Learner-Centered Principles in Teacher-Centered Practices

Learner-centered Principles 1

RUNNING HEAD: LEARNER-CENTERED AND TEACHER-CENTERED

Learner-Centered Principles in Teacher-Centered Practices?

Kathy L. Schuh

The University of Iowa

N304 Lindquist Center

Iowa City, IA 52242

Phone: 319-335-5667

FAX: 319-335-6145

[email protected]


NOTE: This paper has been published in Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 833-846. The copy provided via this website is meant as a demonstration of APA style. If interested in citing the content of the article, please obtain a copy of the published article.


Abstract

In the study reported here, I compare Learner-Centered Battery (a

questionnaire of students’ perceptions of the classroom) results

and the observation and interview data gathered in one sixth-

grade classroom noting first a discrepancy between the

descriptions of the classroom that stems from each. I review this

discrepancy, highlighting a need for triangulation using

different types of data collection methods so to better

understand this particular classroom. Further, the analysis

indicates that principles of a learner-centered perspective can

be embedded within a traditional teacher-centered environment, at

least for this particular classroom.

Key words: data triangulation, learner-centered, teacher-

centered, classroom environment, elementary


Learner-Centered Principles in Teacher-Centered Practices?

Individual classroom learning environments are complex

interactions among a variety of elements including teacher and

student perceptions, instructional practices, learning needs and

larger system issues (McCombs, 1999)ocus on one aspect of a

particular learning environment, the pedagogical “look” of a

sixth-grade social studies class—the degree to which this

learning environment may be considered teacher- or learner-

centered based on the activity in the classroom. Through this, I

demonstrate the importance of data triangulation as a means to

better understand this particular learning environment.

Descriptions of the teaching and learning process often use

a continuum ranging from what is considered “traditional” or

teacher-centered, to “alternative” or learner-centered (Cuban,

1983; Kember & Gow, 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001). Although

these descriptions do not imply a dichotomy (Cuban, 1983),

unfortunately it seems that they are often accepted as such.

Indeed, as teachers begin to understand new teaching and learning

paradigms, they may conceptualize the continuum as a dichotomy in

a process that does, in time, increase their understanding. For


example, Saunders and Goldenberg (1996)ms. Initially, these

teachers drew upon their implicit understandings of direct

teaching (i.e., traditional) and alternative instructional

strategies, characterizing traditional teaching as bad, the

alternative as good, and drawing a crisp line between the two

based upon instructional strategies in particular. As their

understanding progressed, they became more explicit in defining

types of instruction, finding value in both traditional and

alternative instruction, and thus improving their teaching.

These overgeneralizations about traditional and contemporary

teaching strategies are not uncommon. For example, Airasian and

Walsh (1997)nal practices in a classroom. Understanding of

instruction may be based upon how instruction “looks” (the

activity), rather than on underlying theoretical roots about

learning and how it is fostered. For example, teacher-centered

instruction may be assumed to look different from learner-

centered instruction. Strategies such as direct teaching, drill

and practice, and collaborative work all bring to mind placement

of the instruction on a unidimensional teacher-centered to

learner-centered scale. Casual observation of a class using


lecture or direct instruction may prompt one to believe the

classroom follows a teacher-centered pedagogy, while using

collaborative group work may be construed as using learner-

centered instruction. The corollary to this belief is that

teachers may believe they are using learner-centered instruction

just because they have students work in groups. This is not

necessarily the case.

Overgeneralizations are not the jurisdiction of teachers

alone. Researchers are susceptible to them as well, and in fact,

research methodologies provide a variety of tools to avoid

overgeneralization and to provide for credibility of findings.

Triangulation of data collection methods is one such tool

(Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 1995)(1997)n of both quantitative

and qualitative data). In addition, triangulation can illuminate

discrepancies that will lead to interpretations that might not

otherwise arise. This case study is such an example. In it, I

explore the “look” of instruction by juxtaposing two types of

data collected in a sixth-grade social studies class. When viewed

through the lens of observation data, the classroom seems well

grounded in a quite traditional, teacher-centered framework.


However, perceptions of the classroom as reported by both the

teacher and the students on a measure of learner-centeredness

(McCombs, Lauer, & Peralez, 1997)hat features of learner-centered

instruction do students perceive and are embedded within teacher-

centered practices? More importantly, this study demonstrates

how data triangulation can reveal discrepancies, and thus better

informed interpretations, of a learning environment.

