The Empty Centre

The Empty Centre: Does Student-Centred Learning Imply Abdication Or Role Redefinition For Educators?

David R. Geelan
Science and Mathematics Education Centre
Curtin University of Technology
GPO Box U1987
PERTH WA 6001
Australia
Email: rgeeland@alpha1.curtin.edu.au

Introduction The dilemma and its context
Structure Structure as a guiding metaphor
Centre 'The Centre' as an unhelpful metaphor
Roles Using sociological language to understand
Negotiation The necessity of a shared vision for change
References

Abstract:

The notion of 'student-centred learning' is a popular and influential one in education at all levels. Questions of exactly how this may be defined, and what it would look like in practice are, however, much more difficult to address. During second semester 1995, I was involved in teaching a Masters-level unit on teacher action research to a group of middle school teachers. I placed a high value on the knowledge, value perspectives and classroom experience of the group members, and attempted to allow the members of the group considerable freedom to 'construct' their own learning activities and assessment procedures. Some students accepted the offered freedom and challenges, and after some initial disorientation were able to construct powerful and valuable educative programs for themselves. Other students, however, felt deeply threatened by the perceived lack of structure and direction in the course, and felt that their time was being wasted in activities they could have carried out without my facilitation.

This paper explores my own experiences and ethical/theoretical commitments through discussion of contemporary reflective texts and narratives. It also addresses the complex meanings which may be ascribed to the phrase 'student-centred learning', and suggests that a teacher's withdrawal from an intensive, controlling classroom role must be negotiated with students in ways that avoid the creation of an 'empty centre'.

Dilemma:

In the context of a postgraduate professional development course for middle school teachers, what does it mean for the lecturer to value student-centred learning? Which forms of management - of ideas and of culture - may the teacher appropriately surrender to the students, and which remain the teacher's responsibility?

Introduction

Louise (the school principal, who attended some class sessions) (all names used are pseudonyms) said that after last week's session (6 September), about which I had felt so positive, some members of the group had come to her and said they were so frustrated with the course they wanted to leave! Just goes to show..! She said that their perception was that I felt my role was to facilitate discussion among the teachers (referred to by Louise sometimes as 'shooting the breeze', and other times as 'critical discourse'!), and that they were already able to engage in that without my presence, so what was the purpose of coming along to the course? Sarcastically: so this is what I get for valuing their voices! Realistically: OK, I had already been explicitly struggling with that balance for myself - to get feedback indicating that I've missed the appropriate balance is a very positive thing, because it allows me to strive for a better balance. It's something I probably need to raise explicitly with the group, but also perhaps show a bit more traditional leadership. I was also a little hurt and frustrated that they hadn't felt able to raise these concerns with me (or had they, and I hadn't heard?) My own reaction was that I clearly need to give them more critical voice, but I thought I had: how can it be given if it's not taken? (personal journal, 13 September 1995)

This excerpt from my personal journal captures some of the events and attitudes related to the dilemma I wish to explore in this paper, along with some of my own reactions and commitments. It is important, I think, to acknowledge immediately that the dilemma arose as a result of my own efforts to improve my teaching practice, through more fully embodying certain of my educational and ethical commitments. Had I chosen to adopt a more traditional teaching role and approach, it's reasonable to assume that no such dissatisfaction on the part of my students would have arisen. The commitments which I was attempting to more fully embody in my educative practices are defined in terms, not of efficiency - achieving prespecified, unexamined goals more fully and more cheaply - but of a more fully communicative educational relationship (Habermas, 1978; Pusey, 1987), in which students are empowered to meaningfully take control of their own learning.

During second semester 1995, I was teaching a postgraduate course in action research for middle school teachers. The course was conducted within the school in which all participants taught, rather than on a university campus - this context was, I feel, highly beneficial to the conduct of the course, in that the teachers who were participating knew one another well (they had attended a course in this same grouping during the previous semester), were engaged in the practices of education together, and were able to collaboratively carry out their own action research projects within their school context.

