Learner-centered principles in teacher-centered practices?

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - se

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�Tel.: +1 319

E-mail addre

Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 833–846

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Learner-centered principles in teacher-centered practices?

Kathy L. Schuh�

N304 Lindquist Center, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA

Abstract

In the study reported here, I compare Learner-Centered Battery (a questionnaire of students’ perceptions of the

classroom) results and the observation and interview data gathered in one sixth-grade classroom noting first

a discrepancy between the descriptions of the classroom that stems from each. I review this discrepancy, highlighting a

need for triangulation using different types of data collection methods so as to better understand this particular

classroom. Further, the analysis indicates that principles of a learner-centered perspective can be embedded within a

traditional teacher-centered environment, at least for this particular classroom.

r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Data triangulation; Learner-centered; Teacher-centered; Classroom environment; Elementary

1. Introduction

Individual classroom learning environments arecomplex interactions among a variety of elements,including teacher and student perceptions, instruc-tional practices, learning needs, and larger systemissues (McCombs, 1999) such as prescribed curri-cula, available resources and funding, government-guided accountability standards, and so on. Forthis study, I focus on one aspect of a particularlearning environment, the pedagogical ‘‘look’’ of asixth-grade social studies class—the degree towhich this learning environment may be consid-ered teacher- or learner-centered based on the

e front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserv

te.2004.09.008

335 5667; fax: +1 319 335 6145.

ss: [email protected] (K.L. Schuh).

activity in the classroom. Through this, I demon-strate the importance of data triangulation as ameans to better understand this particular learningenvironment.

Descriptions of the teaching and learningprocess often use a continuum ranging from whatis considered ‘‘traditional’’ or teacher-centered, to‘‘alternative’’ or learner-centered (Cuban, 1983;Kember & Gow, 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain,2001). Although these descriptions do not implya dichotomy (Cuban, 1983), unfortunately it seemsthat they are often accepted as such. Indeed, asteachers begin to understand new teaching andlearning paradigms, they may conceptualize thecontinuum as a dichotomy in a process that does,in time, increase their understanding. For example,Saunders and Goldenberg (1996) describe the

ed.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

ARTICLE IN PRESS

K.L. Schuh / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 833–846834

process by which four teachers moved from moretraditional paradigms of teaching to more con-temporary paradigms. Initially, these teachersdrew on their implicit understandings of directteaching (i.e., traditional) and alternative instruc-tional strategies, characterizing traditional teach-ing as bad, the alternative as good, and drawing acrisp line between the two based on instructionalstrategies in particular. As their understandingprogressed, they became more explicit in definingtypes of instruction, finding value in both tradi-tional and alternative instruction, and thus im-proving their teaching.

These overgeneralizations about traditional andcontemporary teaching strategies are not uncom-mon. For example, Airasian and Walsh (1997)describe cautions about constructivism that stemfrom overgeneralizations of the theory. Where dothese overgeneralizations come from? Perhapsthese overgeneralizations are drawn because of afocus on surface pedagogical features, the overtinstructional practices in a classroom. Under-standing of instruction may be based on howinstruction ‘‘looks’’ (the activity), rather than onunderlying theoretical roots about learning andhow it is fostered. For example, teacher-centeredinstruction may be assumed to look different fromlearner-centered instruction (LCI). Strategies suchas direct teaching, drill and practice, and colla-borative work all bring to mind placement of theinstruction on a unidimensional teacher-centeredto learner-centered scale. Casual observation of aclass using lecture or direct instruction mayprompt one to believe the classroom follows ateacher-centered pedagogy, while using collabora-tive group work may be construed as using LCI.The corollary to this belief is that teachers maybelieve they are using LCI just because they havestudents work in groups. This is not necessarilythe case.

