Teachers' Beliefs About Issues in the Implementation of a Student

AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-25-2003 / 14:36 Teachers’ Beliefs about Issues in the Implementation of a Student-Centered Learning Environment Susan Pedersen Min Liu Teachers’ implementation of Concurrent interest in learning guided by a technology-enhanced student-centered constructivist perspective and advances in com- learning environments (SCLEs) will be puter technology have led to a renewed interest affected by their beliefs about effective in student-centered learning (Land & Hannafin, practices. In order for student-centered 2000). Student-centered learning requires stu- programs to be used as intended, designers dents to set their own goals for learning, and must be aware of the key issues that will shape determine resources and activities that will help their implementation and the beliefs teachers them meet those goals (Jonassen, 2000). Because hold about these issues. This case study students pursue their own goals, all of their ac- examined 15 teachers’ beliefs about tivities are meaningful to them. student-centered learning as they implemented A variety of approaches fit beneath the Alien Rescue, a computer-based program for umbrella of student-centered learning, includ- middle school science that was designed to ing case-based learning, goal-based scenarios, create a SCLE in the classroom. Considerations for the design of similar learning by design, project-based learning, and programs are offered. problem-based learning. Common to these dif- ferent approaches is a central question (Jonassen, 1999) that creates a need for certain knowledge and activities. This question may be stated or implied, and can take a variety of forms, includ- ing a problem, an issue, a case, or a project. Though student-centered learning includes approaches in which this question can be deter- mined by the student (Hannafin, Land, & Oliver, 1999), a common characteristic of the approaches listed above is that students are presented with a situation or activity which frames this central question, thereby giving learners a common goal. The central question is usually at least somewhat ill structured, mean- ing that the goals and constraints of the question are not clearly stated, there may be multiple jus- tifiable responses, responses may incorporate tradeoffs or drawbacks, it is not obvious what concepts or actions are relevant to the development of a response, and learners must make and justify decisions (Jonassen, 1997). Work begins ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 2, 2003, pp. 57–76 ISSN 1042–1629 57 AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-25-2003 / 14:36 58 ETR&D, Vol. 51, No. 2 with the presentation of this central question, directed approaches often depend, at least in and learning is the result of student efforts to part, on extrinsic motivators, such as grades, develop a response to that question. As with the degrees, or other rewards, to motivate students’ question, the response can take a variety of efforts to learn. In student-centered approaches, forms, such as a solution, an opinion, a decision, teachers attempt to present a question that is in- a plan of action, a design, or other product, teresting enough to motivate students to take depending on the nature of the central question. ownership of the process of developing a Student-centered approaches are often response. As a result, students’ actions are defined by contrasting them with traditional in- driven by the goals they have set for themselves structional approaches characterized by greater rather than external rewards promised by a teacher direction (e.g., Cuban, 1983; Hannafin et teacher or institution. al., 1999). Key differences between the two approaches include goals, roles, motivational Assessment. Both the purpose and methods of orientations, assessments, and student interac- assessment differ for teacher-directed instruc- tions, each of which is discussed in the following tion and student-centered learning. In teacher- paragraphs. directed instruction, teachers use assessments to determine grades, which in turn are used to The goal of student activity. In teacher-directed motivate students and provide parents with in- instruction, students work to meet the objectives formation about their children’s progress (Kohn, set by the teacher. In contrast, in student- 1994). Assessment is often based on objective centered learning, students work to provide a tests, which, Shepard (2000) pointed out, is con- response to a central question. Since students sistent with a model of education based on a so- must sort out for themselves what they need to cial efficiency curriculum and behaviorist do and know in order to develop this response, theory, but which is at odds with the principles student-centered approaches are more likely to of constructivism that currently guide efforts to promote student ownership over their process develop student-centered learning activities. and learning than do teacher-directed ap- Shepard instead recommended the use of open- proaches. ended assessment techniques that are designed to involve students in examining their own The role of the teacher. In teacher-directed in- learning, focusing their attention on their learn- struction, the teacher sets learning objectives, ing needs and changing understanding rather and then plans a set of activities designed to help than on a grade. learners meet those objectives. Because learners are not assumed to be able to determine a Student Interaction. The success of the coopera- process to meet these objectives, it is the respon- tive learning movement (National Center for sibility of the teacher to guide or direct students Educational Statistics, 1999) has resulted in an through a step-by-step process and to make sure increase in the amount of interaction between that any difficulties they encounter during this students during teacher-directed instruction. process are resolved. In student-centered learn- This interaction, however, is frequently under ing, the teacher presents the central question teacher control, with teachers determining (issue, case, problem), and then works as a group membership, the nature of the interac- facilitator as students determine the nature of tions between the members, and even the role the response they will develop, and then formu- each member of the group plays. Teachers inter- late and carry out a process to develop that vene in the group process when there are dif- response. Teachers help students to work ficulties, and hold the group accountable for through the difficulties they encounter by ques- individual learning. Bruffee (1995) argued that tioning them and helping them to identify alter- the structure and vigilance teachers provide native paths or resources, but they do not during cooperative learning tends to undermine resolve these difficulties for the students. students’ control over their own process. In- stead, student-centered approaches, which also Students’ motivational orientation. Teacher- assume a great deal of student interaction, are AAH GRAPHICS, INC. / (540) 933-6210 / FAX 933-6523 / 05-25-2003 / 14:36 TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT ISSUES IN IMPLEMENTING AN SCLE 59 more in keeping with collaborative learning than • Cognitive tools, which scaffold learners as cooperative learning. Collaborative learning em- they perform tasks within the SCLE; and, phasizes students’ self-governance of their inter- actions, allowing them to make decisions about • Collaboration tools, which support learners with whom they work, and how. As students in constructing socially shared information. negotiate their relationships with each other, Given the differences between student- they must articulate their ideas, and engage in a centered learning and teacher-directed instruc- disciplined social process of inquiry (Bruffee); tion, the implementation of these new these activities are in keeping with constructivist technology-enhanced SCLEs will require that principles and the goals of student-centered most teachers make substantial changes in their learning. classroom practices if these programs are to be used in accordance with the designers’ inten- tions. However, both the research on teacher Technology-Enhanced resistance to pedagogical change (Richardson, Student-Centered Learning 1990) and the history of progressive educational Environments (SCLEs) reform efforts suggest that such changes may be difficult to implement. Cuban (1983) noted that, The design and development of student- though interest in student-centered learning centered activities have largely been left to the spanned much of the 20th century, it largely classroom teacher in the past, but the new focus failed to take root in schools. He found “a seem- on constructivism has led researchers in the field ingly stubborn continuity in teacher-centered in- to exploit the emerging affordances of com- struction despite intense reform efforts to move puters in order to develop programs designed to classroom practices toward instruction that was be student centered. Programs such as Explor- more learner centered” (p. 160), and speculated ing the Nardoo (Hedberg, 1997), Decision Point that school and classroom organizational struc- (Brush & Saye, 2000), and Rescuing Rocky tures as well as teachers’ own experiences as stu- (Barab, Hay & Duffy, 2000) make use of the dents create conditions that perpetuate capabilities of technology to promote a variety traditional teacher-directed instruction (Cuban, of activities typical of student-centered learning, 1982). More recently,

Load more