See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334159773

Understanding student-centred learning in higher education: students’ and

teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps

Article  in  Journal of Further and Higher Education · July 2019

DOI: 10.1080/0309877X.2019.1636214

CITATIONS READS

8 1,029

1 author:

Jose Eos Trinidad

University of Chicago
18 PUBLICATIONS   26 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Research Guides View project

School Context and Program Implementation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jose Eos Trinidad on 13 November 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

JOURNAL OF FURTHER AND HIGHER EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/0309877X.2019.1636214

Understanding student-centred learning in higher education:

students’ and teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive
gaps
Jose Eos Trinidad
Department of Interdisciplinary Studies/Institute for the Science and Art of Learning and Teaching, Ateneo de
Manila University, Quezon City, Philippines

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Student-centred learning (SCL) is often understood differently by people, Received 20 March 2019
and the differences are even more salient in higher education, where Accepted 21 June 2019
there are some very strong advocates and vocal critics. Theoretical KEYWORDS
research on SCL in higher education often highlights five key aspects Student-centered learning;
but these have not been empirically scrutinised. Qualitative research higher education; pedagogy;
with students and faculty from a large private university in the student engagement;
Philippines shows that there are particular facets of SCL that faculty implementation constraints
and students eagerly subscribe to, particularly in terms of class engage-
ment, skills building, and having motivated students. However, they fail
to readily question how assessments and power relations between tea-
chers and students are part of SCL. It suggests that SCL is viewed and
reduced to effective classroom practices that have little to do with more
foundational aspects of the teacher–student relationship and manifold
possibilities for learning.

Introduction
With the rise of cognitive and learning sciences in recent years, there has been increasing interest
in determining how best to teach students and promote their learning (Sawyer 2005). As informa-
tion becomes more readily available, competition more prominent and technology more pervasive,
learning itself becomes more important in order to participate in the present knowledge economy.
But the economy also becomes more complex since it is no longer just about the accumulation of
knowledge and information. Many education theorists and researchers have tried to explore the
best ways students learn, retain ideas, improve skills, and create innovative projects, with the goal
of improving engagement and instruction (Slavich and Zimbardo 2012). Student-centred learning
(SCL) offers an umbrella term to describe efforts for students to become actively engaged in their
learning and for teachers to design and facilitate the learning process (Hoidn 2017).
Often, SCL is understood in terms of classroom practices that involve students experiencing,
collaborating, testing, creating, and directing their own learning (O’Neill and McMahon 2005).
There have been many variations, definitions and terms that relate to SCL, and these have at
times led to confusion. For example, active learning involves students reading, writing, discussing,
analyzing, evaluating, and creating to exercise higher-order thinking skills (Ott et al. 2018). On the
other hand, collaborative learning involves students working with their peers: students do not only
participate in content and knowledge-building but also learn skills in cooperation and commu-
nication (Ralston, Tretter, and Kendall-Brown 2017; Zheng et al. 2014). Experiential learning involves

CONTACT Jose Eos Trinidad jtrinidad@ateneo.edu

© 2019 UCU
Below is the pre-print manuscript version of the research. I provide this in order for other
researchers who do not have access to journal articles and databases to have access to this
present research.

If you wish to receive the print version, you may email me at jtrinidad@ateneo.edu or

jtrinidad@uchicago.edu
Understanding student-centered learning in higher education:
Students’ and teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps

Jose Eos Trinidad

Department of Interdisciplinary Studies/

Institute for the Science and Art of Learning and Teaching

Ateneo de Manila University

Correspondence: Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Horacio de la Costa Hall,

Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City, Philippines

jtrinidad@ateneo.edu

Jose Eos Trinidad is Instructor at the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies and Coordinator for
Research and Outreach of the Ateneo de Manila Institute for the Science and Art of Learning of
Teaching (Ateneo SALT Institute). He received his bachelor’s degree from the same university
and his graduate degree from the University of Chicago. His research focuses on students’ non-
cognitive factors that improve later life outcomes, and teachers’ responses to bureaucratic control.
Understanding student-centered learning in higher education:
Students’ and teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps

Student-centered learning (SCL) is often understood differently by people, and the

differences are even more salient in higher education, where there are some very
strong advocates and vocal critics. Theoretical research on SCL in higher education
often highlights five key aspects but these have not been empirically scrutinized.
Qualitative research with students and faculty from a large private university in the
Philippines shows that there are particular facets of SCL that faculty and students
eagerly subscribe to, particularly in terms of class engagement, skills building, and
having motivated students. However, they fail to readily question how assessments
and power relations between teachers and students are part of SCL. It suggests that
SCL is viewed and reduced to effective classroom practices that have little to do
with more foundational aspects of the teacher-student relationship and manifold
possibilities for learning.

