Presented by:

Yasser mohammed mahmoud mohammed and

Mahmoud eid mohammed abdel aleem .

Title of research :
Teacher centered approach VS student centered approach

Under supervision of Dr: Rabab

1
Introduction:

For many years, the traditional teaching style or specifically, teacher-

centered instruction has been dominant in higher education in North
America. In a traditional classroom, students become passive learners, or
rather just recipients of teachers’ knowledge and wisdom. They have no
control over their own learning. Teachers make all the decisions concerning
the curriculum, teaching methods, and the different forms of assessment.
Duckworth (2009) asserts that teacher-centered learning actually prevents
students’ educational growth. In contrast, in a learner-centered classroom,
students are actively learning and they have greater input into what they
learn, how they learn it, and when they learn it.

This means that students take responsibility of their own learning and are
directly involved in the learning process. Learner-centered teaching style
focuses on how students learn instead of how teachers teach (Weimer, 2002,
and Wohlfarth 2008). In a learner-centered classroom, teachers abandoned
lecture notes and power point presentations for a more active, engaging,
collaborative style of teaching (Wohlfarth 2008).
During the last few decades, teacher-centered teaching style has been
replaced by learner-centered teaching style in higher education (McCombs
& Whistler, 1997; Weimer, 2002). Learner-centered instruction is most
suitable for the more autonomous, and more self-directed learners who not
only participate in what, how, and when to learn, but also construct their
own learning experiences. The learner-centered approach reflects and is
rooted in constructivist philosophy of teaching (Brown, 2008; McCombs &
Whistler, 1997; Weimer, 2002, and Schuh, 2003). In Constructivism, the
learners are learning by doing and experiencing rather than depending on the
teachers’ wisdom and expertise to transmit knowledge (Brown, 2008).
Constructivism was strongly influenced by the writings of John Dewey who
emphasized learning by doing and direct experience. The purpose of this
exploratory study was to examine and identify the type of teaching style
education instructors employ in their classrooms.
Definition of concepts :

Teaching style was described by Grasha (1996) as those enduring personal

qualities and behaviors that appear in how educators conduct their classes.

2
Conti (1979, 1983, 1985, 1989, and 2004) defines the term teaching style as
the distinct qualities exhibited by a teacher that are consistent from situation
to situation regardless of the content being taught. Similarly, Dupin-Bryant
(2004) defines learner-centered teaching style as “a style of instruction that
is responsive, collaborative, problem-centered, and democratic in which both
students and the instructor decide how, what, and when learning occurs”
(p.42).

On the other hand, teacher-centered teaching style is considered as “a style

of instruction that is formal, controlled, and autocratic in which the
instructor directs how, what, and when students learn” (p.42).
Teaching style is made up of a range of behaviors that a teacher comfortably
used consistently over time, situation, and content (Elliott, 1996).

Teacher-Centered vs. Learner-Centered Teaching Style

Wright (2011) distinguishes between teacher-centered and student-centered

learning approaches along a spectrum of five dimensions: power balance,
course content function, teacher and student roles, responsibility for
learning, and assessment purposes and processes. Based on Wright’s
framework, this study explores students’ perceptions of their experience
with teaching methods.

Learner centered" is the perspective which focuses on the learners’

experiences, perspectives, backgrounds, talents, interests, capacities, and
needs. It creates a learning environment conducive to learning and promotes
the highest levels of motivation, learning, and achievement for all learners
(McCombs & Whisler, 1997, p. 9). Weimer (2002) proposed five areas that
needed to change in order to achieve learner-centered teaching. These areas
are: the choice of content, the instructor’s role, responsibility for learning,
the process of assessment, and the power relationship between teacher and
learners. Students needed to have ownership of their own learning,
contribute to the design of curriculum, and the responsibility for some levels
for instruction. Similarly, Bain (2004) identified several traits of
instructors who employ learner-centered instruction. Among these
characteristics are that instructors touch the lives of theirs students, they
place a strong emphasis on student learning and outcomes by using
varied forms of assessment, and the effect on career goals.
Huba and Freed (2000) described teacher-centered learning as: students
passively receive information, emphasis is on acquisition of knowledge, and

