I'll keep this short, because I am clueless.
Yesterday, one of my fucktard colleagues was going on and on and on about the importance of "student-centered teaching." I just didn't understand it. I still don't. Is student-centered teaching more like geocentric teaching or heliocentric teaching? Is it like Lincoln-Center teaching? Or slightly-off-center teaching? WTF?
So I just nodded a little bit and kept my eyes open.
Q. Can anybody tell me what this great "student-centered teaching" is? And what's an example of teaching that's not student-centered?
A. Please use real words, not fluffy higher-education jargon.
In the standard model of teaching, the focus is on the subject matter, the faculty are guides and evaluators, and the students job is to meet the standards set by faculty, with demonstrated proficiency serving as the basis for evaluation. Sorry about the surplus of commas.
ReplyDeleteStudent-centered puts the onus on the faculty to provide some sort of "positive learning" experience for the student. It's about subverting the subject matter / proficiency basis with a self esteem ra ra bullshit happy student experience. This approach is based on either a false intellectual peer model where students are viewed as the pedagogical equals of faculty or a cynical, corrupt service model where students buy a happy outcome.
Bah Humbug
Teaching that is not student-centered is when the teacher stands in front of the class and pontificates for an hour.
ReplyDeleteA student-centered teacher tries to involve students in discussions by asking them questions, promoting group activities, getting them to produce something in the classroom as opposed to snoozing through a teacher's lecture.
I teach language and literature, so all of my teaching is very student-centered.
It's teaching by asking questions, like Socrates. Instead of being "the sage on the stage," the instructor is supposed to become "the guide on the side." Never mind that Socrates admitted that he never taught natural science or mathematics. (He did this in the Apology of Plato.) Never mind also that the Athenians poisoned Socrates.
ReplyDeleteFor a criticism of student-centered teaching, see "The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom?" by Jeanne S. Chall (2000). That said, student-centered instruction can work for literature or philosophy. It helps to have far fewer than 100 students in the classroom and for the students to have done the readings in advance and to be interested in the subject, but this is desirable for teacher-centered learning, too.
ReplyDeleteA student-centered teacher tries to involve students in discussions by asking them questions, promoting group activities, getting them to produce something in the classroom as opposed to snoozing through a teacher's lecture.
ReplyDeleteAnd the response in my organic chemistry class is often ... crickets. They're not willing to give me anything to praise them for, and then complain that I don't affirm them enough.
In the Humanities, it's impossible to learn how to practice the skills of a given discipline without discussion, hands-on individual work, Socratic questioning, and so on. Memorizing facts about, say, literary history gives you absolutely no tools to analyze a work of literature. The classroom *is* the lab or practicum.
ReplyDeleteIn the sciences, with labs, perhaps it's different, and appropriate to just stand there and lecture. The student-centered part would be in the lab, I presume.
Anyway, a mix of teacher-centered and student-centered styles seems to work best: Humanities teachers also have to step back and frame things, give mini-lectures, and so on to make student output cohesive and coherent.
In the sciences, with labs, perhaps it's different, and appropriate to just stand there
ReplyDeleteand lecture.
It's not. Science education research has shown that for the majority of students, straight lecturing is not very effective. (The ones for whom it is effective are probably the ones who will learn regardless of teaching methods. That is, they probably learn in spite of having straight lectures, rather than because of it.) Physics and astronomy education research has shown that there are far more effective things you can be doing, even in large lecture classes. (For instance, seek out "Peer Instruction" by Eric Mazur.)
Science education research has shown that... there are far more effective things you can be doing
ReplyDeleteI like to put my students in a box with some reagents and hypodermic needles and a rattle snake and then lock the box. It teaches them the need to be able to recall reaction mechanisms without the use of flashcards or the back cover of the orgo book.
Frog and Toad...I think that I love you.
ReplyDeleteIn the sciences lecture is important since it is very unlikely that many students will synthesize the material on their own. The Moore method really only works well when the students are very bright AND motivated.
ReplyDeleteHowever, engaging your students is important. They need to feel comfortable asking questions when they have them (which is far more often than any of us think). They learn more when they are a part of the example process. For example, I'll put a question on the board and act like a pushy recorder. I ask questions like "What is the first step", "what do we do next", "are we finsihed yet?"...
Why is the lecture format always dismissed as “pontificating”? As a history undergrad, some of my best learning experiences came from lectures. A good lecture can provide not just straight facts, but the context and significance of those facts, the various historical points of view on an event or era and its historiography, colorful examples that help make ideas tangible, and the state of current research.
ReplyDeleteI never had a history class that was 100% lecture: we always had one class a week or so that was a seminar-style discussion over primary documents. And we had ample opportunity to work out our own analyses in essays and research papers (isn’t writing a form of “experiential learning”, after all?). But the lectures, when done well, were extremely effective at conveying a large amount of material in a relatively short time period within a framework that helped us begin to make sense of the material. My professors were not “pontificators”, they were teachers, and some of them were extraordinary.