Keywords: student-centered learning; higher education; pedagogy; student

engagement; implementation constraints

Introduction

With the rise of cognitive and learning sciences in recent years, there has been increasing

interest in determining how best to teach students and promote their learning (Sawyer,

2005). As information becomes more readily available, competition more prominent and

technology more pervasive, learning itself becomes more important in order to participate

in the present knowledge economy. But the economy also becomes more complex since

it is no longer just about the accumulation of knowledge and information. Many education

theorists and researchers have tried to explore the best ways students learn, retain ideas,

improve skills, and create innovative projects, with the goal of improving engagement

and instruction (Slavich & Zimbardo, 2012). Student-centered learning (SCL) offers an

umbrella term to describe efforts for students to become actively engaged in their learning

and for teachers to design and facilitate the learning process (Hoidn, 2017).
 Often, SCL is understood in terms of classroom practices that involve students

experiencing, collaborating, testing, creating, and directing their own learning (O’Neill

& McMahon, 2005). There have been many variations, definitions and terms that relate

to SCL, and these have at times led to confusion. For example, active learning involves

students reading, writing, discussing, analyzing, evaluating, and creating to exercise

higher-order thinking skills (Ott, Carpenter, Hamilton, & LaCourse, 2018). On the other

hand, collaborative learning involves students working with their peers: students do not

only participate in content and knowledge-building but also learn skills in cooperation

and communication (Ralston, Tretter, & Kendall-Brown, 2017; Zheng, Yang, Cheng, &

Huang, 2014). Experiential learning involves students engaging in or reflecting on their

personal experiences in order to abstract knowledge and gain skills. This model usually

involves four phases of concrete experience, reflection, abstract conceptualization, and

active experimentation (Konak, Clark, & Nasereddin, 2014; Pugh, 2014). Problem-based

learning involves instructors posing complex issues and problems on groups of students,

and helping them brainstorm, formulate, and structure their ideas. In the process, students

learn concepts and principles that are much broader than the specific problems posed

(Brassler & Dettmers, 2017; Gijbels, Dochy, Bossche, & Segers, 2005). These different

terms are closely related to student-centered learning, which emphasizes the centrality of

the students’ role in terms of practice, curriculum, and content (Lee & Hannafin, 2016).

Given these different terms, different people may also have different ideas about what

truly constitutes SCL.

Although there are varying ways of understanding SCL, it is often contrasted with

teacher-centered learning (TCL) since the former is a constructivist approach that

assumes that construction of knowledge is shared with students actively involved. In

contrast, the latter is an approach where teachers share knowledge to their students who

are thought of as passive receivers of information (Kain, 2003). Some simplistically think
of it as SCL involving active learning techniques and collaborative pedagogical activities,

and TCL including unidirectional lectures and tests. However, SCL is not so much just

about classroom practices since what it provides is a perspective for the teacher-student-

content relationship and environment. Seen in this way, being student-centered does not

mean forgoing lectures since different learning outcomes will need their own appropriate

pedagogical modes—at times necessarily inclusive of lectures and didactic forms of

teaching (Mascolo, 2009). Nonetheless, at the core of SCL is a perspective of the

teachers’ design of active and deep learning, and the students’ autonomy and

responsibility for learning (Arman, 2018; O’Neill & McMahon, 2005).

In higher education, the concept of SCL is more thoroughly problematized

because of SCL’s misconceptions and assumptions, teachers’ pedagogical preferences,

and the practical feasibility of transitioning to a SCL environment. First, some faculty

question whether this pedagogical practice truly enhances students’ sense of involvement

given that it also assumes that learners are motivated and engaged (Harju & Åkerblom,

2017). Relatedly, there are difficulties implementing SCL in ‘high power distance’

societies where hierarchical relationships are more salient, like in Asia (Hong, 2011).

Yasmin and colleagues (2019) find that students’ cultural expectations of teachers as

experts and the submission to elders are of paramount importance. Second, lecturing is

still the most employed means of transmission of knowledge in higher education despite

critiques like student absenteeism and lack of engagement (Schmidt, Wagener, Smeets,

Keemink, & van der Molen, 2015). Most professors still prefer this mode of instruction

for a variety of reasons, including the necessity of covering content, having large classes,

introducing new information, and helping students with difficult readings (Mazer & Hess,

2017). Lastly, both students and teachers talk about the positive benefits of SCL but

wanted the balance between teacher-directed and student-centered approaches since

students are anxious of pedagogical approaches that lack structures and supports, and
resources may not be present for SCL’s effective implementation (Lea, Stephenson, &

Troy, 2003).