3
teacher’s role is to be primary information giver and primary and evaluator.
There is no room for student’s personal growth. Liu, Qiao and Liu (2006)
reports that while learner-centered language teaching has been advocated in
higher education in recent years, teacher-centered teaching styles may be
still dominant in actual practice. Results of their study show that most
instructors still use traditional, teacher-centered styles in university settings
despite the call for a paradigm shift to learner-centered ones.
Brown (2008) claimed that student-centered learning approach gives
students ownership over their learning and helps them make necessary
decisions and value judgments about the relevance of the content and
the methods of teaching to their own lives and interests. Wolk (2010) also
reports that in student-centered learning, Students play a significant role in
designing their own curriculums. The teacher plays the role of a facilitator or
guide who helps students achieve their goals. In their article Ng and Lai
(2012) presented an exploratory study that examined whether a wiki-based
project could foster student-centered learning. They concluded that wiki can
facilitate student-centered activities. The article by Hannum and McCombs
(2008) describe how Learner-Centered Psychological Principles (LCPs) can
be used to define not only new design principles for distance learning but
also a new educational paradigm. Saulnier, Landry, and Wagner (2008)
concluded in their study that learner-centered approach contributed to the
construction of educational activities and provided for greater student
learning and a more authentic student assessment.
Findings of Walsh and Vandiver (2007) study indicated that students
performed better academically because they had a say in what they learned,
and the teachers only acted as facilitators in order to allow the students to
learn actively. Wohlfarth, and et.al (2008) examined the idea that the
learner-centered paradigm departs from traditional teaching models by
focusing on students more than teachers and learning more than teaching.
Graduate students in learner-centered classrooms were surveyed about
perceptions of their experiences in relation to the key dimensions of the
learner-centered paradigm and noted that the approach contributed to their
feeling respected as learners, developed their critical thinking skills, and
encouraged their self-directedness. The overall findings, graduate students in
learning-centered classrooms agreed that their classroom experiences were
indeed learner-centered, as described by Weimer (2002). Furthermore,
qualitative data collected, in the form of student quotes, strongly supported
the move to a learner-centered paradigm as a positive shift. From the review
of literature, the present study attempted to identify the teaching style of
education instructors at a Midwestern University in the U.S.

4
Theoretical Framework:

Kanuka (2010) differentiates between teacher-centered and student-centered

learning on the basis of the teaching and learning experience. While teacher-
centered learning prioritizes the experience of teachers or instructors,
student-centered learning emphasizes the experience of students. Widely
regarded as the founder of student-centered learning, Paulo Freire
established the groundwork for a system of education that empowered
impoverished and illiterate individuals within western countries as well as
throughout the world. Freire regarded traditional, teacher-centered learning
as a means of perpetuating oppression and correspondingly advocated
for a system of education that allowed students to express their voice
through the creation of dialogue with the teacher and situated educational
activity within the lived experience of participants (Freire, 2018). Based on
Freire’s concepts, teacher-centered and student-centered learning can
undergo differentiation through the extent of student involvement.
Specifically, teacher-centered methods involve the mass transmission of
information from teachers to students through lectures; notes or handouts
that require memorization; and summative assessments, such as standardized
tests, which assess students on their ability to duplicate teacher-delivered
material (Vavrus et al., 2011). Conversely, student-centered methods
challenge students to actively create their own knowledge through real-
world experiences as well as provide activities and assessments of the
students’ choosing (Freire, 2018). In this type of learning, instructors
teach students the skills required to discover their own knowledge (Froyd &
Simpson, 2008).
These abilities generally correspond to the real-world soft skills required by
today’s knowledge- based or creative economy, including problem-solving,
critical thinking, collaboration, innovation, and creativity (Sawyer, 2008).
Such skills, resulting from students’ meaningful
participation in their education, can provide freedom from poverty and
oppression (Freire, 2018), which contains relevance in post-colonial
societies and underdeveloped regions such as SSA.
In some cases, teachers can employ a mixture of teacher-centered and
student-centered pedagogical methods. According to Wright (2011),
pedagogical methods exist along a spectrum of five dimensions: power
balance, course content function, teacher and student roles, responsibility for
learning, and assessment purposes and processes. Based on the power

