For a paper that I am writing, I chose to explore the terms "teacher-centered" and "student-centered" instruction in more detail. One of the sources that I was perusing was Human Learning
by Jeanne Ellis Ormrod. In her book, Ormrod voices something unique
that I have not seen in any other source to date. Ormrod argues that "teacher-centered" and "student-centered" instruction are inadequate and misleading terms. She insists that all instruction is "student-centered,"
even lectures (if designed appropriately) because they are (or should
be) centered around the students (to what degree, that varies). Instead
Ormrod introduces the terms "teacher-directed" and "student-directed"
instruction, which she claims are more accurate. While she argues that
all instruction is "student-centered," she argues the real difference is
in who directs (or is in control) of instructional and the learning
process.
What do you think? Do you agree or disagree with Ormrod?
Interesting proposal. I certainly see where Ormrod is coming from- theoretically, all classroom instruction should be designed with students in mind (i.e., student centered according to Ormrod). I wonder how true that is in reality. I know of a few professors in my academic career (not many, but a few) that seem to be giving lectures to promote themselves (READ: I like to listen to myself speak.) and do not really consider students' learning (READ: I will stand up here and lecture and you will get it or not). Directed seems to offer some different semantics, but I still don't know if "student-centered" methods are equivalent to "student-directed." Students may be involved in their own learning process without fully, 100% directing it. The instructor remains in their role as facilitator and leader in either case (i.e., "directing" the learning). Active learning or engaged learning seems to more accurately describe the relationship, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteIf we are to discuss the name itself, I would propose that teaching should be student-and-teacher-directed. That might require balancing on the thin rope of power but I think that allowing students to have more responsibility for their learning should at the end befit them.
ReplyDeleteI understand that there is something to be said for semantics, but it seems to me that the titles should fall from the approach we actually take. I sepnt some time studying in the Engineering Education department here at VT. It drove me nuts, trying to sit in the observer role and researching the teaching rather than designing the teaching method. It brought out one of my serious faults - lack of patience! I applaud the people who can do this type of research, but personally, I think our students will benefit more from those of us who do teach focusing our energies on the action rather than the description!
ReplyDelete