Although opposition exists for SCL, it also has a number of champions. Gloria

Brown Wright (2011) and Maryellen Weimer (2013) have both written about key aspects

of SCL in higher education, and they outline five crucial aspects or “key changes to

practice.” First, there must be a balance of power with its being shared by both professor

and student in terms of activities, decision-making, and assigned roles. Second, the

function of content is to contribute to the learning process and acquisition of skills rather

than just memorization of concepts. Third, the role of the teacher shifts from being the

sole knowledge source to being a guide, designer, and facilitator of learning. Fourth, there

is the assumption that the responsibility for learning rests on independent and self-

motivated students. Lastly, the purpose of evaluation is not only to generate grades but

also to be a means for students to learn, practice skills, and be given feedback. Although

good in theory, these five aspects of SCL in higher education need to be mapped out to

how teachers and students actually view SCL.

The present research asks how higher education faculty and students perceive and

understand what is meant by student-centered learning. It clarifies which of the five

aspects people easily subscribe to and where the gaps are in the definition of SCL. On the

one hand, the research empirically tests out the five aspects Wright and Weimer propose

as shifts for SCL; it clarifies how people understand SCL and the activities included in

this approach. On the other hand, the research also shows opportunities for deeper

engagement and understanding of the SCL concept. One of the arguments in this research

is that SCL has often been reduced to a set of practices that engage students in class

activities but its potential as a perspective or worldview has not been fully realized. Thus,

the present need is to understand the current perceptions of SCL in order to see and rectify

the lapses in people’s understanding.

Data collection and analysis

Data for this research came from Sierra University, a large private Catholic university in

Manila, Philippines with more than 8000 undergraduate students. It provides professional

education in the natural and social sciences, arts, engineering, and management, and is

most known for its liberal arts education, which most students take through core courses

in languages, philosophy, theology, and social sciences. Majority of the students from the

university are from more privileged backgrounds, given the higher cost of tuition.

Nonetheless, slightly more than 20 percent of the students are on some form of

scholarship, which makes the population mixed. The university’s name was also changed

to protect its privacy.

To understand how faculty and students understand student-centered learning, the

research team interviewed 93 people: 52 undergraduate students and 41 faculty members.

Given the many departments and degree concentrations, the team tried to get as diverse a

sample as possible. This was done through purposive sampling of students and faculty

from different departments in the colleges of humanities, social and natural sciences,

engineering, and management. In terms of gender, there was parity for the composition

of the undergraduates with 27 females and 25 males interviewed. For the faculty, there

were 16 females and 25 males interviewed.

The students and professors were invited to individual semi-structured interviews

and the questions focused on how they understand student-centered learning, innovative

and traditional practices in universities, challenges to implementation, and best ways for

learning concepts and skills. Although there were the five themes from Wright’s (2011)

journal article, we abstained from mentioning this so as not to influence people’s answers

on their views of SCL. After having the audio-recorded interviews, the individual

members of the research team transcribed their own interviews to obtain accurate
transcriptions. These transcriptions were then collated by the principal investigator and

discussed by the team to find common themes.

The team used abductive reasoning when coding the data. When doing this type

of data analysis, expected themes are coded from what is generally known from the

research literature and these are juxtaposed with unexpected themes that came from the

interview data (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). In this present research, the five aspects

of SCL in higher education was used as the expected themes while the unanticipated data

were coded as new themes that arose. Not all five aspects were equally highlighted in the

interviews and there were a number of new ideas that deviated or challenged the five

aspects originally presented in Weimer’s (2013) book. The flow diagram on Figure 1

shows how the present coding from the interviews differed from Weimer’s original

themes. Aside from the university name being changed, the participants’ names were not

mentioned to protect their privacy. This research was approved by the university’s

institutional review board.

Results

From the interviews with students and faculty of Sierra University, four general themes

are highlighted on their understanding of student-centered learning: (1) pedagogical

engagement, (2) relevance and skills-building, (3) student motivation and participation,

and (4) practical challenges for implementation. Although most of the themes are shared

by both students and instructors, subtle differences show between the two groups’

understanding of engagement, relevant skills, and motivation.