My special favorite times of the school year are when educational consultants visit us to tell us how to be “student-centered.” The format of the presentations? Consultant at front of room, lecturing. Always
I have to say I agree with Surly's comment about lecturing. Although I teach a lot of student-centered activities, there are just some things I need to lecture about. I, too, have some of my fondest memories of undergrad days concerning gifted lecturers "pontificating" me into a sublime fullness. (That sounds weird.)
ReplyDeleteLeslie K
@CMP: I bet the Moore Method works about as well as anything else when you're dealing with people who are neither bright nor motivated. But who really wants to design the experiment that tests how best to educate dumb, unmotivated students? That would be depressing. Imagine finding a large enough random sample of dumb, unmotivated subjects who could be relied upon to actually finish a 16-week course (including pre-test and post-test). Sure, you could find such subjects easily enough--this is America, after all--but would they finish the study?
ReplyDelete@Surly: It's true. The "student-centered" proponents almost always seem to use the lecture format to teach other educators about how great and powerful their methods are. I can think of only one exception. And, yes, I've been on the receiving end of lots of these presentations.
@F&T: I know I love you. And I'm glad you're not Marcia anymore. Sorry about your mom.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@CMP: Once, when trying to be Socratic during my Intro-Astronomy-for-Non-Majors course's semesterly class on "Planet Earth" (in which we pass around rocks, which always goes over well), I asked the class, "What country has more earthquakes than any other?" (the correct answer of course is Japan). Some grinning idiot yells, "Abu Dhabi!", clearly only because they were immature.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you do when this happens? Or when someone from the peanut gallery answers, "What do we do next" by yelling, "Who gives a shit?"
I agree, by the way, that a mixture of teacher-centered and student-centered methods appears to work best, if only to break up the monotony of the teacher always talking. Still, it can be a challenge to do student-centered teaching in natural science or mathematics courses, particularly introductory ones, because there's often a great deal to learn before one even knows enough even to ask the right questions.
Well, gee everyone, hop hop hop. Everyone likes frogs at least a teeny little bit, so I guess I chose well. And thanks, Bubba.
ReplyDeleteFrod -- For "What do we do next?" or "Who gives a shit?" I guess I would point my finger at the door and say "Out. Out of my classroom until you are mature enough to handle college-level instruction." Then I'd fire off a note to the student disciplinary office. I get to do that, though, because I have tenure, so I realize it's not a one-fits-all strategy.
For Abu Dhabi, I might say, I'd say, "Great! Fantastic! If only Abu Dhabi were a country or in Japan, you'd be right!" Nothing like inducing the snickers of his peers to tone him down.
@Bubba: just keep nodding. It's the only thing to do with idiots who use well-worn jargon like they invented it yesterday. For whatever it's worth, the administrator of my program has been saying for some years now that the one way *not* to begin a teaching philosophy statement is with "I am a student-centered teacher." In other words, this particular bit of faddish jargon is already well past its expiration date.
ReplyDeleteOther than that, what pretty much everyone else said: we all have to balance information transfer and chances for students to apply what we've said to novel problems/situations, and exactly how we do that varies by discipline. Expecting students to derive the discipline as it presently exists ex nihilio, with little or no guidance from us, makes no sense; neither does expecting them to absorb habits of mind without actually practicing those habits. Therefore, good pedagogy, whatever you call it, falls somewhere in the middle. I lean a bit more toward the "they'll remember it best if they do it" end of things (which could be called "student-centered," except that I provide a good deal of guidance, and even some pretty firm rules, which some teachers who consider their pedagogy "student-centered" do not), but, then, I'm a writing teacher. If my subject were more theoretical and/or more likely to produce explosions, deaths, etc. if not approached with a good deal of prior knowledge, I'd probably spend more time providing information before I had them do anything.
One of my asshat (I mean recently tenured with a nice little wifey and kiddies) colleagues recently described the importance of Student Centered Learning. I asked what he understood that to be. He rattled off jargon.
ReplyDeleteWhen I asked how I was actually supposed to GRADE this jargony-mc-jargon he said I was "too obsessed with testing."
No, I want to know how to assess learning. Even if it's "student centered" you have to make sure...that they are actually learning.
Word on the street is he hands out lollipops and A's on the last day of class. Especially to all the nice white boys.
Student-centered pedagogy actualizes the educative paradigms of heuristic learning modalities.
ReplyDeleteLex's comment reminds me of Anastasia. Whom, now that I am out as the artist formerly known as Marcia Brady, I can admit I miss the hell out of. Unless Lex is Anastasia, in which case hooray.
ReplyDeleteI am not Anastasia. Just a random academic smartass. Sorry to disappoint.
ReplyDelete@Lex: whoever you are, that was, indeed, brilliant -- perfectly grammatical (well, if one doesn't quibble about whether the verb "actualize" exists; from a descriptive standpoint, it does) but completely devoid of actual content. I'd like to try a variation on Wombat's exercise, put that sentence and Joseph Williams in a box, and see who comes out alive. I'm betting on the sentence.
ReplyDeleteSadly, it also closely resembles some of the prose in a plan I'm supposed to help carry out over the next few years.
Every time some one tries to shove "student-centered" down my throat I snarl, "Learning-centered, goddamit!"
ReplyDelete