5
balance dimension, teacher-centered learning occurs when teachers control
the delivery of knowledge, while student-centered learning shifts the power
to the students, who construct their own knowledge with teacher assistance
(Fry, Ketteridge, & Marshall, 2009; Wright, 2011). The second dimension,
course content function, concerns the process by which learning occurs.
While teacher-centered learning strives to cover all of the curriculum and
requires that students memorize vast reams of material, student-centered
approaches teach students the skills required to learn the material in a more
meaningful way (Wright, 2011). Specifically, teacher-centered learning
involves lecturing and reading teacher-assigned materials, while student-
centered learning uses real-world materials, cooperative learning, and
inquiry-based investigations to develop soft skills grounded in practical
experience (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Freire, 2018; Sawyer, 2008;
Vavrus et al., 2011). Wright’s third dimension, the role of the teacher,
contrasts the two instructional modes based on the instructor’s place in
student learning: teacher- centered learning envisions the instructor as a
“sage on the stage,” and student-centered learning places the instructor as
the “guide on the side” (Wright, 2011, p. 93). In teacher-centered learning,
teachers assume the role of knowledge provider while students function as
passive recipients of information. In student-centered learning, students
function as co-designers of the curriculum and their learning environments
by establishing learning goals, creating a reflective process, and taking
learning outside of the classroom (Bray & McClaskey, 2015; Campbell &
Robinson, Neelands, Hewston, & Mazzoli, 2007). The final dimension
concerns assessment; while teacher-directed learning motivates students to
focus on grades, student-centered learning promotes education as an end in
itself (Wright, 2011). Specifically, teacher-centered learning uses mainly
summative assessment, which tests a student’s acquisition of knowledge
after a unit of study, while student-centered learning includes formative
assessment, which occurs throughout the duration of a unit (Stull, Varnum,
Ducette, Schiller, & Bernacki, 2011). Wright’s five dimensions of pedagogy
will serve as the basis for analyzing the pedagogical methods reported in this
study.

Teacher-centered approach relied on the behaviourist theory which was

based on the idea that behaviour changes are caused by external stimuli
(Skinner, 1974). According to the theory students are passive and
respond to environmental stimuli.

6
Method: This mixed methods study utilized a novel, two-part
methodology: the first part provided semi-structured questionnaires to third-
year Bachelor of Education (BEd) students at Makerere University’s College
of Education, while the second part used purposeful selection to choose

eight students from the questionnaire group to participate in focus group

discussions. Tariq and Woodman (2013) define mixed methods research as
focused on “collecting, analyzing, and mixing both quantitative and
qualitative data in a single study or series of studies.” This methodology
combines aspects of numerical and informational research with the aim of
achieving both breadth and depth in a study (Schoonenboom & Johnson,
2017). Mixed methods research allows researchers to “compensate for the
weaknesses of any one individual method by combining them with the
strengths of others” (Neuman & Robson, 2015, p. 347), thus allowing
researchers to overcome the limitations associated with a solely quantitative
or qualitative research approach. In this case, the qualitative research entails
the questionnaire data, while the qualitative research incorporates narratives
from the focus group discussions. While the qualitative research data by
means of the questionnaires seeks to obtain breadth through the larger
sample size, the qualitative data achieves depth. All aspects of research
occurred during the 2016-17 academic year at Uganda’s Makerere
University in Kampala, Uganda.

The sampling method chosen involved a convenience sample of third-year

education students at Makerere University. Convenience sampling, which
selects participants based on their accessibility (Martinez-Mesa, Gonzalez-
Chica, Duquia, Bonamigo, & Bastos, 2016), allowed the researchers to
quickly obtain voluntary participants that met the inclusion criteria of
education students in their third year. In comparison to first-year and
second-year students, third- year students had accumulated a larger wealth of
knowledge in terms of both theoretical material and practical experience
about pedagogical methods. Makerere’s three-year undergraduate
education program consists of a combination of courses and practicums
known as school practice. The courses cover subjects such as foundations of
curriculum, teaching methods, philosophy of education, contemporary issues
in education, research methods, administration, and ethics, while the school
practice component requires students to attend a local school and engage in
practice teaching (Makerere University, n.d.). Based on their two-to-three
years of receiving academic and practical information about pedagogical

7
approaches as well as their status as student teachers, these third-year
students are ideally positioned to provide information about their
experiences and perceptions of course content, teaching philosophy, and
activities.

