Student-Centred learning: The Students’ perspective
This blog post aims to evaluate the findings of a 2003 investigation into the attitudes of students to ‘student-centred learning’ in Higher Education, by Susan J. Lea, David Stephenson and Juliette Troy at the University of Plymouth. Although this study is now over a decade old, the reported findings about student perceptions of student-centred learning are as poignant today, in a climate where university teachers are increasingly encouraged to move away from traditional methods towards more inclusive approaches.
What is student-centred learning?
Despite competing definitions of the term in the formal literature, ‘student-centred’ learning can be boiled down to active learning by the students, who are more engaged, autonomous and independent. Student-centred teaching, therefore, should move away from traditional lecture-style approaches that treat students as passive sponges of knowledge; instead, teachers should adopt methods and techniques that place the student at the forefront of teaching to encourage active participation. Implicit in this, as Lea, Stephenson and Troy note, is the student’s consultation about the learning and teaching process.
Despite the overwhelming conclusion in pedagogy that student-centred learning is effective, it is notable that approximately 60% of the participants were unaware of the term. Those that had previously heard of it were unsure as to what precisely the term meant. Questions might be raised, therefore, about how effectively student-centred learning has been implemented when the students allegedly at the centre of the process are unaware it is happening.
Student-centred learning as a positive practice
Nevertheless, the students from which the data was collected believed that student-centred learning, when implemented effectively, was a positive idea. In particular, this optimism was framed in terms of negativity towards the traditional methods of higher education style teaching. As one undergraduate student described: ‘I am an educational bulimic. They make me binge and purge all of this knowledge without any time to absorb or digest it.’ By placing the student’s needs at the centre, it was supposed that more time would enable a deep approach to learning.
Theory versus practice
Many practical concerns regarding the implementation of student-centred learning arose. In particular, students withheld a degree of cynicism regarding the intentions of universities. One student, for instance, suggested that ‘student-centred’ learning was a ‘political slogan’ rather than an indication of any real change of teaching style. Others articulated anxiety about how a shift towards student-centred learning would benefit them directly. In particular, concerns were raised about a lack of structure, guidance and support for students. Similarly, students suggested that by treating students as individuals, there would be more time pressures on lecturers who already have competing time-demands regarding their research.
Conclusion
Lea et al’s findings are particularly useful as they recover the voice of the student in relation to ‘student-centred learning’. Some of the concerns raised by their students, i..e the time-pressures that are placed on lecturers, and the intentions of universities in implemented student-centred learning remain valid today. In the current climate of higher education, with universities competing for students and funding, it is clear that these are valid concerns. Nevertheless, the overwhelming conclusion from these students’ perspectives, as well as the voluminous literature on the topic, is that student-centred learning is a positive practice. Although universities have to pragmatically negotiate with other concerns, i.e. staff availability and financial concerns, it is evident that a student-centred approach remains the way forward for teaching in higher education.
Reference
Susan J. Lea, David Stephenson and Juliette Troy, ‘Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to Student-Centred Learning: Beyond ‘Educational Bulimia’, Studies in Higher Education, 28, 3 (2003): 321-334.
This blog post aims to evaluate the findings of a 2003 investigation into the attitudes of students to ‘student-centred learning’ in Higher Education, by Susan J. Lea, David Stephenson and Juliette Troy at the University of Plymouth. Although this study is now over a decade old, the reported findings about student perceptions of student-centred learning are as poignant today, in a climate where university teachers are increasingly encouraged to move away from traditional methods towards more inclusive approaches.
What is student-centred learning?
Despite competing definitions of the term in the formal literature, ‘student-centred’ learning can be boiled down to active learning by the students, who are more engaged, autonomous and independent. Student-centred teaching, therefore, should move away from traditional lecture-style approaches that treat students as passive sponges of knowledge; instead, teachers should adopt methods and techniques that place the student at the forefront of teaching to encourage active participation. Implicit in this, as Lea, Stephenson and Troy note, is the student’s consultation about the learning and teaching process.
Despite the overwhelming conclusion in pedagogy that student-centred learning is effective, it is notable that approximately 60% of the participants were unaware of the term. Those that had previously heard of it were unsure as to what precisely the term meant. Questions might be raised, therefore, about how effectively student-centred learning has been implemented when the students allegedly at the centre of the process are unaware it is happening.
Student-centred learning as a positive practice
Nevertheless, the students from which the data was collected believed that student-centred learning, when implemented effectively, was a positive idea. In particular, this optimism was framed in terms of negativity towards the traditional methods of higher education style teaching. As one undergraduate student described: ‘I am an educational bulimic. They make me binge and purge all of this knowledge without any time to absorb or digest it.’ By placing the student’s needs at the centre, it was supposed that more time would enable a deep approach to learning.
Theory versus practice
Many practical concerns regarding the implementation of student-centred learning arose. In particular, students withheld a degree of cynicism regarding the intentions of universities. One student, for instance, suggested that ‘student-centred’ learning was a ‘political slogan’ rather than an indication of any real change of teaching style. Others articulated anxiety about how a shift towards student-centred learning would benefit them directly. In particular, concerns were raised about a lack of structure, guidance and support for students. Similarly, students suggested that by treating students as individuals, there would be more time pressures on lecturers who already have competing time-demands regarding their research.
Conclusion
Lea et al’s findings are particularly useful as they recover the voice of the student in relation to ‘student-centred learning’. Some of the concerns raised by their students, i..e the time-pressures that are placed on lecturers, and the intentions of universities in implemented student-centred learning remain valid today. In the current climate of higher education, with universities competing for students and funding, it is clear that these are valid concerns. Nevertheless, the overwhelming conclusion from these students’ perspectives, as well as the voluminous literature on the topic, is that student-centred learning is a positive practice. Although universities have to pragmatically negotiate with other concerns, i.e. staff availability and financial concerns, it is evident that a student-centred approach remains the way forward for teaching in higher education.
Reference
Susan J. Lea, David Stephenson and Juliette Troy, ‘Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to Student-Centred Learning: Beyond ‘Educational Bulimia’, Studies in Higher Education, 28, 3 (2003): 321-334.