Judging by the number of school districts that identify themselves as student-centred in their mission statements, this philosophical approach has become dominant across North America. Even though the idea of student-centred classrooms may be seductive, there are a number of very good reasons to believe this type of learning is misguided.
A classroom at the Academy for Gifted Children - P.A.C.E. in Richmond Hill, Ontario. PHOTO BY: Tim Fraser
Imagine observing a Grade 11 chemistry classroom with 25 students. It is the first day of school and the teacher walks into the room. Out of the 26 people in the room, who would you expect to have the best understanding of chemistry? If you said the teacher, welcome to the world of common sense. Obviously, the chemistry teacher, who has taken university courses in chemistry, has knowledge and understanding that the majority of students, if not all of them, currently lack. That’s why the children in school are called students while the teachers are paid for their knowledge and their ability to transmit that knowledge to the students.
Obviously, effective teachers use a variety of strategies and techniques to help students learn a subject. However, parents should be concerned if high school chemistry teachers allowed the students to decide their own learning goals and construct their own understandings of chemistry. Some students could set their goal to learn as much chemistry as possible while others could set their goal to learn as little as possible. Is this choice sensible? Certainly not, and no self-respecting and competent teacher would allow it.
Teachers Promote Greater Understanding of Subjects
Essentially, this reasoning applies to every subject at every grade level. Most parents expect that teachers have a better understanding of the subject matter than students, and that they have the skills and ability to teach the students. If so, why should students, parents, and taxpayers, tolerate having the students determine the learning goals? Teachers are granted authority, and they are paid, because they have the knowledge and skills to teach the students. If teachers are not better versed in the subject than their students, and if they cannot promote greater understanding of the subject matter, then they should not be given authority in classrooms and they should not be paid as teachers.
How does teaching and learning take place outside public schools? Can you imagine a driver education academy that called itself student-centred and reduced the responsibilities of instructors to facilitators? What would parents think about a driving instructor saying, “I can’t really teach you to drive; you must learn by yourself.” Or worse, “you tell me how you want to drive, we will try it out, and then I’ll help you drive that way.”
In such an academy, the instructors could avoid being “experts.” Instead, they would be fellow students who were also learning how to drive. Most people probably recognize the absurdity of allowing student drivers to set their own goals and decide on their own methods of learning to drive. There are already too many traffic accidents without the foolishness of student-centred driving schools.
Obviously, public school teachers are not mere learning facilitators or coaches. Rather, teachers have the responsibility to ensure that students learn the essentials of reading, writing, poetry, art, music, and all the other subjects that make them educated citizens who will participate effectively in a democratic society. This principle is true for teachers in Grade 3 classrooms as well as for teachers in Grade 12 classrooms.
An unhealthy fixation with student-centred education leads to the conclusion that specialized advanced knowledge and training for teachers is unnecessary because teachers are learning alongside their students anyway. Contrary to this romantic progressive view, teachers must use their specialized education, skills, and the understanding they have of their students to actually teach them and direct their learning in productive ways.
Students First Nova Scotia
“Students should come first” in education, “not adults in the system,” parents and citizens urged at a public forum in Halifax. Drafted by a group of 16 Nova Scotians on March 28, the Declaration of Principles, entitled “Students First Nova Scotia,” calls upon concerned citizens to rally behind a reform agenda encouraging education authorities to “elevate teaching, empower parents, raise standards, and spend wisely.” Read more here.
[Michael Zwaagstra co-authored the book What’s Wrong with Our Schools and How We Can Fix Them in 2010. His columns promoting common-sense education reform have been published in major daily newspapers such as the National Post, Globe and Mail and Winnipeg Free Press.]
* * * * *
Read Dialogue magazine’s interview with Zwaagstra on 21st-century learning.
* * * * *
Should schools be teacher-centred, or is there some value to student-centred classrooms? Share your thoughts in the Comments section below, or by emailing us.
I absolutely agree that this move towards 'student-centered' classrooms is unrealistic and ultimately harmful. The only caveat I will add is that the classroom must be 'student-centered' in that the students must be given ways to practice the knowledge and skills that are being taught. I teach writing at a community college and often tell my students that going through a writing class without writing is like reading a book about swimming but never getting in the pool. The teacher must let the students know what they need to know/do, and then let them do it. Then, if students are practicing and doing their work, but still struggling, perhaps it's also wise to let that fact direct the methods of instruction so the teacher can get them to learn what they need to learn.
If that is how 'student-centered' is defined, then that's fine with me. But I do not want to be called a 'facilitator', and I absolutely do not want to hear that the students run the class and determine the goals, methods, and materials. I might have a responsibility to be responsive to how well or how poorly my students are performing/learning, and I shouldn't just sit at my desk and spout out without regard to the students' experience. But in my classroom, there is no mistaking who is in charge and in terms of the subject matter, I know better than them. That's why I'm the _teacher_.
And this is one of the major reasons why I teach at a community college where I have autonomy in my classroom.