Teaching Activities:

The final category, teaching activities, collected information about students’

perceptions of common teaching activities used by their professors. Overall,
the questionnaire responses indicate that the majority of students perceive
that their instructors use mainly teacher-centered rather than student-
centered activities. The first three activities lecture, handouts/slides/syllabus
content, and teacher-directed reading/viewing, represent teacher- centered
activities. In all three activities, most students reported that these activities
were sometimes, often, or always used, with far fewer responses indicating
that such activities were never or rarely used. Specifically, the following
percentages of students corresponded to each level of frequency for the
lecture: never used, 4%; rarely used, 4%; sometimes used, 24%; often
used, 40%; and always used, 28%. The data for handouts, slides, or syllabus
content showed a similar pattern: never used, 0%; rarely used, 4%;
sometimes used, 9%; often used, 50%; and always used, 37%. Teacher-
directed reading or viewing elicited similar results: never used, 0%;
rarely used, 9%; sometimes used, 28%; often used, 41%; always used, 9%;
and no response, 13%. These statistics demonstrate that teacher-centered
activities are sometimes, often, and always used from the perception of most
participants.

The next three student-centered activities, collaborative group work, student-

directed research assignment or project, and interactive presentation or class
debate, all demonstrate the highest frequency among the activities
designated as student-centered, with the bulk of the responses concentrated
in the sometimes, often, and always used categories. However, these
activities still occurred slightly less frequently than the three teacher-
centered tasks. Students’ perceptions of tasks involving collaborative group
work broke down into the following percentages: never used, 0%; rarely
used, 3%; sometimes used, 40%; often used, 30%; always used, 23%; and no
response, 4%. A similar pattern occurred for student-directed research

8
assignments or projects: never used, 0%; rarely used, 3%; sometimes used,
53%; often used, 23%; always used, 13%; and no response, 8%. Finally, the
interactive presentation or class debate displayed the highest amount of
usage among all seven student-centered activities, with numbers similar to
the three teacher-centered methods. Students reported the following
frequencies based on their perception of interactive presentations or class
debates: never used, 0%; rarely used, 0%; sometimes used, 40%; often used,
37%; and always used, 23. the study provides an overview of the way in
which students perceive their instructors’ use of teaching activities.

In sum, the qualitative and quantitative data suggests that although the
majority of learning still takes place via teacher-centered methods, some
student-centered methods are implemented at Makerere. The dominant
teacher-centered activities seem to revolve around lecturing, or “talk and
chalk” or handouts. Student responses at the focus group discussions
emphasize the importance of memorization, the stress on passing
examinations, and the ease of teacher-centered methods for instructors. In
contrast, some of the students mentioned that lecturing rarely occurred in
their courses and instead, instructors used methods identified as
student-centered. Specifically, they mentioned collaborative group work,
student-directed research assignments or projects, and interactive
presentations or debates. These three oft- mentioned methods coincide with
the quantitative data showing that these methods generate the most frequent
use among all student-directed learning activities. Amongst the students that
mentioned student-centered learning, a few of these participants mentioned
that lecturing still occurs albeit infrequently. One interesting observation
stated that instructors using teacher- centered methods suffer from low
attendance in their class, which suggests that students prefer student-
centered methods. Future studies can investigate the preferences or learning
outcomes of students by comparing teacher-centered and student-centered
learning methods.

9
Educational Philosophy:

The second category of results provided information about the educational

philosophies of student teachers. In particular, students expressed their
extent of agreement with two contrasting aims of education: preparing
compliant citizens and preparing independent and self- reliant individuals.
For the category of preparing compliant citizens, 43% and 26% of
participants completely agreed and somewhat agreed respectively, while
only 31% of students disagreed that the aim of education involved preparing
compliant citizens. For the other category, preparing independent and self-
reliant individuals, only 9% and 13% of respondents expressed complete
agreement or agreement with this educational aim, while a whopping 78% of
students disagreed that education should aim to create independent citizens.
Table 2 provides the precise statistics concerning students’ beliefs about the
aim of education.

Table 2
Educational Philosophies
Category Completely Somewhat Agree Disagree
Agree
Preparing 23 (43%) 14 (26%) 17 (31%)
Compliant
Citizen
Preparing 5 (9%) 7 (13%) 42 (78%
Independent
and Self-Reliant
Individuals

As in the case of course content, the focus group discussions supported the
quantitative research on the educational philosophies that student teachers
have learned from their instructors. As many excerpts show, participants
believed that the aim of education involves preparing students to function as
compliant citizens within society.
Most lecturers want us to be under them to the extent that if you fail to
comply, a retake awaits you even if you didn’t deserve it. Within the school
setting in Uganda, everyone is brought up in an orderly way or pushed
out after failing to comply.