Background

Teacher-centered Practices

The label teacher-centered instruction or practices (TCP) is

applied quite broadly to include a variety of views, and thus

strategies, for teaching and learning. Teacher-centered

instruction is often aligned with “transmission” models of

teaching. Within this framework, instruction is the activity in

which the information is moved or transmitted to and into the

learner (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996;

Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Kember & Gow, 1994)acquisition,

such as drill and practice (Mayer, 1998) also fall within this

teacher-centered focus. In a teacher-centered model of

instruction, the development of the instruction and control of


the learning process is retained by the teacher. In this

framework there is the assumption that the teacher needs to do

things “to” and “for” the learner. In other words, the teacher

manipulates the learning situation to obtain the desired outcomes

guided by generalized characteristics of the learners (Wagner &

McCombs, 1995). The teacher’s role is seen as giving knowledge

that has been defined and organized from the teacher’s or

expert’s perspective to the students. Typical characteristics of

teacher-centered instruction include: more teacher talk and

questions than student talk and questions, more whole group

instruction, reliance on textbooks with other sources such as

media used as support, recall of factual information, and a

classroom in which desks are in rows facing a board with the

teacher desk nearby (Cuban, 1983). Generally, students do the

same tasks at the same time, following explicit directions given

by the teacher (Daniels, Kalkman, & McCombs, 2001)ve outside the

learner by defining characteristics of instruction, curriculum,

assessment, and management (Wagner & McCombs, 1995).


Learner-centered Practices

Learner-centered practices (LCP) move the focus from the

teacher and instruction to the student and learning. LCP are

based on a proposed a set of principles (APA Task Force on

Psychology in Education, 1993)(Alexander & Murphy, 1998) . These

principles take into account a variety of psychological factors

that are primarily internal to the learner while also recognizing

that the environment and other contextual factors will interact

as well (McCombs, 1993). Thus, the focus is on attributes of

complex learning environments that are most likely to affect

learning (Wagner & McCombs, 1995). Currently, 14 principles

articulate factors that influence all learners both in and out of

the classroom and provide an integrated perspective of learning

with a holistic view of the learner (APA Work Group of the Board

of Educational Affairs, 1997)nd affective factors; developmental

and social; and individual differences. Learner-centered

principles provide a theoretical foundation for learner-centered

instruction drawing on a research base from a variety of

theoretical perspectives (Lambert & McCombs, 1998). Practices

based on these principles have no prescribed format, (McCombs,


1997), although instructionally, the principles are typically in

contrast to teacher-centered practices (Wagner & McCombs, 1995)

Instruction based upon learner-centered principles provides

opportunities for learners to draw on their own experiences and

interpretations of the learning process (McCombs, 1997; Wagner &

McCombs, 1995). Learner-centered instruction (LCI) regards

learning as a life-long process rather than a process that takes

place only through young-adulthood (Lambert & McCombs, 1998). The

view aligns with advocates of situated cognition (e.g., Brown,

Collins, & Duguid, 1989) in that school activities (done by

students) are generally not authentic activities that prepare

learners for problem solving outside of school. Foundations of

LCI include that learning is a natural, constructive process

where learning is most productive when it is relevant and

meaningful to the learner, in positive learning environments. It

is a holistic view of the learner in a complex living-system that

extends well-beyond the classroom walls in both time and space.

LCP acknowledge that learners have different perspectives, and

that for learners to be engaged in and take responsibility for

their learning, these perspectives need to be tended to. Further,


appropriately supportive learning opportunities that are

challenging for individuals need to be provided (Lambert &

McCombs, 1998).

When implementing LCP, teachers need to understand the

learner’s world and support capacities already existing in the

learner to accomplish desired learning outcomes. Learning goals

are achieved by active collaboration between the teacher and

learners who together determine what learning means and how it

can be enhanced within each individual learner by drawing on the

learner’s own unique talents, capacities, and experiences

(McCombs & Whisler, 1997). Although Cuban (1983)gned with

expectations for learner-centered instruction as well: more or

equal student talk and questions than teacher talk, more

individual and medium group instruction, varied instructional

materials, evidence of student choice and organization of content

and classroom rules, and a physical arrangement of the classroom

that allows for working together. Students who perceive their

teachers to use LCP exhibit greater achievement and motivation

(McCombs & Whisler, 1997)


Student Perceptions

In addition to relationships with positive learning

outcomes, students’ perceptions of their classroom provide added

value in that they are often a better measure of learner-

centeredness than teacher perceptions (McCombs & Quiat, 2002)n at

the early elementary level students were able to identify

characteristics of learner-centered teachers based on the extent

to which they viewed their teachers having learner-centered

qualities. In addition, these young learners’ descriptions were

consistent with those of educational, developmental, and

motivational psychologists (Daniels et al., 2001). In the current

study, student perceptions of their teacher and classroom

practices, in conjunction with observation and interview data,

demonstrate how learner-centered principles can be entwined in

teacher-centered practices.

Method

Participants

The focus of this case study was Mr. Jackson and his sixth-

grade students. The 14 boys and 10 girls in Mr. Jackson’s class

were one of three sixth-grade classes in the elementary school of


430 students in a small Midwestern city. During his 22 years of

teaching Mr. Jackson primarily taught sixth grade, although he

had also taught first and fourth grades. Mr. Jackson’s class was

one of three classrooms chosen from a pool of six who

participated in a larger study on student knowledge construction

(Schuh, 2003)measure of learner-centeredness (McCombs et al.,

1997). Mr. Jackson’s classroom offered a venue to explore the

varied descriptions that can exist between different data

collection methods and thus the need for data triangulation.