I myself am a teacher and I find that this article shows a significant lack of understanding about what child-centered education actually means. It's NOT about teachers lacking knowledge of subject matter, it's about the teacher understanding their students' abilities and interests, and using this understanding to guide what they do in the classroom. Surprising for someone who claims to know how to fix schools.
While I agree with Mr. Zwaagstra's opinion that a meaningful education includes the transmission of content and can be facilitated by 'effective teaching', I am somewhat less enthusiastic about his onto-epistemic assumptions. I might suggest that Mr. Zwaagstra's approach to epistemology warrants critical attention. He has, knowingly or not, endorsed a vision of education which priviliges an 'enlightened subject', and he has invoked identity and homogeneity – transcendent ideals – as the ground of 'meaningful education'. Clearly, he is unfamiliar with the study of identity, and it might be helpful to contrast his assumptions of static 'discoverable' identities with research literature in cultural studies, psychoanalysis, narrative studies, poststructural philosophy, etc.
As well, I think it is worth drawing attention to the overal lack of conceptual and theoretical rigour in Mr. Zwaagstra's framing of pedagogic practice:
First, while it may be the case that teachers 'know more' than students, it is not the case that the more teachers know the better teachers they are. As a teacher, I do not need to possess 'understanding' of content in order for students to learn. Often, a teacher's 'common sense' understandings actually get in the way of learning. (For an example of this tendency, see Webb's "Reflection and reflective teaching: Ways to improve pedagogy or ways to remain racist?" (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713693057~db=all~order=page). Likewise, it is not the case that knowledgable teachers necessarily translate into superior learning outcomes. In the same way, the relationship between the moral education of students and a teacher who models ethical behaviour is ambiguous, at best. Equally so for parents. Amazing parents, stable households, and brilliant teachers do not necessarily yield 'knowledgable citizens'. These relationships are indeterminate, not causal, and for Mr. Zwaagstra to simplify education down to 'knowledgable teachers' insinuates he doesn't really understand how epistemes and discourses spread. In other words, he doesn't appear to understand the process of learning. And, contrary to Mr. Zwaagstra's claim, I would argue that teachers and students are better served by problematizing the process of learning than assuming it to be determinate. Mr. Zwaagstra might find it helpful to study up on Foucault.
Second, it is worth asking where learning occurs. Is the objective to facilitate the learning of teachers or students? If the objective is to create opportunities for students to learn, how much teachers know is procedurally relevant but not causally relevant. This is because the understandings students take away are ideosyncratic and fluid. To suggest that each student understands similarly is a violent form of ideologic colonialism, and cannot be sustained.
Third, I take issue with Mr. Zwaagstra's simplification of knowledge. Knowledge is not something 'out there', just 'waiting to be discovered', but something deeply immersed within networks of power and domination. From a philosophic vantage, knowledge needs to be troubled and problematized, not passively transmitted and consumed. Every fact is a story and no story is neutral. Mr. Zwaagstra doesn't seem to have acknowledged these epistemologic aporias, and it makes his suggestions seem somewhat … unrefined.
An unacknowledged question in Mr. Zwaagstra's article is why students who aren't interested in studying chemistry find themselves compelled to study chemistry. Should all students be equally motivated to study chemistry? Are all students in all classes equally motivated? Mr. Zwaagstra seems to have a very under-theorized concept of motivation in education. A student's motivation to learn factors into educational outcomes more than how much a teacher 'knows' about a subject. As the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink." Mr. Zwaagstra seems to think that if teachers know where the water is and explain it effectively, students will drink. Nothing could be further from the truth. Classrooms aren't limited to cultural reproduction. All sorts of resistances occur – all beyond the influence of the 'knowledgable teacher'.
It's also worth considering Mr. Zwaagstra's example: "How does teaching and learning take place outside of public schools?" I would suggest that the majority of learning that takes place outside of schools is more appropriately considered student-centered than teacher-centered, as Mr. Zwaagstra suggests. People learn things about things they're interested in, whether they have a knowledgable teacher or not. Further, in the example of a 'driving instructor', I would likewise suggest that this is a thoroughly student-centered endeavour. It doesn't matter how good the instructor drives, or how many 'rules of the road' the instructor has internalized, what matters is the educational experience of the 'student'. At the least, what's suggested here is that Mr. Zwaagstra's "inside/outside" dichotomy is vulnerable to deconstruction. Derrida would be especially helpful here.
Finally, it appears as though Mr. Zwaagstra has constructed a Straw Man argument: the student-centered approach to pedagogy is not exempt from teachers' influence. Far from it, in fact. Rather, in student-centered approaches the teacher acts as a facilitator for what students want to learn, and in the process of failitating students' learning teachers shape the horizons of creativity and appropriateness. What Mr. Zwaagstra is advocating, in fact, is a mode of pedagogic practice that some would consider inhospitable and unjust. To this end, an excellent critique of Mr. Zwaagstra's approach to learning would be Dr. Claudia Ruitenberg's "Giving place to unforeseeable learning: The inhospitality of outcomes-based education" (http://ojs.ed.uiuc.edu/index.php/pes/article/view/2712/1042).