The following excerpt from my reflections at the end of the course describes the approach I adopted, and some of the results of this teaching approach:

I had imagined control in the class gradually moving from me to the group, something I think is essential. To this end, the first few sessions were highly structured, including papers to read, reflection questions and a lot of discussion featuring me. As I gradually withdrew from the centre, however, the members of the group did not corporately rush in to fill the vacuum as I had hoped: instead, they simply left a vacuum, and the course became somewhat rudderless. Fortunately, between my own reflections and some timely intervention from Louise, I was able to reclaim the role of educator, rather than be merely a facilitator of talk sessions. (personal reflections, 14 December 1996)

The central dilemmas posed by this experience are not so much those of how to creatively incorporate student-centred teaching approaches, but what is meant by each of three phrases used - somewhat unreflectively - above: the metaphors and assumptions which underlie the terms 'highly structured', 'withdrew from the centre' and 'reclaim the role of educator' require further exploration.

Structure

In the present context - a postgraduate course for teachers - what is meant by the 'structure' of the course? Some students clearly defined this in terms of tasks - "what must I do to succeed in this course?" Others - those who perhaps understood my intentions for the course or, even better, who had themselves arrived at a different definition - seemed to see the structure of the course as something open and negotiable: something which would be most powerful if they chose to construct it for themselves:

Jim, Emma and Cassandra all mentioned that more structure in the activities required of them...or some reflection questions to answer, or SOME task, would have made their semester easier, and got them to be more involved in their work: they felt it was easy to let the action research project slide, given all the other school and family pressures, if there was no consistent work requirement from me. Derek and May disagreed, however: Derek said it had given him opportunities to be more self-motivated, and May said that, although she had felt a little lost at first, once she got into the swing of things she enjoyed the flexible, self-directed mode of learning. These latter two were, of course, the type of response for which I was aiming: it's perplexing and a little depressing that only a minority reached this level. How could I have better supported those who asked for 'structure', while supporting the self-direction of others? More and more I'm forced toward individual differences as a crucial issue: there's no single best approach. (personal reflections, 14 December 1996)

The adoption of different approaches for different learners in order to support each student's individual learning style is, like many other issues in education, easy to give verbal assent to but much more difficult to implement. I had uniquely easy conditions in this group, with only six students I already knew quite well. If using a variety of approaches was difficult in this context, how would it be with a student group of 30 or more strangers?

'The Centre'

The metaphor of 'the centre' is an intriguing one, and is 'central' to exploring 'student-centred' educational approaches. As Lakoff and Johnson (1980) have pointed out, such spatial metaphors pervade our thinking, and are often unexamined. It's important, however, to discuss what we mean when we talk about 'teacher-centred' and 'student-centred' classrooms. Is the centre the position of authoritarian power and control? Is it the focus of knowledge and authoritative speech, from which wisdom is diffused to the periphery? Is it the point of greatest activity and energy, around which others revolve, and from which they derive their motion? I believe that when most educators speak of 'student-centred' learning they imagine 'the centre' as some amalgam of these qualities (and more). Certainly during the events described, I imagined the centre in authoritative terms: when I spoke of my own movement out of the centre and the students movement inward, what I meant was that they would begin to accept the authority of their own knowledge, experience and values. In this way, my central role as the knowledgeable figure of authority would be diffused among the group, so that I would become simply one member of a collaborative group, rather than its focus.

I now believe that this approach was flawed, for two reasons. Firstly, the technical (Mezirow, 1981) interest implicit in my role as a university teacher educator, with responsibility for assigning a grade to the work of each student, meant that any pose of being 'just one of the guys' was to some extent fraudulent: I had, and needed to acknowledge in order to be honest and fair, forms of institutional power which were inescapable. Although assessment was negotiable and as open as possible, I retained the final responsibility for assigning a grade. Secondly, I am no longer sure that the metaphor of 'the centre' is a useful way to think about the things that happen in classrooms. It introduces a degree of ambiguity about which of the many models of what constitutes 'the centre' (authoritarian control, authoritative knowledge, educative relationship) we mean. Simply, classrooms are very complex places: overly simplistic spatial metaphors can serve to mask inequities which other, richer metaphors (since we can never escape from metaphor), might enable us to address.