The Learner-Centered Battery

The Learner-Centered Battery (now named the Assessment for

Learner-Centered Practices), grades 6-12, is a self-assessment

tool for professional development for teachers (McCombs, 1997).

The purpose of the LCB is to assist teachers in becoming more

reflective and aware of “their basic beliefs and assumptions

about learners, learning, and teaching; the relationship of these

beliefs to their school and classroom practices from their own

and their students’ perspectives; and the impact of these

practices on student motivation, learning, and academic

achievement” (McCombs & Lauer, 1997, p. 1). Scores that result


from use of this instrument indicate students’ and teachers’

perceptions of the classroom practices. The student questionnaire

contains 75 items. Responses are given on a four-point scale

indicating agreement with the statement (almost never, sometimes,

often, almost always). The teacher questionnaire contains 126

questions.

During development, the LCB was subjected to two phases of

validation. Subscales and alpha coefficients resulting from 4,828

students and 672 teachers responses that addressed teachers’

beliefs and assumptions were (a) Learner-Centered Beliefs about

Learners, Learning, and Teaching (alpha = .87); (b) Nonlearner-

Centered Beliefs About Learners (alpha = .83); and (c)

Nonlearner-Centered Beliefs About Teaching and Learning (alpha

= .82). Perceptions of classroom practices were measured by: (a)

Creates Positive Personal Relationships and Classroom Climate

(alpha = .91), (b) Honors Student Voice, Challenges Students, and

Encourages Perspective Taking (alpha = .84), (c) Encourages

Higher-Order Thinking and Self-Regulated Learning (alpha = .85),

and (d) Adapts to Individual Developmental Differences (alpha

= .71) (McCombs & Lauer, 1997).


Further validation using 4884 students and 236 teachers

sought relationships between the subscales and measures of

student motivation and achievement to establish construct and

predictive validity of the LCB. r .13 for all four subscales, p

< .01), self-efficacy (r .27 for all, p < .01), performance

oriented goals (r .18 for all, p < .01 ), state epistemic

curiosity (r .34 for all, p < .01), use of active learning

strategies (r .41 for all, p < .01), and task-mastery goals (r

.41, p < .01). Students’ perceptions were negatively associated

with their use of effort-avoidance strategies (r -.05 for three

subscales, p < .01) and work-avoidant goals (r -.03 for three

subscales, p < .01) (McCombs & Lauer, 1997).

Procedure

I administered the LCB in Mr. Jackson’s class as part of a

selection process for the larger study and prior to any

observation (Schuh, 2003)the LCB, I observed the students in Mr.

Jackson’s classroom during their Roman Empire unit in social

studies. This unit extended over a two and a half week period.

During the unit, the class met nine times and I observed eight of

the 30-minute class periods.


The focus of my observation was not on Mr. Jackson’s

instructional methods specifically, but on the nature of the

classroom and the opportunities for learners to create meaning

based upon their own prior experiences that they brought to the

classroom. I was a passive participant observer (Spradley, 1980)

in that I sat in a back corner of the classroom and did not

interact with the students. I took notes on an electronic

organizer with an attached keyboard capturing as much of the

dialog and happenings of classroom as possible. My observation

strategy in this study was to gather as much information as

possible. Thus, the observation data provided a rich description

of the classroom in general.

I interviewed three boys and three girls. Students were

chosen for an interview if they shared a comment/question in

class that seemed tangential to the conversation in the classroom

(Schuh, 2003)terview I asked the students to tell me about the

Roman Empire, followed up on any tangential comments made during

class, and asked them if there was anything else in class that

had come into their mind that perhaps they did not share during

class. The interviews generally fell into casual conversations


with the students sharing topics of interest, guided by my broad

questions. Following formal data collection in the classroom, I

interviewed Mr. Jackson.

Analysis

Analysis of the LCB data included measures of central

tendency for Mr. Jackson’s and his students’ LCB subscales. In

additional, I calculated discrepancy scores indicating the

distance between Mr. Jackson’s perception of his classroom and

his students’ perception.

Observation and interview data were analyzed following

standard qualitative methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), with any eye

towards understanding this classroom in terms of how the learning

and instruction could be characterized. Lincoln and Guba

recommend erring on the side of inclusion in a first draft of a

case study, given that early in the process it is difficult to

know what to include and exclude. Initially, I sent a document

including all the observations with supporting ideas from the

interviews and field notes to Mr. Jackson for review, correction,

and comment, thus providing another source of potential

interpretation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 1995), although he


provided no comment. As analysis continued, a second researcher

participated in the analysis process. We each reviewed the data

and characterized classroom excerpts regarding the teacher role,

classroom dialog, and the general nature of the classroom.