10
In practice, we have a standard to follow and once you are out of it, you are
considered to have gone wrong.
The way of doing things is systematic, so that students have to fit in.
Through professional ethics, which is taught in first year, we were taught
how to be compliant, obedient, and efficient in schools.
Courses such as professional ethics, educational administration, and
curriculum studies aim to create professionals who are orderly, compliant,
obedient, efficient, and systematic.
Yet, other courses, like economics of education and philosophy of education,
aim at products that are innovative, creative, flexible, and democratic.
We are only taught to comply, where rules are passed without students’
consent or agreement .

While the majority (69%) of students indicated that educational philosophies

prepare students for compliance within a structured society, a few responses
suggested that teaching aims increasingly emphasize the importance of
empowering students to develop skills that will enable them to participate in
the world of work.

Implications:

An analysis of the study results clearly demonstrates that along all five of
Wright’s dimensions, Makerere education students perceive teacher-centered
learning as the dominant paradigm at the university. Several implications
emerge from these findings. The first and most obvious implication
maintains that Makerere University remains in outdated methods of teaching
and learning, which supports the majority of literature results (Nsereko-
Munakukaama, 1997; Vavrus et al., 2011). Although a minority of the
responses indicate that the university has begun to shift towards the
incorporation of some student-centered activities, philosophies, and content,

11
the vast majority of data strongly signifies that teacher-centered content
functions, beliefs, and delivery methods still reign supreme. In contrast to
the perpetuation of teacher-centered ideals, some of the education students
demonstrated their awareness of the need to incorporate a greater
emphasis on student-centered learning. Specifically, teacher trainees realized
the necessity of recognizing individual learner differences, connecting
education to society, and preparing students with adequate skills for the job
market. These results support research findings that emphasize the
importance of linking education to real-life to teach necessary skills and
elevating the social condition of students (Freire, 2008; Sawyer, 2008).
Similarly, study participants realized that traditional forms of learning, such
as syllabus completion, memorization of theoretical information, compliance
with the instructor, and standardized examinations
ultimately impede student learning, which subsequently hinders the social
mobility of impoverished populations and the development of third-world
countries (Education Global Access Program, 2016; Freire, 2018). This
implication reveals a glaring disconnect between the way that teacher
trainees learn and the way in which they believe that they should learn and
subsequently teach their future students. The understanding that students
acknowledge the weaknesses of a teacher-centered system suggests that
perhaps students can take a more active role in serving as a crucial
educational stakeholder and advocating for the need to change the
instructional processes towards a student-centered paradigm.
Along with students, other stakeholders can initiate conversation to change
the way in which students receive instruction at Makerere University and
other SSA PSE institutions. As the supporting literature reveals, teacher
training institutions in SSA remain inadequate due to their
reliance on teacher-centered pedagogies and resource limitations (Marphatia
et al., 2010 Otaala 2013 Vavrus 2011), which this study reinforced through
the solicitation of student perspectives. The results of this study will ideally
stimulate new research directions that provide consistent proof of the need
for a wholesale transition from teacher-centered to student-centered
learning paradigms in SSA, starting with the development of government
policies and standards pertaining to the knowledge, pedagogical approaches,
and credentials required for teacher training. Additionally, governments and
other stakeholders can make provisions for addressing gaps in infrastructures
and resources (Alidou 2006; World Bank, 2011) to improve the
implementation of student-centered learning. Finally, curriculum developers
can use these research findings to include student-centered teaching methods
(Jaffer et al., 2007; Vavrus et al., 2011). In sum, these findings can alert

12
powerful stakeholders, such as national and regional governments,
policymakers, curriculum developers, educational managers, university
administrators, and instructors about the lack of meaningful learning that
takes place under teacher-centered approaches and thus mandate policies
that prioritize the development of student-centered learning initiatives. By
creating meaningful learning, these initiatives will ideally address the skills
gaps in the workforce of Uganda and other SSA regions, which not only fills
crucial needs in vital industries but also provides students and graduates with
job-ready skills that employers seek. Based on Freire’s (2018) conception of
student-centered learning as an anti-oppressive measure, its implementation
and hence improvement of SSA economies will help to free Uganda and
other SSA countries from the colonial shadow of their past.