Overgeneralizations are not the jurisdiction ofteachers alone. Researchers are susceptible to themas well, and in fact, research methodologiesprovide a variety of tools to avoid overgeneraliza-tion and to provide for credibility of findings.Triangulation of data collection methods is onesuch tool (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 1995). Ata minimum, triangulation will allow verification

and credibility of research findings (see, forexample, McGroarty and Zhu (1997) for theirdiscussion of the usefulness of triangulation intheir quasi-experimental study that included col-lection of both quantitative and qualitative data).In addition, triangulation can illuminate discre-pancies that will lead to interpretations that mightnot otherwise arise. This case study is such anexample. In it, I explore the ‘‘look’’ of instructionby juxtaposing two types of data collected in asixth-grade social studies class. When viewedthrough the lens of observation data, the class-room seems well grounded in a quite traditional,teacher-centered framework. However, percep-tions of the classroom as reported by both theteacher and the students on a measure of learner-centeredness (McCombs, Lauer, & Peralez, 1997)provide a view of the classroom from which it mayalso be considered moderately learner-centered.The secondary question that this study explores is:What features of LCI do students perceive and areembedded within teacher-centered practices? Moreimportantly, this study demonstrates how datatriangulation can reveal discrepancies, and thusbetter informed interpretations, of a learningenvironment.

2. Background

2.1. Teacher-centered practices

The label teacher-centered instruction or prac-tices (TCP) is applied quite broadly to include avariety of views, and thus strategies, for teachingand learning. Teacher-centered instruction is oftenaligned with ‘‘transmission’’ models of teaching.Within this framework, instruction is the activityin which the information is moved or transmittedto and into the learner (Bonk & Cunningham,1998; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Greeno,Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Kember & Gow, 1994).In addition, models of teaching that promoteresponse acquisition, such as drill and practice(Mayer, 1998), also fall within this teacher-centered focus. In a teacher-centered model ofinstruction, the development of the instruction andcontrol of the learning process is retained by the

ARTICLE IN PRESS

K.L. Schuh / Teaching and Teacher Education 20 (2004) 833–846 835

teacher. In this framework, there is the assumptionthat the teacher needs to do things ‘‘to’’ and ‘‘for’’the learner. In other words, the teacher manip-ulates the learning situation to obtain the desiredoutcomes guided by generalized characteristics ofthe learners (Wagner & McCombs, 1995). Theteacher’s role is seen as giving knowledge that hasbeen defined and organized from the teacher’s orexpert’s perspective to the students. Typicalcharacteristics of teacher-centered instruction in-clude more teacher talk and questions than studenttalk and questions, more whole group instruction,reliance on textbooks with other sources such asmedia used as support, recall of factual informa-tion, and a classroom in which desks are in rowsfacing a board with the teacher desk nearby(Cuban, 1983). Generally, students do the sametasks at the same time, following explicit directionsgiven by the teacher (Daniels, Kalkman, &McCombs, 2001). The teacher decides what isrequired for the learner from a perspective outsidethe learner by defining characteristics of instruc-tion, curriculum, assessment, and management(Wagner & McCombs, 1995).

2.2. Learner-centered practices

Learner-centered practices (LCP) move thefocus from the teacher and instruction to thestudent and learning. LCP are based on aproposed a set of principles (APA Task Force onPsychology in Education, 1993) derived from overa century of previous research on teaching andlearning (Alexander & Murphy, 1998). Theseprinciples take into account a variety of psycho-logical factors that are primarily internal to thelearner while also recognizing that the environ-ment and other contextual factors will interact aswell (McCombs, 1993). Thus, the focus is onattributes of complex learning environments thatare most likely to affect learning (Wagner &McCombs, 1995). Currently, 14 principles articu-late factors that influence all learners both in andout of the classroom and provide an integratedperspective of learning with a holistic view ofthe learner (APA Work Group of the BoardEducational Affairs, 1997). The principles addressindividual learning, motivation, and developmen-

tal needs and are organized in four dimensions:cognitive and metacognitive factors, motivationaland affective factors, developmental and socialfactors, and individual differences. Learner-cen-tered principles provide a theoretical foundationfor LCI drawing on a research base from a varietyof theoretical perspectives (Lambert & McCombs,1998). Practices based on these principles haveno prescribed format (McCombs, 1997), althoughinstructionally, the principles are typically incontrast to TCP (Wagner & McCombs, 1995).

Instruction based on learner-centered principlesprovides opportunities for learners to draw ontheir own experiences and interpretations ofthe learning process (McCombs, 1997; Wagner& McCombs, 1995). LCP regards learning as alife-long process rather than a process that takesplace only through young-adulthood (Lambert &McCombs, 1998). The view aligns with advocatesof situated cognition (e.g., Brown, Collins, &Duguid, 1989) in that school activities (done bystudents) are generally not authentic activitiesthat prepare learners for problem solving out-side of school. Foundations of LCP includethat learning is a natural, constructive processwhere learning is most productive when it isrelevant and meaningful to the learner, in positivelearning environments. It is a holistic view ofthe learner in a complex living system thatextends well beyond the classroom walls in bothtime and space. LCP acknowledge that learnershave different perspectives, and that for learnersto be engaged in and take responsibility fortheir learning, these perspectives need to betended to. Further, appropriately supportivelearning opportunities that are challenging forindividuals need to be provided (Lambert &McCombs, 1998).