Roles and Expectations

In a similar way (but using sociological rather than metaphorical language), what is meant by 'the role of educator' remains problematic. This, too, may be defined in authoritarian, authoritative or relationship terms, and may imply a variety of expectations and responsibilities. When I said in my reflections that I had been able to "reclaim the role of educator, rather than be merely a facilitator of talk sessions" (personal reflections, 14 December 1996), what did I mean by this? (Particularly as I continue to believe that one of the more important roles of educators is precisely to be a "facilitator of talk sessions".) I believe that I was acknowledging my new understanding that, in attempting to withdraw from some of the more negative and authoritarian connotations of a traditional educator's role, I had in fact abdicated completely. Rather than redefining and reconstructing a new set of expectations and responsibilities for myself as an educator, I had simply attempted to slough my teaching responsibilities onto the class members. And they, unsurprisingly, had chosen not to accept them: they could see no value in doing what they perceived as 'my job'. Once again, it is important to emphasise the rich complexity of educational contexts: using the plural 'roles of the educator' might be one way of reminding ourselves that the web of expectations, rights and responsibilities cannot be simply cut away, but must be rewoven in a shape which is more empowering for both students and teacher.

Negotiation

The following excerpt from my reflections after the completion of the course describes my chagrin at recognising perhaps my most damaging 'sin' - unilateral action: I fell in the same old trap of initiating change without consulting those effected. In fact, it's the topic of my PhD research: how do I initiate change in my own practice, but allow the members of the class to have a real voice and become partners in the change. Emma suggested it, and I agree: negotiate! My response to her, relating to this course, was "But I don't think I knew myself well enough to be ABLE to 'put my cards on the table' - I was in a personal transition". May's portfolio wrestles with this exact issue, and I think it will become more and more important in education. If educational reform is to work, it must be 'with, not for' students (Corbett & Wilson, 1995). But how do we do this in practice? (personal reflections, 14 December 1996)

It is both deeply ironic and strangely seductive for a committed educator to attempt to make the classroom more student-centred through unilateral teacher change! Explicit negotiation, which takes into account the needs and ideas of all stakeholders and which uses language richly to address the complex web of relationships and expectations which make up an educative context, is a difficult but irreplaceable approach for implementing educational change 'with, not for' (Corbett & Wilson, 1995) students. Different language sets - the 'human interests' of Habermas (1971), sociology (Berger, 1966), the study of myth (Taylor, in press) and the 'power' perspective of Foucault (1980) - each have the potential to add to our understanding of both the complex relationships and the hidden assumptions of educational environments. In this way the dialectical tension of a number of incommensurable descriptions can support genuine, meaningful negotiation of the roles, interests and practices within which learning and teaching take place.

References

Berger, P.L. (1966). Invitation to sociology: A humanistic perspective. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Corbett, D. & Wilson, B. (1995). Make a difference with, not for, students. Educational Researcher, 24(5), 12-17.

Edwards, R. & Sutton, A. (1992). A practical approach to student-centred learning. British Journal of Educational Technology 23(1): 4-20.

Foucault, M. (1980). Power/Knowledge. In C. Gordon (Ed.), L. Marshall, J. Mepham, K. Spoer (Trans.), Selected interviews and other writings 1972-77. New York: Pantheon.

Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Translated by J. J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press.

Habermas, J. (1978). Legitimation crisis. T. McCarthy (trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.

Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. In S. Kemmis & R. McTaggart (1988) The action research reader. Geelong: Deakin University.

Pusey, M. (1987). Jurgen Habermas. London: Ellis Horwood & Tavistock.

Spicer, J.I. & Bonsall, M. (1995). An evaluation of the use of student-centred investigations in teaching comparative animal physiology to undergraduates. Research in Science and Technology Education 13(1): 25-35.

Taylor, P.C. (in press). Mythmaking and mythbreaking in the mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics.

Return to the top of the paper. Return to David's home page.