In summary, I would contend that Mr. Zwaagstra's approach to education is not only anachronistic but violent and unethical. I hope that in the future Ourkids.net solicits critically-informed perspectives, rather than ideologic ones.
I believe you are a little misguided on your understanding of Student Centered Education. Here by definition it means allowing a student to use their understandings, abilities, learning styles and available tools to learn the required content. Now this content is similar for all students.
I will agree that I am the teacher, but in regards to being an expert, I am not. I could always learn and should always be learning.
Finally, in relation to the lofty idea that "Teachers are granted authority, and they are paid, because they have the knowledge and skills to teach the students. If teachers are not better versed in the subject than their students, and if they cannot promote greater understanding of the subject matter, then they should not be given authority in classrooms and they should not be paid as teachers." I think that you are absolutely correct and if any teacher is unable to convey and impart 80% their knowledge to a minimum of 80% of their students that they should be removed. No second chance, no mistakes, no do-overs.
I think your idea/opinion, while it is your own is a little . . . well misguided.
This post's criticism of a student-focused classroom is built on a foundation of misconceptions and ignorance. To be honest, this post sounds like the rantings of someone who would like to be seen as knowledgeable and reputable in the field of education and yet has not taken the time or effort to properly research or attempt a student-centered education himself.
Associating a student-centered classroom with anarchy is nothing more than a caricature critique of what it actually takes to provide a child-centered learning environment. And in the end, such a irresponsible critique amounts to nothing more than fear mongering.
Mr. Zwaagstra, I suggest you do a little more research and development around student-centered education. You can start by reading Pablo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed and Alfie Kohn's The Schools Our Children Deserve.
I think it's worth mentioning that an "unhealthy fixation" extends just as saliently to teacher-centered instruction as it does to student-centered instruction. Balance is key, and this article is decidedly unbalanced.
I think the strongest argument against the traditional model of instruction is contained within this very article: teacher experts currently teach students how to drive, and now vehicle related deaths are as common as dirt. Is it really common sense to sit back and accept that vehicle-related deaths are just a fact of life? Or is it possible to revisit what is a clearly broken system?
Please don't twist the term "common sense" to mean "tradition". And please stop implying that my competence and self respect as a teacher stems from the perception that I have nothing left to learn.
Michael Zwaagstra (and other closed minded people) are 'what's wrong with our schools'. His opinions take us back decades….
Plus ça change…
Mr. Zwaagstra's comments show a common, and deeply unsettling misconception about what student-centred actually means. In much the same way that the implementation of "whole language" a generation ago (or so) did not really mean that students were not to be taught grammar or spelling, so student-centred does not mean that students run the classroom. Obviously, students who do not know a subject cannot be expected to even begin to ask the right questions, let alone know the answers. This is not what student-centred means, and anyone who says otherwise is either deeply misinformed or selling something.
To run a student-centred classroom is to inspire, excite and intrigue students with the subject. It means to draw them in and fire a passion to explore and understand a topic. I have taught sciences, social studies, mathematics and technology courses from grade 3 to senior high, and I try to be as student-centred as I can. I resent the implication that this means I am short-changing my students. I give my students authentic tasks for real audiences that drive them to think well beyond the traditional curriculum. By incorporating their interests into the situations I create for them, or that we create together, the students who graduate from my school have enjoyed success at some of the top Universities around the world. More importantly, I flatter myself that I encourage more equity among ability levels as I can draw disengaged students more easily into this situation than I ever could when I tried to simply fill their heads with vast quantities of facts and figures (as, I shamefully admit, I did as a young teacher).
So, Mr. Zwaagstra, that just leaves me with one question about your article. Are you deeply misinformed about the teaching profession, or are you just selling something?
Vanguest
I on the other hand, support Mr. Zwaagstra, it looks like to me the gang of Physc trained educators who discuss the subject in endless detail but have little or no application experience have ganged up on him. My simple point to you folks is Mr. Zwaagstra's just speaking of the teaching methods that are tried and true. My child comes home confused and I have to confront this New Math and see that what I am paying for is not working. If this was any other type of organization that required results in order to get paid it would go bankrupt within a year. Your highly sophisticated view of education does not get results. You can babel on all you want impressing some people, but I for one know your styles have already failed.
I am a teacher and I agree with Zwaagstra. Turning over every learning task to small group collaboration is overly time consuming. At the high school level, teachers have to cover (and yes, I know that "cover" is a dirty word) an enormous amount of material. The breadth of learning that is required does not easily lend itself to turning over a classroom to the misinformed. In my own experience, I have always hated it when teachers and college professors went in this direction because I felt I was paying (remember there's tuition to pay in college) for the professor's expertise, not for the misinformed, incomprehensible meanderings of the unmotivated. The professor endured years of training and discipline to gain the suitable credentials to teach me. Why then would I want to pay upwards of a thousand dollars to listen to an uncredentialed peer teach me as much as I could learn on my own?
Now I am really confused….lots of theories and lots of schools of thought and we can’t decide which is better for the student???