Overall, there was consensus in our interpretations in that the

activity in Mr. Jackson’s classroom was very consistent from day

to day. Our understanding and consensus of the Mr. Jackson’s

classroom was triangulated by investigator, by data source

(different times, places, and people), as well as methodological

triangulation through observation, interview, and class documents

(e.g., textbook) (Stake, 1995)

Although initially the LCB provided no role in the larger

study other than for classroom selection (Schuh, 2003)itative

data gathered became apparent as educators (tenured faculty in a

School of Education at a major university) read the final

narrative of Mr. Jackson’s classroom in light of the outcomes of

the LCB. The LCB administration materials provide a most

preferred score (MPS) for each subscale. This metric is based

upon the validation samples, creating a boundary above which a

classroom may be described as learner-centered (McCombs et al.,


1997). Although the LCB scores indicated that the students’

perceptions of classroom practices hovered near the most

preferred score for the subscales, and thus, placed Mr. Jackson’s

classroom as showing characteristics of learner-centered

practices, the narrative description painted a picture of a very

teacher-centered approach. It is this discrepancy that prompted

the findings reported here in which I identified specific

questions that students had answered in the LCB that indicated a

tendency towards learner-centeredness in this classroom. Then I

reviewed the narrative for incidents that could support these

student perceptions. In this, the purpose of the analysis was

further data triangulation in that I sought to understand the

seemingly discrepant LCB data in light of the qualitative data

that were gathered, trying to understand how this classroom could

be considered learner-centered.

Findings

My approach in articulating the findings in which students

may have reported learner-centered characteristics in what

appears from observation to be a teacher-centered classroom, is

to first provide a narrative description and interpretation of


the classroom. In this, I echo the tendency to focus on surface

characteristics of the instruction and the environment as might

be done when initially viewing a classroom identifying many

characteristics of teacher-centered practices including the

physical setup of the room, the use of whole group instruction to

gain factual information that are orchestrated outside of the

students, and using the textbook as an authority source. Then I

discuss the classroom in light of the student responses to

questions that indicate aspects of the classroom that they

perceived as being most learner-centered, thus highlighting the

value of an additional data source in understanding this

classroom.

Teacher-centered Practices in Mr. Jackson’s Classroom

I wrote in my field notes following my first observation of

Mr. Jackson’s classroom, “The classroom was very well structured,

the teacher really has a routine of how they go about things. The

kids were not at all surprised about anything that he did. The

class runs like a well-oiled machine. There was absolutely no

extraneous talking, messing around, I mean, discipline was just

there. And this came right after lunch, right after recess; they


came in from outside, they came in at 1:00, and at 1:00 they’re

in their desks and they’re ready to go.”

The physical setup of this well-oiled machine was

representative of a place where one might consider that teacher-

centered instruction occurs. The 24 student desks in Mr.

Jackson’s classroom were lined up in six rows, by pairs of two.

Mr. Jackson’s desk was at the front of the room, right in front

of the well-used chalkboard. On my first day of observation, I

arrived fifteen minutes before social studies began, while the

students were still at lunch. When the students returned, they

immediately went to their desks, were quiet, and ready for social

studies. Columns of social studies words were on the chalkboard.

Mr. Jackson called on students to go to the board and draw a

rectangle around a word in the list that reminded them of Rome.

Very quietly, the selected students drew rectangles around

gladiator, Julius Caesar, polytheistic, matrilineage, and

philosophy. The activity continued, Mr. Jackson providing

feedback to the students. "I'm pretty impressed, you found a

lot,” Mr. Jackson encouraged the class. “I'm glad no one chose

domestication, that was from a previous chapter.”


Following this pre-instructional activity, they began the

unit on the Roman Empire. A typical objective in sixth-grade

social studies is for students to learn about the Roman Empire.

In this classroom, equally important was Mr. Jackson’s objective

for students to develop note-taking skills. During his May 3

interview he mentioned, “I’m not as interested that they remember

all the facts and things about Rome as much as they have learned

to take notes, save their notes, be organized with them, study

the notes, start early in the year, things like that.” He

communicated this to his students as well.

The lesson continued, “Open your books to page 224.

Remember, this grading period the test will be on your

notes. Take good notes, but on the test you can't use your

notes.” Mr. Jackson sat at his desk in the front of the

room. Looking at the book, he read the captions for the

pictures on the first two pages of the chapter. “Find out

how Augustus Caesar helped develop Rome. . . .These are the

focus questions in the unit,” Mr. Jackson continued. Chuck

had his hand up while the teacher is reading the questions.


“Begin on page 225—the main idea,” Mr. Jackson said.

Chuck was called on and began to read aloud.