Characteristics of teacher centered approach:

In Teacher-Centered Instruction, students put all of their focus on the

teacher. You talk, and the students exclusively listen.
For example:
A typical Presentation – Practice – Production (PPP) lesson tends to be
teacher-centred, as the teacher leads the activity and provides necessary
information.

1-These are 10 characteristics of teacher-centered instruction:

Students are usually passively receiving information.

2-The instructor’s role is to be primary information giver and primary

evaluator.

3-Students are viewed as “empty vessels” who passively receive knowledge

from their teachers.

4-Teachers and professors act as the sole supplier of knowledge, and under
the direct instruction model, teachers often utilize systematic, scripted lesson
plans.

5-Teacher Centered Instruction is fairly low-tech, often relying on the use of

textbooks and workbooks instead of computers

13
7-Assessments are in many cases only carried out as summative and not
formative evaluations and they rarely address qualitative issues of the
learner’s progress.

Characteristics of Learner centered approach:

1. Engage students in the learning process. On traditional teaching in most

classes teachers are working much harder than students. Students don’t
develop sophisticated learning skills without the chance to practice and
in most classrooms the teacher gets far more practice than the students.
With Learner-Centered Teaching students have the opportunity to
implement a real task and acquire 21st century skills and key
competences through the process.

2. Learner-centered teaching includes explicit skill instruction, students

learn how to think, solve problems, decision making, team work,
evaluate evidence, analyze arguments, generate hypotheses—all those
learning skills essential to mastering material in the discipline. They do
not assume that students pick up these skills on their own, automatically.
A few students do, but not all, research shows that learning skills
develop faster if they are taught explicitly along with the content.

3. Learner-centered teaching encourages students to reflect on what they

are learning and how they are learning it. Learner-centered teachers talk
about learning. In conversations, students write( in the e-portfolio or
diary) about what they have learned, what were their difficulties and
strengths . In class they may talk about their own learning and do pair
assessment. They challenge student assumptions about learning and
encourage them to accept responsibility for decisions they make about
learning. Learner-centered teaching includes assignment components in
which students reflect, analyze and critique what they are learning and
how they are learning it. The goal is to make students aware of
themselves as learners and to make learning skills something students
want to develop.

4. Learner-centered teaching motivates students by giving them some

14
control over learning processes. Teachers make most of the decisions
about learning for students. Teachers decide what students should learn,
how they learn it, the pace at which they learn, the conditions under
which they learn and then teachers determine whether students have
learned.. Learner-centered teachers search out ethically responsible ways
to share responsability with students. They might give students some
choice about which assignments they complete. They might make
classroom agreements something students can discuss. They might let
students set assignment deadlines within a given time window. They
might ask students to help create assessment criteria.

5. Learner-centered teaching encourages collaboration Learner-centered

teaching makes possible students can learn from and with others. The
teacher has the expertise and an obligation to share it, but teachers can
learn from students as well. Learner-centered teachers work to develop
structures that promote shared commitments to learning. They see
learning individually and collectively as the most important goal of any
educational experience.

The difference between Teacher and student centered approach:

Teacher-centered approaches are those where the teacher directly provides

knowledge to the students. He "models" the notions to acquire. The teacher
is seen as the activator. Direct instruction or explicit instruction illustrates
perfectly well this conception of teaching - with good results I must say (see
e.g. Hattie, 2009; Rosenshine, 1986...).

In a learner-centered approach, the student often has to "discover" by

himself the notions to acquire. The teacher no longer provides knowledge
but organises the conditions that would help the students acquire the
knowledge; he is often seen as a "facilitator". "Constructivist" instruction is
representative of this kind of approach: problem-based learning, inquiry-
based learning... all stem from this "paradigm". There is a lot of controversy
about these approaches: see for example Hattie & Yates 2014; Tobias &
Duffy, 2009...

I would add that the student-centered active learning should be task-based.

15
The tasks should be engaging to the students (not boring), b e meaningful
with clear value, minimize student procrastination, require thought and not
simply factual answers, and produce measurable results to make evaluation
objective and not subjective.

