conclusions of broader studies (see, for example McInnis & James, 1995; Pascarella & Terenzini, 1998) that student learning outcomes and broader social engagement with University life are interdependent features in positive higher education experiences. Overall, increasing the frequency, type and order of student-centred learning methods in the classroom appeared to have a positive effect on student performance, satisfaction and learning experience in this case. This supports Benson and Blackman's (2003) observations that activity-based approaches to teaching research methods better facilitate student learning than the more didactic model that is traditionally applied to this subject matter.

Critical Reflections on Student-Centred Teaching


As suggested by the teaching and learning experience discussed above, utilising teaching approaches that encourage students' active and experiential engagement with the subject matter (and with each other) has the potential to be extremely effective, in terms of student satisfaction and class performance. This is particularly notable in the context of a research methods subject, given that research methods is traditionally considered to lend

itself to more didactic approaches where vast amounts of technical information are transmitted from teacher to student. From the teaching perspective, the reorientation of teaching methods toward a studentcentred approach proved particularly rewarding in this case. Nevertheless, there are some conceptual issues associated with this approach that require further critical reflection. The student-centred teaching model interpolates students as active learners without really unpacking what constitutes an active learner. In my experience, students participate in their own learning in a diversity of ways, and these are not always clearly observable as 'active' learning in the classroom. With regard to the PRM experience in 2004, the potential problems of defining active learning as a set of specific behaviours and activities was reinforced by one student's formative evaluation comment on in-class exercises that: I am really enjoying this subject and am learning a lot...[however] I got extremely stressed when required to verbally present our [small group] findings. This anxiety became such a problem I often considered missing class to avoid the situation. As Brookfield (1990) has pointed out, the nature of participation in education is culturally contingent, and leads us to measure participation via the presence and frequency of particular student behaviours. While the notion of the active learner is a valuable one, then, it is important that as educators, we are reflective about our own personal, experiential and cultural preconceptions of 'activeness' when designing and facilitating learning. A related limitation of the student-centred model illuminated in this case study is the subjugation of expert (educator) knowledge in favour of student engagement through problem-based learning. Weimer (2002) discusses this in terms of shifting classroom power from teacher to students. However, I would argue that this notion is based on very fixed, and limited, understandings of the nature of power and who holds it in any given context. The case study experience discussed here suggests that, while there is much to be said for facilitating students' active learning, sometimes one of the most empowering ways to do that is to share some learning of one's own. Geelan (1996) talks about this when reflecting on his own attempts at student-centred teaching as an issue of recognising that there is a difference between constructing a new set of expectations and responsibilities for ourselves as educators, and simply transferring teaching responsibilities onto the class. Student feedback on both the formative and summative evaluations of the subject discussed here consistently indicated that formal presentation of technical material and disciplinary insights by the lecturer was a very important part of their comprehension and learning in this subject. What appeared to make the transmission of this information more effective, however, was the use of group exercises and primary source material that allowed students to build a common experience from which to draw concrete examples and to which they could relate specific dilemmas. This common experiential ground was generally created through small group activities prior to the more formal presentation. Consequently, the formal presentation sessions were, themselves,

much more interactive, with students drawing on the small group activities and discussions to ask questions and make observations throughout the formal part of each topic. While an emphasis on student-centredness provided the orienting focus for the subject, some of its greatest learning value appeared to lie in the way in which that was effectively integrated with more didactic teaching practice. In this sense, class content was both a knowledge resource and a mechanism by which students developed their own knowledge further.

Conclusions
The shift toward student-centredness through the use of interactive small group activities based on primary resources appears to have significantly enhanced students' learning in this case. The classroom experience was characterised by a high level of dialogue and interaction, the assessment results suggest overall strong engagement with the subject matter, and student feedback was very positive. One of the key strengths of this approach was that it allowed students to build common experiential ground, which provided a shared base for engaging with more technical aspects of the subject matter. This is increasingly important in higher education contexts where flexible learning pathways are producing diverse student cohorts with no, or highly limited, common learning experiences. At the same time, student feedback on the more didactic features of the curriculum was equally positive. What was important, it seemed, was that the common experiential ground and supportive social context was developed first, in order to support students' access to, and engagement with, this more didactically delivered material. This suggests that a holistic teaching approach at the individual subject level is as important as particular teaching techniques that emphasise student-centredness. The use of a more student-centred approach using small group activities has improved my response to the practical and pedagogical challenges of teaching social research methods at the postgraduate coursework level. My own conclusions are that, in the context of teaching research methods to diverse cohorts of students, integration between student-centred and more traditional approaches to teaching are a recipe for success. In the spirit of student-centredness, however, it is more appropriate to conclude with a student's observation:

Traditionally, teachers direct the learning process and students assume a receptive role in their education. With the advent of progressive education in the 19th century, and the influence of psychologists, some educators have largely replaced traditional curriculum approaches with "hands-on" activities and "group work", which the child determines on his own what he wants to do in class. Key amongst these changes is the premise that students actively construct their own learning. Theorists like John Dewey, Jean Piaget,

and Lev Vygotsky whose collective work focused on how students learn is primarily responsible for the move to student-centred learning. Carl Rogers' ideas about the formation of the individual also contributed to student-centred learning. Student-centred learning means reversing the traditional teacher-centred understanding of the learning process and putting students at the centre of the learning process. Maria Montessori was also an influence in centre-based learning, where preschool children learn through play. Student-centred learning allows students to actively participate in discovery learning processes from an autonomous viewpoint. Students consume the entire class time constructing a new understanding of the material being learned without being passive, but rather proactive. A variety of hands-on activities are administered in order to promote successful learning. Unique, yet distinctive learning styles are encouraged in a studentcentred classroom. With the use of valuable learning skills, students are capable of achieving life-long learning goals, which can further enhance student motivation in the classroom. Self-determination theory focuses on the degree to which an individuals behaviour is self-motivated and self-determined. Therefore, when students are given the opportunity to gauge their learning, learning becomes an incentive. Because learning can be seen as a form of personal growth, students are encouraged to utilize selfregulation practices in order to reflect on his or her work. For that reason, learning can also be constructive in the sense that the student is in full control of his or her learning. Over the past few decades, a paradigm shift in curriculum has occurred where the teacher acts as a facilitator in a student-centred classroom. Such emphasis on learning has enabled students to take a self-directed alternative to learning. In the teacher-centred classroom, teachers are the primary source for knowledge. Therefore, the focus of learning is to gain information as it is proctored to the student. Also, rote learning or memorization of teacher notes or lectures was the norm a few decades ago. On the other hand, student-centred classrooms are now the norm where active learning is strongly encouraged. Students are now researching material pertinent to the success of their academia and knowledge production is seen as a standard. In order for a teacher to veer towards a student-centred classroom, he or she must become aware of the diverse backgrounds of his or her learners. To that end, the incorporation of a few educational practices such as Bloom's Taxonomy and Howard Gardners Theory of Multiple intelligences can be beneficial to a student-centred classroom because it promotes various modes of diverse learning styles. The following provides a few examples of why student-centred learning should be integrated into the curriculum:

Strengthens student motivation Promotes peer communication Reduces disruptive behaviour Builds student-teacher relationships Promotes discovery/active learning Responsibility for ones own learning

These changes have impacted educator's methods of teaching and the way students learn. In essence, one might say that we teach and learn in a constructivist-learning paradigm. It

is important for teachers to acknowledge the increasing role and function of his or her educational practices. As our educational practices changes, so does our approach to teaching and learning change. Therefore, the mindset about teaching and learning is constantly evolving into new and innovative ways to reach diverse learners. When a teacher allows their students to make inquiries or even set the stage for his or her academic success, learning is more productive. With the openness of a student-centred learning environment, knowledge production is vital when providing students the opportunity to explore their own learning styles. In that respect, successful learning also occurs when learners are fully engaged in the active learning process. A further distinction from a teacher-centred classroom to that of a student-centred classroom is when the teacher acts as a facilitator. In essence, the teachers goal in the learning process is to guide students into making new interpretations of the learning material. In terms of curriculum practice, the student has the choice in what they want to study and how they are going to apply their newfound knowledge. According to Ernie Stringer, Student learning processes are greatly enhanced when they participate in deciding how they may demonstrate their competence in a body of knowledge or the performance of skills. This pedagogical implication enables the student to establish his or her unique learning objectives. This aspect of learning holds the learner accountable for production of knowledge that he or she is capable of producing. In this stage of learning, the teacher evaluates the learner by providing honest and timely feedback on individual progress. Building a rapport with students is an essential strategy that educators could utilize in order to gauge student growth in a student-centred classroom. Through effective communication skills, the teacher is able to address student needs, interests, and overall engagement in the learning material. According to James Henderson, there are three basic principles of democratic living, which he says are not yet established in our society in terms of education. The three basic tenets, which he calls the 3Ss of teaching for democratic living, are:

(Subject Learning)- Students learn best from subject matter thoughtfully presented. (Self-Learning)- One must engage oneself in the generative process. (Social Learning)- Empathy is wealth in this regard, social interaction with diverse others the target for generosity.

Through peer-to-peer interaction, collaborative thinking can lead to an abundance of knowledge. According to Lev Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), students typically learn vicariously through one another. Through a socio-cultural perspective on learning, scaffolding is important when fostering independent thinking skills. Vygotsky proclaims, "Learning which is oriented toward developmental levels that have already been reached is ineffective from the view point of the child's overall development. It does not aim for a new stage of the developmental process but rather lags behind this process." In essence, instruction is designed to access a developmental level that is measurable to the students current stage in development.

También podría gustarte