He read loudly and clearly. I was in the opposite

corner of the room from where he sat. “Main Idea: Rome

grows from a city-state into a world empire. According to an

ancient myth, two helpless baby boys were abandoned in a

basket to drift down the Tibber or Tiber, [“Tiber,” Mr.

Jackson interjected.] Tiber River.” Chuck continued to

read, slowing on the words Romulus and Remus, but

pronouncing them correctly. Students were following along in

the books. One girl was taking notes.

After Chuck finished reading, Mr. Jackson asked,

“What's on that page that we should copy down in our notes?”

“The main idea,” a student said.

Mr. Jackson summarized the main idea from the page that

had just been read.

Chuck shared, “You should write down the key vocabulary

and fill it in.”

“That's an excellent idea, that’s exactly what I do and

write down the meanings as you get to them,” Mr. Jackson


shared in a positive voice. “Rome grows from a city-state to

an empire.” (Day 1, April 5)

I interviewed Chuck after this first lesson in the unit. He

also said that taking notes was something they had worked on all

year. Mr. Jackson’s strategy for developing knowledge about note-

taking skills and the Roman Empire was that of direct instruction

and modeling. For example, as the instruction progressed on Day

2, Mr. Jackson showed his own notepaper to the class and how he

had organized it. After a student had offered a valid answer to

be written as a note, Mr. Jackson commented about how his own

notes aligned with the student’s.

Given the brief narrative above, typical of the class

sessions that I observed in Mr. Jackson's classroom, the

classroom appeared very teacher-centered—the teacher and textbook

providing the structured information and students capturing

similar descriptions of the information. Using teacher-centered

practices, the teacher will engineer conditions outside of the

learner (evident in the structure of this activity) and do things

to and for the learner (Wagner & McCombs, 1995). Although Mr.

Jackson did not “do” the note taking for the learners, the method


was very structured regarding how they should take notes, doing

it in the way that Mr. Jackson himself did. In this information-

extraction process, there was an authority in terms of content.

During his May 3 interview, Mr. Jackson described himself as a

textbook-led teacher, attributing it to his own limited knowledge

of the content. Thus, Mr. Jackson chose to have the textbook as

an authority source. The content and its source were both

conditions orchestrated outside of the learner.

In a way, Mr. Jackson scaffolded the students’ note-taking

skills. For example, when questions required multiple answers, he

told the students how many parts the answers contained and

whether they should be written in sentence form. In addition, he

was very specific about the information that the students were to

take from their textbooks and the students were generally not to

deviate from that source. Consider this example addressing the

focus question that required multiple answers about everyday life

in the Roman household.

“Who can tell me about the father? What did the father do?”

he asked. After a student came up with the appropriate

answers, Mr. Jackson asked, “If the father makes all the


decisions, what does the wife do?” A girl responded, “She

cooked, cleaned and did all the chores.”

“Where did you find that in the book?” Mr. Jackson

asked.

“I didn’t find it in the book,” she answered.

Another student offered that women were entitled to

property but could not vote.

“She cared for the children,” another offered. This was

the answer in the book and Mr. Jackson wrote it on the board

at number 2: “the care of the children belonged to the

wife." (Day 4, April 12)

Although the initial answer above was incorrect, even

potentially correct answers could be rejected if the student

shared that they were from another source that might not be

appropriate for school. For example, Marcus raised his hand to

answer the focus questions about “Who was Jesus of Nazareth and

what did he believe?” and commented that he knew the answer from

Sunday School. Mr. Jackson said, “We all would have ideas based

on what we learned in Sunday school, but we can't do that,”


explaining how he could not proselytize students, and then

prompted answers from the textbook.

Mr. Jackson was open, however to answers that students

provided that may have been better summaries from the textbook

than he himself had prepared. For example he acknowledged that

“Jesus raises from the dead” was a better definition of

resurrection than “rose to heaven on clouds” that he had in his

own notes in the section on early Christianity in their unit on

the Roman Empire.

As the unit progressed, Mr. Jackson altered the strategy as

the students gained independence as seekers of correct

information from their textbook.

“I'm going to give you a few minutes to write down your

answers.” Mr. Jackson read through the questions again, and

told how many parts there would to be to each answer each

one. “First one has three, the second just has one, the

third has 5. They're in the book, there's no magic way to

get them, I just want you to find them in the book.” The

students began looking for the answers. (Day 5, April 13)


Mr. Jackson also acknowledged that there were instances

where other fun and interesting things could be done, if the

students allowed as he noted in his interview. For example,

Friday afternoons were used for showing videos. Although a change

in the routine, this type of activity remained teacher-centered

as well in that Mr. Jackson determined the content and purpose of

the video use, generally as an enhancement to instruction rather

than a means for instruction.

Given the above excerpts, Mr. Jackson’s classroom seems very

teacher-centered and traditional, aligning quite strongly with

Cuban’s (1983)r finding correct answers was aligned with direct

instruction methods of teaching. He provided students many

opportunities for practice and immediate feedback on their

efforts. However, the strategy did not provide opportunities for

personal processing of information or generative learning.