Pedagogical engagement

When asked about their preliminary thoughts on what they consider part of student-

centered learning (SCL), most students and faculty refer to activities inside and outside

classrooms that try to engage students’ learning. They also clarify the place of lectures,
technology, and output in student-centered university environments.

Class activities. Most students’ ideas center on pedagogical practices that are

interactive and engaging; these include discussions, case studies, field lectures, debates,

and class activities. Students talk about how they need to feel involved in the process of

learning and challenged by the activities the instructor designs.

In response to this desire for engagement, faculty members often think of SCL in

terms of interactive activities. A psychology faculty member thinks that a lot of students

prefer this because of how it caters to them individually, and so other instructors vary

their teaching styles with a panoply of activities including “lecture input, student activities

and feedback, individual seatwork, and groupwork.” Other faculty members also think

that such variety in activities is helpful for students who are easily bored and can have

shortened attention spans.

An instructor of a management innovations class mentioned that she uses

experiential learning techniques, which is particularly useful for her classes on creativity.

She said a student “needs to experiment, to get himself or herself out there, to experience

and express his or her ideas and feelings.” Students also acknowledge the importance of

experiential learning, and one even said that this happens “when the teacher gives the

students activities that will force them to experiment, solve problems, and engage.”

SCL does not mean, however, that students just want experiential activities since

they acknowledge differences between subjects. They see and appreciate how professors

in the humanities and social sciences encourage teacher-student interactions through

discourse and oral participation; those in the natural sciences prefer laboratory work and

experiments; while those in management emphasize more group work and collaborative

activities. These differences are important since teachers should also not feel that SCL is

just about class participation or experiential activities.

 Lectures. Both students and faculty differentiate SCL from the traditional

teacher-centered model. One humanities junior stated, “The ‘teacher teaches, students sit

down and listen’ type of class is very old, boring and ineffective.” With faculty, a theme

that comes across was their move from a more teacher-centered lecture-based instruction

to one where they slowly engage and discuss with their students. A sociology professor

said that he used to be very by-the-book but that it changed when he asked himself, “Why

would students come to class if what I’m giving them is exactly what they can get without

me?” Thus, this led to more interactive discussions with his class.

Although students and faculty differentiate between the teacher-centered and

student-centered models, a good number of them talk about the need to balance lectures

and student activities. An international relations sophomore said that the university and

its faculty “should discern which classes are appropriate for… an innovative style because

not all classes can be applicable.” This is further nuanced by one psychology student who

mentioned how “traditional education allows students to be more efficient at reciting and

memorizing, however, it limits their capability to be creative,” which is why it must be

mixed in with ways of engaging students.

Thus, SCL does not mean taking away the faculty’s important role as expert who

can and must lecture. When asked about the possibility that faculty’s role is simply to

facilitate the acquisition of knowledge, they said that it is not just about facilitating but

sharing from their expertise and breadth of knowledge. More than just teaching, they hope

to inspire students to have a sense of the profession or their scholarship, and this can

oftentimes only be done through lectures coming from one’s personal experience. A

history professor understands his role as providing students a sense of what historians do:

“My role is more to give the students a sense of how I do my work.” Through lectures,

experts are able to share about their passion, process, and perseverance in the profession.
 Technology. Aside from the interactive engagement that happens in the classes,

some brought up the concept of technology being an element of SCL. Although students

talked about the need to use technology to maximize online and face-to-face interactions,

some did not find this to be sufficiently considered SCL. Interestingly, some students

even considered the use of slide presentations as traditional.

In contrast, there were a number of teachers who emphasized how they practice

SCL through the use of technology. One theology instructor mentioned how he facilitated

distance learning, scheduling of activities, and provision of outside-class work through

the use of a learning management system. Other faculty members also talked about their

use of slide presentations as helpful for SCL.

However, there were at least two professors who opined otherwise. A statistics

professor said, “When you write down the formulas and then the solutions, I still feel that

it makes a better impact rather than when you flash, you just flash everything in one

slide.” In this way, he thinks that greater learning happens as students go through the

motion of writing. Similarly, a communications professor talked about how not using

technology can sometimes be more innovative since students are so connected already

that it is so novel when they are disconnected from their computers.

Output. It is interesting that only a handful of students and faculty mentioned the

role of outputs and assessments in the SCL environments. Only one student hinted at the

use of assessments for learning when a general studies major said that she would prefer

to receive constructive criticism for the assignments they are given. Most students still

think that exams and quizzes are only their grades at the end of the semester.