When implementing LCP, teachers need tounderstand the learner’s world and supportcapacities already existing in the learner toaccomplish desired learning outcomes. Learninggoals are achieved by active collaboration betweenthe teacher and learners who together deter-mine what learning means and how it can beenhanced within each individual learner bydrawing on the learner’s own unique talents,capacities, and experiences (McCombs & Whisler,

ARTICLE IN PRESS


1997). Although Cuban (1983) uses the termstudent-centered, he identifies observable measuresthat seem aligned with expectations for LCP aswell: more or equal student talk and questionsthan teacher talk, more individual and moderatelysized group instruction, varied instructional mate-rials, evidence of student choice and organizationof content and classroom rules, and a physicalarrangement of the classroom that allows forworking together. Students who perceive theirteachers to use LCP exhibit greater achievementand motivation (McCombs & Whisler, 1997).

2.3. Student perceptions

In addition to relationships with positive learn-ing outcomes, students’ perceptions of their class-room provide added value in that they are often abetter measure of learner-centeredness than tea-cher perceptions (McCombs & Quiat, 2002). Forexample, even at the early elementary levelstudents were able to identify characteristics oflearner-centered teachers based on the extent towhich they viewed their teachers having learner-centered qualities. In addition, these young lear-ners’ descriptions were consistent with those ofeducational, developmental, and motivationalpsychologists (Daniels et al., 2001). Studentperceptions provide a viable form of informationabout classrooms. In the current study, studentperceptions of their teacher and classroom prac-tices, in conjunction with observation and inter-view data, demonstrate how learner-centeredprinciples can be entwined in TCP.

3. Method

3.1. Participants

The focus of this case study was Mr. Jacksonand his sixth-grade students. The 14 boys and 10girls in Mr. Jackson’s class were one of three sixth-grade classes in the elementary school of 430students in a small Midwestern city. During his 22years of teaching Mr. Jackson primarily taughtsixth grade, although he had also taught first andfourth grades. Mr. Jackson’s class was one of three

classrooms chosen from a pool of six whoparticipated in a larger study on student knowl-edge construction (Schuh, 2003). His class waschosen for the further analysis reported herebecause it provided an interesting case in that thenarrative description of the class gained throughobservation (how the instruction ‘‘looked’’)seemed at odds with scores obtained on a measureof learner-centeredness (McCombs et al., 1997).Mr. Jackson’s classroom offered a venue toexplore the varied descriptions that can existbetween different data collection methods andthus the need for data triangulation.

3.2. The Learner-Centered Battery

The Learner-Centered Battery (LCB, nownamed the Assessment for Learner-CenteredPractices), grades 6–12, is a self-assessment toolfor professional development for teachers(McCombs, 1997). The purpose of the LCB is toassist teachers in becoming more reflective andaware of ‘‘their basic beliefs and assumptionsabout learners, learning, and teaching; the rela-tionship of these beliefs to their school andclassroom practices from their own and theirstudents’ perspectives; and the impact of thesepractices on student motivation, learning, andacademic achievement’’ (McCombs & Lauer,1997, p. 1). Scores that result from use of thisinstrument indicate students’ and teachers’ percep-tions of the classroom practices. The studentquestionnaire contains 75 items. Responses aregiven on a four-point scale indicating agreementwith the statement (almost never, sometimes,often, almost always). The teacher questionnairecontains 126 questions.

During development, the LCB was subjected totwo phases of validation. Subscales and alphacoefficients resulting from 4828 students’ and 672teachers’ responses that addressed teachers’ beliefsand assumptions were (a) learner-centeredbeliefs about learners, learning, and teaching(alpha=0.87), (b) nonlearner-centered beliefsabout learners (alpha=0.83), and (c) nonlearner-centered beliefs about teaching and learning(alpha=0.82). Perceptions of classroom practiceswere measured by (a) creates positive personal

ARTICLE IN PRESS


relationships and classroom climate (alpha=0.91),(b) honors student voice, challenges students, andencourages perspective taking (alpha=0.84), (c)encourages higher-order thinking and self-regu-lated learning (alpha=0.85), and (d) adapts toindividual developmental differences (alpha=0.71) (McCombs & Lauer, 1997).