Generally this social studies class appeared to provide none of

the features that one might except to see in a learner-centered

classroom—students working collaboratively, solving problems,

seeking understanding in ways that go beyond repeating

information from a textbook. Yet, students’ perceptions of Mr.


Jackson's classroom on the LCB provided a slightly different

picture.

Learner-centered Perceptions of Mr. Jackson’s Classroom

Table 1 includes the LCB scores for the students’

perceptions of the classroom practice. Mr. Jackson’s perceptions

of the classroom practice as measured by the teacher version of

the LCB were similar, as indicated by the small discrepancy score

(e.g., Mr. Jackson’s score on the first subscale was 3.14 (3.18 –

0.04)). Mr. Jackson’s students perceived the classroom to be more

learner-centered than did their teacher on three of the

subscales. Although Mr. Jackson’s classroom was not highly

learner-centered according to the LCB scores, the most preferred

score (MPS) indicated that Mr. Jackson’s class likely contained

elements of learner-centered principles from which the students

developed their perceptions. Further, each score for students’

perception of classroom practice was at most 0.25 below the MPS.

Variables that related to students’ learning and motivation as

reported by the students were near the MPS as well. Although

student perceptions are a better measure of learner-centeredness

in a classroom (McCombs & Quiat, 2002) (Table 2). Given these


perceptions, although the LCB scores did not indicate that the

classroom was strongly viewed by the students as learner

centered, neither was it strongly viewed as being teacher

centered. This seems contrary to the observation data described

earlier.

Insert Table 1near here


To produce an uncontestable description of the case

confirming as well as disconfirming evidence should be sought.

Methodological triangulation, perhaps the most recognized of

triangulation methods, requires that multiple approaches be used

to understand a case (Stake, 1995). In this study, the LCB and

the observation and interview data provided an opportunity for

this type of triangulation and the two data sets yielded

inconsistent evidence. There are a number of ways that one could

approach the disparity. One would be to ignore one data

collection method, believing it produced erroneous data. Another

approach would be to seek confirmation of one of the


interpretations (in this case teacher-centered or learner-

centered) and attempt to find a reconciliation by which the

anomaly could occur, providing richer description of the case and

describing how two seemingly divergent ideas may be represented

in one particular case. This is the methodological stance that I

took in this study.

In the interpretation that follows, I considered individual

LCB questions in which the students more strongly indicated

learner-centered principles in their classroom. These questions

occurred in the first three subscales identified in Table 1 and

were chosen because the mean score for the student’s perceptions

were above the MPS or above 3.0 (scale choice for “often”). Then,

I sought confirming evidence for these perceptions within the

narrative description of the classroom, to disconfirm the

teacher-centered nature of the classroom based only upon a

pedagogical look. Table 3 provides a summary of the teacher-

centered practices that were observed in conjunction with

learner-centered practices, and which could have influenced the

students’ answers to particular LCB questions, resulting in


responses aligned with learner-centered principles despite the

teacher-centered practices in which they were embedded.


Creates Positive Interpersonal Relationships/Climate

Along with the rather structured approach to teaching and

learning as described above, Mr. Jackson’s classroom was viewed

by his students as positive in terms of interpersonal

relationships and climate in a number of ways. As noted in the

observation Mr. Jackson's complimented the students for their

participation in the activity and what they remembered. He

encouraged and modeled appropriate, polite behavior to all

individuals in the classroom, which may have reinforced students’

abilities in themselves. When students who were reading asked if

they should continue at the end of a section, they were always

encouraged "yes, you're doing fine." When students stumbled over

words, they were politely corrected and encouraged to continue.

Although extracting correct notes from a textbook aligns

with teacher-centered practices, the manner in which Mr. Jackson

interacted with the students during the learning tasks helped to


create interpersonal relationships were and a climate that was

positive, although somewhat formal, in his classroom. Therefore,

within very teacher-centered practices, learner-centered

principles of valuing students and creating a positive climate

were evident. The practices were clearly not learner-centered,

yet exhibited some underlying principles of a learner-centered

perspective.

Honors Student Voice, Provides Challenge, and Encourages Perspective Taking

When student voice is honored and perspective taking is

encouraged, students are encouraged to listen to and think about

their classmates’ opinions. Specific examples of students being

asked to listen to and think about other students’ opinions were

limited because students were not necessarily asked to voice

opinions in the class. Students were to adhere to the topic and to

the prescribed information. In fact, in interviews both teacher

and students shared that going off-track was unacceptable. Yet,

in this classroom, students were clearly expected to listen to

one another. One student or the teacher talked at a time. From

the students’ perspective, one can see that this could be

encouragement to listen and think about what one another said.


Although the content of the comments would be prescribed by the

authority source, whomever was sharing the information was to

have the attention of others.