For the university instructors, only two talked about the output of students. One

was a visual arts instructor who asks her students to show how they applied their acquired

skills on a creative output while the other was a philosophy professor who talked about

requiring students to create outlines and have final oral exams. In both cases, nothing was
mentioned about the role of assessments as tools for deeper learning; assessments are still

often seen as a reflection of what was learned from the course.

Relevance and skills-building

Aside from the manner of instruction, students and faculty also think of SCL in terms of

the content, relevance, and skills being fostered in the courses. Students look not only for

learning new knowledge but having skills that are relevant to their future work or have

real-world applications. On the other hand, faculty members are keen on teaching students

professional, critical thinking, and life skills that span more than just the future economic

opportunities for the students.

In terms of content, students are interested in content that provide them with skills

relevant to current and future contexts. Two environmental science seniors talked about

how “laboratory and fieldwork personally helps [them] visualize these theories and truly

understand and know them.” Similar sentiments were raised by management students

who talk about the importance of real-world applications. At least five management

students actually said that they found subjects taught by professionals extremely

insightful because of their grounded knowledge. In addition to contextualized lessons, a

management economics sophomore mentioned the need for these lessons to be updated

and contextualized.

Inasmuch as students appreciate relevant content taught by professionals, it does

not automatically mean that a professional teacher is more effective. For example, an

engineering student mentioned that some of his teachers are practicing engineers and

researchers, and experience difficulties in effective instruction and knowledge sharing.

Thus, relevant content knowledge must also be combined with the experts’ pedagogical

skills.
 For the teachers’ perspective, there is a lot more variety in terms of how they

conceive of relevant skills that can be taught through their content. Some professors echo

what the students say and they speak about the need for the content to prepare them for

life outside. Most instructors from the management and engineering colleges talk about

university as preparatory for professions, which is why classes rely on case studies and

practical activities. One management professor even noticed that “students often have a

mindset that if it’s not relevant to their context then it’s not worth knowing.” Thus,

content is often understood as a means for building relevant skills.

However, there are also professors who think of “relevant skills” much more

broadly in terms of using course knowledge to cultivate abilities not just for the students’

professional lives but also their personal lives. One mathematics professors said,

An ideal college class imparts knowledge and skills relevant to the student's
holistic development. This spans the gamut of specific course content (i.e.,
evaluating limits of a function), integrated values and attitudes (i.e., critical
thinking and creativity in problem-solving), and cultivating the ability to
recognize applications of both to various areas of life (i.e., professionally,
personally).

It is not unique for university faculty to see their role as both supportive of their students’

professional growth and formative of their personal maturity. Although not all are

comfortable with this “mentor” role, some professors said that circumstances sometimes

force them to assume these roles.

This idea is also supported by some students who thought of relevant skills as

inclusive of a whole range of skills like critical and integrative thinking. In one sociology

course, a student talked about her teacher who emphasized critical thinking and that

students “aren’t taking up a higher education just for the sake of landing a high-paying

job.” Another student also mentioned how the university is not just about getting skills

for work but also having a sense of how everything integrated into a larger picture. Thus,

content is used for students to have a much wider and more critical view of their lives.
Student motivation and participation

Another theme emerging from the interviews involved how motivation and participation

are important drivers for SCL. Both students and faculty say that much of SCL rests on

the assumption that students are involved, motivated, and actually participate in class.

First, the responsibility falls on the students to prepare for their classes. Most

students actually view the importance of their preparation, with one saying, “Students

cannot expect teachers to be good at what they’re doing if the students themselves are not

cooperating in class.” A biology major adds that there is the expectation for both students

and teachers to both be prepared in classes. However, students often feel that participating

in class is a difficult feat and this will be discussed in the next subsection.

Second, motivation is not so much about individual people but more about the

class’ collective engagement. One female student mentioned, “I observed that if my

classmates are engaged, I’m more likely to be… engaged as well.” The opposite seems

to also be true, especially as one economics student told a story about how in a class there

were only very few interested students, and that he—even if he was interested—was

dissuaded from participating for fear of being labelled overly engaged. Thus, this concept

of responsibility for learning can actually be affected by other students’ performance.

In both scenarios, the focus is on the engagement that happens in the classroom.