In teacher-centered classrooms, the teacher is in charge of learning;

therefore, he/she transmits knowledge to the students. As the teacher holds
the ultimate authority, the students do not collaborate. The content is decided
and the learning tasks are structured by the teacher.
The instruction is delivered through lecturing and provision of feedback and
correct answers are widely used. The teacher is the primary source of
information and the textbook is the center of activities.
Peyton, More and Young (2010) stated that: In a typical teacher-centered
classroom, the teacher spends most of the time presenting the
day’s content to the class from the whiteboard/Promethean board or
overhead projector.
The students should be taking notes and asking questions during the lecture.
This process should be completed with ease and not troublesome for
students (p.21).
Control has been priority in teacher-centered classrooms for that reason;
teacher-centeredness has received criticism for favouring passive students
rather than active ones in the classroom (Freiberg,
1999). It should be noted that the primary goal in the classroom is to
empower learning. In this respect, in order for teachers to maintain control
over students, they need to ensure that they enable the students
to participate actively in the classroom. If teachers are knowledgeable in the
content they present and apply motivational strategies while teaching,
students maintain their attention, actively engaged in the classroom and
become academically successful. For that reason, some researchers support
the use of teacher-centered approach because it allows teaching students in
short steps (Espenshade & Radford,2009).
In student centered classrooms, teachers avoid transmissions of knowledge
directly. Rather, students play active role in the learning process through
trying “to make sense of what they are learning by relating it to prior
knowledge and by discussing it with others” (Brophy, 1999, p.49). Students
are provided opportunities to learn independently in student-centered
learning and they are involved in the activities, materials and content.
Creation of meaning comes to the fore in student-centered learning and

16
learning is influenced by the prior knowledge. Student-centeredness focus
on cooperative learning in which a group of students work together to
complete a given task for that reason it enhances student-to- student
interaction (Condelli & Wrigley, 2009). Cooperative learning enables the
students to seek for understanding. The search for constructing meaning and
productivity leads to increased intrinsic motivation which will facilitate
higher achievement in the classroom. Simply put, student-centered
approach is based on the idea that students are engaged in knowledge
construction using their experiences and actions. The proper implementation
of student-centered instruction promotes motivation to learn, develops
understanding, and facilitates knowledge retention (Collins & O’Brien,
2003).
Cooperative learning gives students the authority to engage in the learning
process. To accomplish tasks the students set goals and develop ideas,
involve in thoughtful discourse, explore different perspectives and improve
their learning. Effective learning occurs by means of providing democratic
education to students (Goodlad, 2004). Similarly, Dewey (1997) emphasizes
the role of active collaboration to establish a democratic society. When
students are encouraged to create their own understanding in a classroom
climate, they develop their individual responsibility. Teachers who are
dedicated to teacher-centeredness prefer textbook dominated instruction. It
should be borne in mind that textbook dominated pedagogy limits problem
solving and decision making skills of students. The implementation of
discussion-oriented activities helps students deal with multiple perspectives
and build a community of dignity for diverse ideas. Democratic principles
(Dewey, 1994) underpinned student-centered approach. The idea of giving
responsibility to students, allowing them to act effectively, and stimulating
reflective and critical thinking in the classroom enrich democratic
society. Student-centeredness is an effective pedagogy to equip students
with the necessary skills to generate a more democratic society. Another
principle student-centered approach rested on is constructivism (Vygotsky,
1978) which is based on the idea that students construct their own
understanding by means of experiences. Furthermore, building a
comfortable learning environment is an essential factor in student
achievement.
With this in regard, student-centered classroom pervades activities which
create fun. Also, the impact of self-confidence in achievement cannot be
underestimated. That students take an active role and present information to
the others and share classroom responsibilities increase their self-confidence.

17
However, in student-centered classrooms control may become difficult due
to behaviour problems.
Although this will be tedious, teachers can turn it to an advantage by
encouraging them to increase their sense of responsibility. Mart (2013) states
that “passionate teachers know that it is their role to encourage students for
an active learning and concern themselves with promoting students’
intellectual and moral development” (p. 438). It is recommended that
teachers enhance intrinsic motivation of students in student-centered
classrooms which benefits students to develop their autonomy and
encourage them to make responsible choices. Mart (2013) stresses the
importance of motivation and argues that it is “one of the leading factors in
educational achievement, can be easily maintained by commitment” (p.
338). As long as teachers sustain their personal commitment to teaching
Extrinsic motivation on the other hand may negatively influence students’
motivation because it encourages them to develop appropriate behaviours
just to get the reward (DeVries & Zan, 1994).
It should be underlined that students cannot construct their skills and
understandings by themselves without a facilitator. In the concept of zone of
proximal development, Vygotsky (1978) refers to the difference what a
learner can do without help and what he/she can do with an accomplished
peer.
Mascala, Fischer and Pollack (1997) argue that without a skilled partner or
adult the zone of proximal development cannot be created by students
themselves. Without teacher direction, it is not possible for students to
achieve higher learning outcomes.