Encourages Higher Order Thinking and Self-Regulations

Given the focus of the learning and instructional processes

that seemed to rely on repetition, structured content, and recall

and recognition for assessment of learning, it seems surprising

that students responded on the LCB that higher order thinking and

self-regulation were encouraged. Linking new information with

old, organizing new information, and checking for understanding

are included in this subscale.

Certainly, strategies that align with teacher-centered

practices do allow students opportunities for self-regulation.

Developing note-taking strategies modeled by Mr. Jackson was the

primary objective of the unit and provided the students

opportunities to regulate and focus their own learning in a way

prescribed by the teacher. Although there seemed to be few

indicators to confirm that the teacher helped student integrate

new information with prior learning, recall that on the first day

of observation, Mr. Jackson asked students to distinguish among


terms they learned in previous units. Mr. Jackson also provided

an example of a swimming pool to help students understand the

size and purpose of the Roman public baths when addressing the

focus question about the relationship between water and community

in formal life. On the fifth day of the observation, after a

number of students had not provided the correct answer to the

focus question, he reminded students of the swimming pool analogy

presented earlier in the unit. Recall the incident in the

classroom in which the students attempted to answer a question

drawing upon information found in Sunday School rather than the

textbook. Although the source of the information was dismissed as

not valid (thus, a very teacher-centered approach), Mr. Jackson

later allowed Marcus to use his personal experiences as valid

answers once particular parameters had been set about information

sources.

Mr. Jackson helped students monitor their own learning

through modeling and description (e.g., Mr. Jackson shared that

his daughter wrote vocabulary on index cards and quizzed

herself). In-class reviews also provided students a means to

check understanding. If the answers were not known, students knew


they needed to study and were told to go back and review. Mr.

Jackson also reiterated this as the test approached and students

did not know answers to questions.

These incidents do not show encouragement of higher order

thinking. Transfer of learning styles of instruction may depress

use of a deep approach to learner (Gow & Kember, 1993).

Therefore, the limited incidents found in the observation for

this unit might be interpreted as exemplars for this classroom

that were well embedded in and constrained by teacher-centered

practices. While these learner-centered characteristics could be

provided in a teacher-centered classroom, the encouraged thinking

in the classroom seems to be very low level—knowledge and

comprehension at best.

Discussion

The formal structure of Mr. Jackson’s classroom, his

instructional strategy, and the overall climate of the classroom

all appeared to be quite teacher-centered. However, the learner-

centered perspective—guided by foundational principles based upon

research in teaching and learning—does not prescribe what the

instruction should look like (McCombs, 1999)s long as they are


grounded in the learner-centered principles. The principles speak

more of acceptance of learners, and combining a focus on

individual learners with a focus on learning. From this

perspective, Mr. Jackson’s classroom did contain aspects of

learner-centeredness, as indicated by the results of the LCB,

embedded within very teacher-centered practices. While Mr.

Jackson chose teacher-centered strategies for disseminating

information to his students and structuring how they would learn

that information, thus did not limit his acceptance and

encouragement of the students.

There are a variety of ways to characterize any classroom,

often depending upon the source of information that is used. Any

single data source will certainly reduce the complexity of the

classroom in some way. It is important to reconcile these sources

if needed, trying to retain the complexity of the classroom and

use that as a means to better understand the learning

environment. Overall, I believe that Mr. Jackson’s classroom

aligns more strongly with the teacher-centered perspective,

despite the LCB scores. Yet, looking at students’ and teacher’s


LCB scores in conjunction with the observation data helped better

capture the complexity of Mr. Jackson’s classroom.

Learner-centered principles may be embedded within teacher-

centered practices. However, the instructional strategies may

constrain the extent to which the principles may become apparent.

Whether practices are defined by external authority sources

(e.g., the teacher is required to teach in a particular way) or

is one that the teacher chooses, it may provide constraints and

limit the appearance of actions that align with a learner-

centered perspective, even though the teachers’ beliefs may be

grounded in that perspective. Fang (1996)t practice, and an

inconsistency theory, in which actions do not mirror beliefs.

Seeing a given strategy in action does not permit an observer to

draw conclusions regarding a teacher’s beliefs about learning.

Given the case described here, one should be cautious with the

“look” of a classroom in that it may not provide the entire

picture. Observations alone, just as student and teacher

perceptions gathered via a rating scale alone, will not capture

the complexity.


There is a need for triangulated sources of information to

provide a more complete picture of the learning opportunities

within a classroom. Students may interpret perception questions

in different ways than do the researcher or other adult. Students

as a group may consistently interpret and answer a question in

the same way, thus perhaps providing an inflated or deflated

score on a particular question, group of questions, or subscale.

