by Mieder van Loggerenberg
For me being between generation X and Y, most of the classrooms I attended, were teacher-centered. Now, in 2021 doing a post-graduate, it is still the same. Even though all the classes I teach, from primary to high school, the lessons are student-centered. Why is it that in most higher education courses, the professors’ educational philosophy is set in essentialism and perennialism? Completing your graduate or any post-graduate qualifications is the educational goal of many, and you are only recognized as a master in your field when you have that degree. So, to reach this pinnacle, we need to blindly follow a system we frown upon when teaching children or young adults.
Before we approach this controversial topic let us get a better understanding of what teacher-centered philosophies are. Well, they are seen as essential for the longevity of education and the transfer of knowledge from one generation to the next. Does that mean, as most schools implement a progressive educational philosophy, we are no longer transferring that valuable knowledge to our children or grandchildren? Surely, that is not the case. So, what else is a teacher-centered philosophy? The teacher’s role is to teach respect for authority, determination, a strong work ethic, and compassion for others. From my experience, I would say that a strong work ethic is definitely not a millennial’s forte. As for respecting authority, I might look like an authoritarian compared to the young teachers today. Teachers and schools measure their success when students prove, usually through taking tests, that they have mastered the objectives they learned. Research in cognitive science and psychology shows that testing, done correctly, can be an extremely effective way to learn. So, that is one benefit of teacher-centered learning.
The two teacher-centered philosophies are essentialism and perennialism, but how are they different? The main difference is that essentialist curriculum tends to be fact-based while perennialist curriculum leans more toward being principal-based. Essentialism is an educational philosophy that strives to ensure that students acquire a common core of knowledge in a systematic, disciplined way. In contrast, perennialism is an educational philosophy that states teachers should teach the things that are of everlasting importance to all students everywhere.
An essentialist curriculum comprises of traditional disciplines like reading, writing, literature, history, foreign languages, mathematics, science, art, and music. On the other hand, a perennialist curriculum emphasizes great works of literature and art, and the laws, or principles of science. Essentialists accept that knowledge can change whereas, with perennialism, principles and ideas are everlasting.
So, whether we follow the facts or the principles it is clear that these two philosophies are teacher-centered. In your research, you have probably come across a debate that has been at the forefront of educators’ minds when they think about instruction: what’s better, teacher-centered or student-centered education? Let us look at the pros and cons of both teaching styles.
Teacher-centered education
In teacher-centered education, students focus on the teacher. The teacher talks, and the students listen. Most activities are done individually, and collaboration is usually discouraged.
Pros
· The classroom is orderly, the students are quiet, and the teacher takes full control of the activities.
· Since students learn on their own, they become independent and think for themselves.
· With the teacher directing all activities usually the important topics are covered.
Cons
· With students working alone, they have less chance to collaborate with others and which may affect their communication skills.
· If the teacher is the only one speaking students tend to get bored and lose focus and miss important facts.
· Teacher-centered restricts students from expressing themselves, asking questions, or even directing their learning path.
Student-centered education
In this type of classroom students and the teacher share the focus. Instead of exclusively listening to the teacher, everyone interacts equally. Group work is encouraged, and students can collaborate and communicate freely.
Pros
· Through group work students can learn important communicative and collaborative skills.
· Students are more in control of their learning, ask questions, and complete tasks with or without the teacher.
· Generally, students show more interest in activities when they can interact and actively participate.
Cons
· Classroom environment tends to be more chaotic, with students talking and interacting.
· Teachers may have to manage many activities at once, which can be troublesome when students are working on different stages of the task.
· When teachers don’t deliver instruction at the same time, students might miss important facts.
· Some students prefer working alone so group work can become an issue.
Looking at both teacher and student-centered philosophies we can see that both have their advantages and disadvantages. The question is, do we need teacher-centered philosophies in education? Most teachers would agree that this type of classroom would be far easier to manage, and the delivery technique is pretty straightforward. From having a calm and organized classroom where you simply teach and transfer your knowledge to your students, I would say that seems like a cushy job. The problem is we as teachers did not choose this career for comfort. We chose it because we have a passion to help others, and by helping others we need to find the most effective method to educate our students.
With students having difficulty focusing for extended periods and technology serving as a distraction in class, I would say that today’s generation would find it difficult to study effectively in a teacher-centered classroom. The biggest concern I have is when we take a progressivist or constructivist approach to teach younger students, they might find the transition to teacher-centered classes in college extremely challenging. This can also contribute to more students dropping out and research has shown that college students are prime targets for drug abuse. Drugs are a coping mechanism for many college students.
If higher education continues to take a teacher-centered approach, then the only short-term solution is to prepare our students for college by implementing those techniques in middle and high school, to help them get accustomed to different teaching styles. So, does this mean we need a teacher-centered approach to education? Well, any experienced teacher can confirm that we don’t just follow a specific philosophy but more on when that specific teaching style is needed. Can we just follow one teaching style? I think the answer is no. Diversity will ensure more effective learning and better academic achievements.
Comments