Further validation using 484 students and 236teachers sought relationships between the sub-scales and measures of student motivation andachievement to establish construct and predictivevalidity of the LCB. Students’ perceptions ofclassroom practice were positively associated withtheir own classroom achievement (rX0:13 for allfour subscales, po0:01), self-efficacy (rX0:27 forall, po0:01), performance-oriented goals (rX0:18for all, po0:01), state epistemic curiosity (rX0:34for all, po0:01), use of active learning strategies(rX0:41 for all, po0:01), and task-masterygoals (rX0:41 for all, po0:01). Students’ percep-tions were negatively associated with their useof effort-avoidance strategies (rp� 0:05 forthree subscales, po0:01) and work-avoidant goals(rp� 0:03 for three subscales, po0:01)(McCombs & Lauer, 1997).

3.3. Procedure

I administered the LCB in Mr. Jackson’s class aspart of a selection process for the larger study andprior to any observation (Schuh, 2003). AlthoughMr. Jackson was the students’ homeroom teacheras well, I told students to specifically considersocial studies class when they answered thequestions. Following administration of the LCB,I observed the students in Mr. Jackson’s class-room during their Roman Empire unit in socialstudies. This unit extended over a two and a halfweek period. During the unit, the class met ninetimes and I observed eight of the 30-min classperiods.

The focus of my observation was not on Mr.Jackson’s instructional methods specifically, buton the nature of the classroom and the opportu-nities for learners to create meaning based on theirown prior experiences that they brought to theclassroom. I was a passive participant observer(Spradley, 1980) in that I sat in a back corner of

the classroom and did not interact with thestudents. I took notes on an electronic organizerwith an attached keyboard capturing as much ofthe dialog and happenings of classroom aspossible. My observation strategy in this studywas to gather as much information as possible.Thus, the observation data provided a richdescription of the classroom in general.

I interviewed three boys and three girls.Students were chosen for an interview if theyshared a comment/question in class that seemedtangential to the conversation in the classroom(Schuh, 2003). When I did not identify an incidentduring the observation session, I randomlyselected a student for the interview. Three of thechildren (two boys, one girl) were invited to theinterview by random selection. In the 15-min semi-structured interview, I asked the students to tell meabout the Roman Empire, followed up on anytangential comments made during class, and askedthem if there was anything else in class that hadcome into their mind that perhaps they did notshare during class. The interviews generally fellinto casual conversations with the students sharingtopics of interest, guided by my broad questions.Following formal data collection in the classroom,I interviewed Mr. Jackson.

3.4. Analysis

Analysis of the LCB data included measures ofcentral tendency for Mr. Jackson’s and hisstudents’ LCB subscales. In additional, I calcu-lated discrepancy scores indicating the distancebetween Mr. Jackson’s perception of his classroomand his students’ perception.

Observation and interview data were analyzedfollowing standard qualitative methods (Lincoln &Guba, 1985), with an eye towards understandingthis classroom in terms of how the learning andinstruction could be characterized. Lincoln andGuba recommend erring on the side of inclusion ina first draft of a case study, given that early in theprocess it is difficult to know what to include andexclude. Initially, I sent a document including allthe observations with supporting ideas from theinterviews and field notes to Mr. Jackson forreview, correction, and comment, thus providing

ARTICLE IN PRESS


another source of potential interpretation (Lincoln& Guba, 1985; Stake, 1995), although he providedno comment. As analysis continued, a secondresearcher participated in the analysis process. Weeach reviewed the data and characterized class-room excerpts regarding the teacher role, class-room dialog, and the general nature of theclassroom. Overall, there was consensus in ourinterpretations in that the activity in Mr. Jackson’sclassroom was very consistent from day to day.Our understanding and consensus of Mr. Jack-son’s classroom was triangulated by investigator,data source (different times, places, and people), aswell as methodological triangulation throughobservation, interview, and class documents (e.g.,textbook) (Stake, 1995).