Consider question 18, where students responded to whether they

were encouraged to think things out for themselves. Students may

perceive that working independently in very structured activities

that employ a prescribed sequence is being encouraged to think

things out for themselves. Without additional data sources,

understanding what constitutes independent activity in a

classroom is impossible. This is not to say that student

perceptions are without value—they provide an important, and

often telling, lens into the classroom. Rather, there is further

need to understand how students interpret perception questions

and the criteria on which they base their responses. This again

points to the need for triangulation of data sources to

understand the complexity of classrooms.


Learning environments are complex systems. Characterizing

them using a single source of data or forcing them into

dichotomous categories may cause teachers, evaluators, and

researchers to unknowingly misinterpret the variables studied by

removing the characteristics that make classrooms what they are.

With renewed emphasis on teacher and student standards and

accountability, it seems increasingly important to attempt more

thorough understandings of learning environments. Employing data

triangulation should be considered a methodological necessarily

in every assessment and research study involving complex learning

environments to better capture the interplay among instructional

practices, student and teacher perceptions, and learning needs

and outcomes.

References


Table 1

Classroom Results for Four Learner-Centered Battery Subscales on

Students’ Perception of Classroom Practices for Mr. Jackson's

Classroom

Scale M SD D RMost PreferredScore (MPS)

Creates positive

interpersonal

relationships/clima

te

3.18 0.66 0.04 1.86 - 4.00

High 3.3

Honors student

voice, provides

challenge, and

encourages

perspective taking

2.95 0.62 0.09 2.00 - 4.00

High 3.2

Encourages higher

order thinking and

self-regulation

3.09 0.64 0.26 2.00 -4.00

High 3.1

Adapts to individual

developmental

2.17 0.86 -0.23

1.20 -4.00

High 2.6


differences

n = 23; M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; D = Discrepancy Score;

R = Range; Most Preferred Score - Most preferred score patterns

are based on the scores of the 25 validation sample teachers with

the highest proportion of students who were high in both

classroom achievement and motivation. For the validation sample,

data were collected from 113 middle school teachers and 2476

middle school students, 155 high school teachers and 3136 high

school students from six states: AK, CO, IL, KY, MI, NC.

(McCombs et al., 1997).


Table 2

Mr. Jackson’s Learner-Centered Battery scores for Teacher Beliefs

Subscale M MPS

Learner-centered belief about learners,

learning, and teaching

3.21 High

3.2

Nonlearner-centered beliefs about

learners

2.11 Low <

2.4

Nonlearner-centered beliefs about

learning and teaching

2.42 Low <

2.4

M = Mean; MPS = Most Preferred Score


Table 3

Examples of Mr. Jackson’s teacher-centered practices mingled with learner-centered

practices that may have resulted in students’ learner-centered perceptions of this

classroom as indicated by specific Learner-Centered Battery questions.

Teacher-centered practice Learner-centered practice

Student perception as indicated by LCB question

LCB question datan = 23

Creates Positive Interpersonal Relationships/Climate (MPS: High 3.3)

While Mr. Jackson Provided a structured

approach of information extraction from an authority source

He alsoComplimented

students on their efforts

Indicating thathe“Appreciates

me as an individual”

Q 1M = 3.3913SD = 0.7827

Encouraged and modeled appropriate, polite behavior

“Treats me with respect”

Q 24M = 3.6087SD = 0.6564

Encouraged students’ efforts

“Helped students feel good about his or her abilities”

Q 17M = 3.2174SD = 0.9980

Honors Student Voice, Provides Challenge, and Encourages Perspective Taking (MPS: High 3.2)

While Mr. Jackson Provided a very structured

method for students to interact with the content

He alsoAsked students to

apply the method independently after guided practice

Indicating thathe“Encouraged me

to think thingsout for myself while learning”

Q 18M = 3.1304SD = .8129


While Mr. Jackson Constrained student dialog

by controlling what was appropriate content

He also Required that

students pay attention and listen to whomeverwas speaking

Indicating thathe“Encouraged

students to listen and think about my classmates’ opinions”

Q 22M = 3.2174SD = 0.9980


Table 3 (continued)

Encourages Higher Order Thinking and Self-Regulation (MPS: High 3.1)

While Mr. Jackson Prescribed a note-taking

strategy and thus controlled the means for student interaction with the content

He alsoProvided a year-

long effort for students to develop note-taking skills

Indicating thathe“Helped me

learn how to organize what I’m learning soI can remember it more easily”

Q 3M = 3.5652SD = 0.7278

Modeled and described processes to test personal understanding of the prescribed information

Indicating thatheHelped

students “learnhow to check how well I understand whatI am learning”

Q 19M = 3.2174SD = 0.9514

While Mr. JacksonProvided the potential

links for the students rather than seeking them from the students

He also Used links with

which the studentswould be familiar

Indicating thathe“Helps me put

new informationtogether with what I already know so that ismakes sense to me”

Q 11M = 3.0870SD = 1.0407

Learner-Centered Principles in Teacher-Centered Practices

Documents