Since class engagement seems to be a challenge, instructors try various means to create

spaces for students to engage. There are those who would pose a question for small group

or pair discussions, rather than posing the question to the whole class for a person to

answer. Even if motivation is dependent on the students, some faculty still make efforts

to get students motivated. One difficulty experienced in this regard is when students feel

forced to join particular classes. A political science professor talks about this when

students are required to join general education classes and do not have any interest in the

course. In this way, faculty even take it upon themselves to “sell” the course by
motivating the students to learn more about its content and showing how the course is

actually relevant to them.

Practical challenges for implementation

Students and faculty members’ understanding of SCL aligns in certain aspects like

engagement through pedagogy, relevance through professional and personal skills-

building, and increasing student motivation and participation. Some nuances were also

shown in terms of the function of lectures, technology, and output in SCL environments.

However, they also acknowledge certain practical challenges with SCL, particularly in

terms of time and engagement.

A number of faculty mentioned that the crucial challenge with SCL is that it takes

a lot of time to both prepare and have student-centered discussions. In terms of

preparation, some faculty think that more innovative student-centered classes entail them

doing a lot more work, particularly with activities, case studies, and examples that go

beyond the textbook. In terms of discussions, there is a similar concern of being unable

to finish content because of SCL. An anthropology professor, who has been with the

university for more than 30 years, said it is challenging to get everyone to talk in a large

class and it takes time to get everyone’s ideas heard. Because of this, some suggest to

have smaller classes but they also acknowledge how this will have cost implications.

Another example for this time challenge was a biology professor who had SCL

practices and interactive lessons at the start of the semester but quickly transitioned to

lectures towards the second half because of all the course content that needed to be

covered. Thus, the time element for both preparation and execution is a central concern

for the use of SCL.

On the other side, students also see challenges with full implementation of SCL.

Most recognize how much effort faculty make to create engaging SCL environments but
majority of students are not accustomed to speaking up in class either because of fear of

being judged or because of their own introversion. It is also interesting that some students

are actually resistant to more interactive pedagogies, with one saying, “I hate it when

profs want us to do something like group works or presentations and stuff. I’m more

comfortable when I’m just sitting down, listening, or taking notes.”

Thus, there is an irony that some students prefer having interactive classes while

others prefer just sitting down and taking notes. This poses a challenge for teachers to

know how to obtain an optimal balance between these two extremes. On the one hand,

professors talk about the shortened attention span of their students and the need to engage

them with more than just lectures. On the other hand, some students voiced out that they

are not familiar, comfortable, and equipped to fully participate in SCL, which does not

automatically mean that they are resistant to it.

Discussion and conclusions

The theoretical literature on student-centered learning (SCL) in higher education focus

on five aspects regarding the role of the teacher, the function of content, the responsibility

for learning, the purpose of evaluations, and the balance of power. The present research

shows which of the five facets are more evident than the others, and how university

students and faculty differentially view SCL. Aside from summarizing insights from

these facets, the discussion adds how SCL views are limited to classroom interaction

without problematizing the very power relations between teachers and students.

First, many in the university view the role of the teacher not so much as a “guide

on the side” but more as facilitator and expert. On the one hand, students and faculty

value classroom engagement, learning activities, and applications, often with the students

doing a lot of the work. On the other hand, many also emphasized the delicate balance

between lectures and activities. More than providing efficient use of time, lectures are
also a means for university instructors to effectively share their expertise and provide

students with specialist input, which may not have sprung up when students just do class

activities (Barkley & Major, 2018). Thus, the role of teacher is more than just guides and

coaches but also as experts and designers of knowledge. These additional roles are

particularly salient in university classes where students need more expert knowledge and

input, which they may not have gotten otherwise if left to just work on their own projects.

Second, many professors and students think that the course content and activities

need to give students skills that are applicable for their present and future lives. A

recurring theme from the interviews was the need for the course to be relevant. Students

agree that they are more engaged when the content is relevant and contextualized to them

and their future work. Learning for them is not about memorization but about acquiring

skills and mindsets applicable for future careers.

Although there are still some professors who view content as something to be

covered and mastered—particularly for courses where their graduates have professional

regulatory examinations after—many view their content as providing skills that students

can use in their professional and personal lives. It is an important distinction that

professors think that they too impart skills in critical and integrative thinking, creative

problem-solving, and formative skills essential for the person’s maturity. This is in

addition to whatever professional skills they teach through their courses. Thus, some

professors do not just look at their role as preparing the students professionally but also

personally through maturity of reflection, thought and attitude (Euler & Kühner, 2017).