18
References:

1) Alidou, H., Boly, A., Brock-Utne, B., Diallo, Y. S., Heugh, K., & Wolff,
H. E. 2006). Optimizing learning and education in Africa: The language
factor. Proceedings from ADEA Biennial Meeting. Libreville, Gabon,
March 27-31, 2006.

2) Bain, Ken (2004). What the Best College Teachers Do? (Harvard
University Press).

3) Brophy, J. (1999). Perspectives of classroom management: Yesterday,

today and tomorrow. In H. Freiberg (Ed.), Beyond behaviorism: Changing
the classroom management paradigm, 43–56. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

4) Brown, J.K. (2008). Student-centered instruction: involving students in

their own education. Music Educators Journal, 94(5).

5) Condelli, L., & Wrigley, H. S. (2009). What works for adult literacy
students of English as a second language? In S. Reder & J. Bynner (Eds.),
Tracking adult literacy numeracy skills: Findings from longitudinal research.
New York and London: Routledge. 13-19.

6) DeVries, R., & B. Zan. (1994). Moral classroom, moral children: Creating
a constructivist atmosphere in early education. New York: Teachers College
Press.

7) Dewey, J. (1997). Democracy and education. New York: The Free Press.

8) Freiberg, H. J. (Ed.). (1999). Beyond behaviorism: Changing the

classroom management paradigm. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

9) Freire, P. (2018). Pedagogy of the oppressed (50th Anniversary Edition).

New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.

10) Huba, M.E., & Freed, J.E. (2000). Teacher-centered vs. learner-centered
paradigms.

19
11) Kanuka, H. (2010). Characteristics of effective and sustainable teaching
development programs for quality teaching in higher education. Higher
Education, Management and Policy, 22(2), 1-14.

12) Martinez-Mesa, J., Gonzalez-Chica, D. A., Duquia, R. P., Bonamigo, R.

R., & Bastos, J. L. (2016). Sampling: How to select participants in my
research study. Brazilian Society of Dermatology, 91(3), 326-330

13) Mart, C.T. (2013). Commitment to school and students. International

Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 3(1), 336-
340.

14) McCombs, B. L. & Whistler, J. S. (1997). The Learner-Centered

Classroom and School. Strategies for Increasing Student Motivation and
Achievement. Sam Francisco: Jossey Bass Publishers.

15) Neuman, W. L., & Robson, K. (2015). Basics of social research:

Qualitative and quantitative approaches (3rd Ed.). Toronto, ON: Pearson.

16) Nsereko-Munakukaama. (1997). Secularization of post-independence

education in Uganda and its significance for moral education in public
primary and secondary schools, 1963-1985(Doctoral Dissertation). Makerere
University, Kampala, Uganda.

17) Sawyer, R. K. (2008). Optimising learning: Implications of learning

sciences research. CERI: Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.

18) Schoonenboom, J., & Johnson, R. B. (2017). How to construct a mixed

methods research design. Cologne Journal of Sociology and Social
Psychology, 69(2), 107-131.

19) Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behavioralism. Random House, New York.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard.

20) Stull, J. C., Varnum, S. J., Ducette, J., Schiller, J., & Bernacki, M.
(2011). The many faces of formative assessment. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 30-39.

20
21) Tariq, S., & Woodman, J. (2013). Using mixed methods in health
research. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine Short Reports, 4(6).

22) Vavrus, F., Thomas, M., & Bartlett, L. (2011). Ensuring quality by
attending to inquiry: Learner- centered pedagogy in Sub-Saharan Africa.
Fundamentals of Teacher Education Development. Addis Ababa, UNESCO.

23) Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard.

24) Walsh, J., and Vandiver, D. (2007). Fostering student centered learning
(SCL) through the use of active learning exercises in undergraduate research
methods courses .

25) Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-Centered Teaching. San Francisco: Jossey

Bass

26) Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education.

International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Postsecondary Education,
23(1), 92-97.

21
22