Third, responsibility for learning is most critically seen in the motivation and

participation of students in their classes and activities. Many students believe that their

learning is dependent on their own engagement but this engagement can oftentimes be

influenced by personal and social constraints, such as introversion and peers’ non-

participation in class. Similarly, there are students who do not want to engage in class
because of the cultural expectation that they only need to listen and take notes. Thus, the

faculty members take it upon themselves to design engaging activities, and so even if the

responsibility for learning falls on the student, the onus for creating structures that

facilitate this responsibility still falls on the teacher. The shift to SCL will not only need

the change of particular faculty in their course teaching but also need a shift in students’

expectations of their role and participation.

Fourth, although most faculty and students see the merit of student-centered

environments, they also recognize how time and student engagement pose important

constraints. On the one hand, faculty talk about the time it takes to finish lessons and

concepts when using SCL while on the other hand, not all students readily participate in

SCL classes. If teachers or institutions hope to transition to SCL environments, they must

create functional alternatives that address the time and engagement “issues” (Trinidad,

2018).

Fifth, there were two SCL aspects that were not as readily apparent for both

students and teachers. Only very few mentioned anything about the purpose of

evaluations and most of their ideas still focus on evaluations as a means for students to

receive their deserved grade at the end of the semester. Most see course evaluations as

testing how much students learned, either in terms of knowledge or skills. However, less

is said about how these evaluations are used as pedagogical devices to help students

deepen their learning (Wright, 2011). Teachers did not mention any attempt at using

evaluations to “teach” skills or content in the same way as no student mentioned how they

learn from their assessments in class. Another SCL aspect that does not seem to be in

people’s consciousness is the way they view the balance of power. Many of the decisions

are still made by the professor, and both students and faculty seem not to mind this type

of arrangement. Most still believe that this differential power is necessary and is not at

odds with the idea of learner-centeredness. Of course, this can partly be explained by the
hierarchical culture in Philippine or Asian society (Lynch, 2004), but could this be a

missed opportunity? A similar case is shown in the challenges of having student-centered

environments in Vietnam because of the high power distance (i.e. more pronounced social

hierarchies) and the Confucian values of conformity and receptivity (Thanh, 2010).

In a sense, these two gaps can be interpreted as students being comfortable with

SCL in the classroom and not needing it to affect the evaluations and the power relations

between teachers and students. From the interviews, there is the narrow view of SCL as

happening inside the classroom but not influencing the very base of power relations and

deeper learning—of the very empowerment of students (Hains & Smith, 2012). Thus,

SCL can oftentimes be reduced to a set of pedagogical strategies and practical techniques

that are effective at engaging students. The base and the assumptions of power relations

are not questioned, scrutinized and problematized. Although societies with low power

distance (i.e. with weaker social hierarchies) can empower students to speak out, high

power distance can prevent students from challenging the concentration of “power” and

responsibility the university faculty holds (Paulus, Bichelmeyer, Malopinsky, Pereira, &

Rastogi, 2005). This present study suggests that this may be the case in the Philippines

and other high power distance societies, and still more research is necessary to see how

students can assert their own “power” in university classes.

It can be argued that student-centered learning is understood as creating engaging

activities, teaching relevant skills, and having motivated students. However, less thought

is given to the philosophy behind it. SCL cannot be reduced to a set of techniques but

should question the way both teachers and students understand their relationship and the

process of learning. This is particularly important in universities where students need both

independent thought and expert guidance, activities that can let them construct knowledge

on their own and specialist input about the complex nuances of what is learned. Learning

and teaching in universities cannot be reduced to good teaching practices; the philosophy
and assumptions must themselves be dissected in order to bring about what can genuinely

be called learning centered on the students.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arman, M. S. (2018). Student-centered approach to teaching: It takes two to tango. The

Ahfad Journal, 35(2), 64–71.

Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2018). Interactive Lecturing: A Handbook for College

Faculty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Brassler, M., & Dettmers, J. (2017). How to Enhance Interdisciplinary Competence—

Interdisciplinary Problem-Based Learning versus Interdisciplinary Project-Based

Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(2).

https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1686

Euler, D., & Kühner, P. (2017). Problem-Based Assignments as a Trigger for

Developing Ethical and Reflective Competencies. Interdisciplinary Journal of

Problem-Based Learning, 11(2). (Purdue University Press. Stewart Center

Room 370, 504 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Tel: 800-247-

6553; Fax: 419-281-6883; e-mail: pupress@purdue,edu; Web site:

http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/).

Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Bossche, P. V. den, & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of Problem-

Based Learning: A Meta-Analysis From the Angle of Assessment. Review of

Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001027

Hains, B. J., & Smith, B. (2012). Student-Centered Course Design: Empowering

Students to Become Self-Directed Learners. Journal of Experiential Education,

35(2), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591203500206

Harju, A., & Åkerblom, A. (2017). Colliding collaboration in student-centred learning

in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1532–1544.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1113954

Hoidn, S. (2017). Introduction. In Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher

Education Classrooms (pp. 1–21). Retrieved from

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-349-94941-0_1

Hong, T. P. T. (2011). Issues to consider when implementing student-centred learning

practices at Asian higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education

Policy and Management, 33(5), 519–528.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.605226

Kain, D. J. (2003). Teacher-Centered versus Student-Centered: Balancing Constraint

and Theory in the Composition Classroom. Pedagogy, 3(1), 104–108.

Konak, A., Clark, T. K., & Nasereddin, M. (2014). Using Kolb’s Experiential Learning

Cycle to improve student learning in virtual computer laboratories. Computers &

Education, 72, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.013

Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to

Student-centred Learning: Beyond “educational bulimia”? Studies in Higher

Education, 28(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070309293

Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in

student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology

Research and Development, 64(4), 707–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-

015-9422-5

Lynch, F. (2004). Philippine Society and the Individual: Selected Essays of Frank

Lynch (A. A. Yengoyan & Makil, Eds.). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila

University Press.
Mascolo, M. (2009). Beyond Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Pedagogy:

Teaching and Learning as Guided Participation. Pedagogy and the Human

Sciences, 1(1), 3–27.

Mazer, J. P., & Hess, J. A. (2017). What is the place of lecture in higher education?

Communication Education, 66(2), 236–237.

https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1287411

O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centered learning: What does it mean for

students and lecturers? In Emerging issues in the practice of university learning

and teaching. Dublin: All Ireland Society for Higher Education.

Ott, L. E., Carpenter, T. S., Hamilton, D. S., & LaCourse, W. R. (2018). Discovery

Learning: Development of a Unique Active Learning Environment for

Introductory Chemistry. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,

18(4), 161–180. (Indiana University. 755 West Michigan Street UL 1180D,

Indianapolis, IN 46202. Tel: 317-274-5647; Fax: 317-278-2360; e-mail:

josotl@iupui.edu; Web site: http://www.iupui.edu/~josotl).

Paulus, T. M., Bichelmeyer, B., Malopinsky, L., Pereira, M., & Rastogi, P. (2005).

Power distance and group dynamics of an international project team: a case

study. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(1), 43–55.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251052000305525

Pugh, G. L. (2014). The Experiential Learning Cycle in Undergraduate Diversity and

Social Justice Education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34(3), 302–315.

https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2014.906531

Ralston, P. A. S., Tretter, T. R., & Kendall-Brown, M. (2017). Implementing

Collaborative Learning across the Engineering Curriculum. Journal of the

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17(3), 89–108. (Indiana University. 755

West Michigan Street UL 1180D, Indianapolis, IN 46202. Tel: 317-274-5647;

 Fax: 317-278-2360; e-mail: josotl@iupui.edu; Web site:

http://www.iupui.edu/~josotl).

Sawyer, R. K. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Schmidt, H. G., Wagener, S. L., Smeets, G. A. C. M., Keemink, L. M., & van der

Molen, H. T. (2015). On the Use and Misuse of Lectures in Higher Education.

Health Professions Education, 1(1), 12–18.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2015.11.010

Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transformational Teaching: Theoretical

Underpinnings, Basic Principles, and Core Methods. Educational Psychology

Review, 24(4), 569–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9199-6

Thanh, P. T. H. (2010). Implementing a Student-Centered Learning Approach at

Vietnamese Higher Education Institutions: Barriers under Layers of Casual

Layered Analysis (CLA). Journal of Future Studies, 15(1), 21–38.

Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory Construction in Qualitative Research:

From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3),

167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914

Trinidad, J. E. (2018). Structural limitations and functional alternatives reducing

suspensions and preserving racial suspension gaps. Race Ethnicity and

Education, online first, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1538119

Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education. International

Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 92–97.

Yasmin, M., Naseem, F., & Masso, I. C. (2019). Teacher-directed learning to self-

directed learning transition barriers in Pakistan. Studies in Educational

Evaluation, 61, 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.02.003

Zheng, L., Yang, J., Cheng, W., & Huang, R. (2014). Emerging approaches for

supporting easy, engaged and effective collaborative learning. Journal of King

Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, 26(1), 11–16.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2013.10.002
View publication stats