Although initially the LCB provided no rolein the larger study other than for classroomselection (Schuh, 2003), a discrepancy betweenthe LCB scores and the qualitative data gatheredbecame apparent as educators (tenured faculty in aSchool of Education at a major university) readthe final narrative of Mr. Jackson’s classroom inlight of the outcomes of the LCB. The LCBadministration materials provide the most pre-ferred score (MPS) for each subscale. This metricis based on the validation samples, creating aboundary above which a classroom may bedescribed as learner-centered (McCombs et al.,1997). Although the LCB scores indicated that thestudents’ perceptions of classroom practices hov-ered near the MPS for the subscales, and thusplaced Mr. Jackson’s classroom as showingcharacteristics of LCP, the narrative descriptionpainted a picture of a very teacher-centeredapproach. It is this discrepancy that promptedthe findings reported here in which I identifiedspecific questions that students had answered inthe LCB that indicated a tendency towardslearner-centeredness in this classroom. Then Ireviewed the narrative for incidents that couldsupport these student perceptions. In this, thepurpose of the analysis was further data triangula-tion in that I sought to understand the seeminglydiscrepant LCB data in light of the qualitativedata that were gathered, trying to understandhow this classroom could be considered learner-centered.

4. Findings

My approach in articulating the findings inwhich students may have reported learner-centeredcharacteristics in what appears from observationto be a teacher-centered classroom is to firstprovide a narrative description and interpretationof the classroom. In this, I echo the tendency tofocus on surface characteristics of the instructionand the environment as might be done wheninitially viewing a classroom identifying manycharacteristics of TCP including the physical setupof the room, the use of whole group instruction togain factual information that is orchestrated out-side of the students, and using the textbook as anauthority source. Then I discuss the classroomin light of the student responses to questionsthat indicate aspects of the classroom that theyperceived as being most learner-centered, thushighlighting the value of an additional data sourcein understanding this classroom.

4.1. Teacher-centered practices in Mr. Jackson’s

classroom

I wrote in my field notes following my firstobservation of Mr. Jackson’s classroom, ‘‘Theclassroom was very well structured, the teacherreally has a routine of how they go about things.The kids were not at all surprised about anythingthat he did. The class runs like a well-oiledmachine. There was absolutely no extraneoustalking, messing around, I mean, discipline wasjust there. And this came right after lunch, rightafter recess; they came in from outside, they camein at 1:00, and at 1:00 they’re in their desks andthey’re ready to go.’’

The physical setup of this well-oiled machinewas representative of a place where one mightconsider that teacher-centered instruction occurs.The 24 student desks in Mr. Jackson’s classroomwere lined up in six rows, by pairs of two.Mr. Jackson’s desk was at the front of the room,right in front of the well-used chalkboard. On myfirst day of observation, I arrived 15 min beforesocial studies began, while the students were still atlunch. When the students returned, they immedi-ately went to their desks, were quiet, and ready for

ARTICLE IN PRESS


social studies. Columns of social studies wordswere on the chalkboard. Mr. Jackson called onstudents to go to the board and draw a rectanglearound a word in the list that reminded them ofRome. Very quietly, the selected students drewrectangles around gladiator, Julius Caesar, poly-theistic, matrilineage, and philosophy. The activitycontinued, Mr. Jackson providing feedback to thestudents. ‘‘I’m pretty impressed, you found a lot,’’Mr. Jackson encouraged the class. ‘‘I’m glad noone chose domestication, that was from a previouschapter.’’

Following this pre-instructional activity, theybegan the unit on the Roman Empire. A typicalobjective in sixth-grade social studies is forstudents to learn about the Roman Empire. Inthis classroom, equally important was Mr. Jack-son’s objective for students to develop note-takingskills. During his May 3 interview he mentioned,‘‘I’m not as interested that they remember all thefacts and things about Rome as much as they havelearned to take notes, save their notes, beorganized with them, study the notes, start earlyin the year, things like that.’’ He communicatedthis to his students as well.

The lesson continued, ‘‘Open your books topage 224. Remember, this grading period thetest will be on your notes. Take good notes, buton the test you can’t use your notes.’’ Mr.Jackson sat at his desk in the front of the room.Looking at the book, he read the captions forthe pictures on the first two pages of thechapter. ‘‘Find out how Augustus Caesarhelped develop Romey. These are the focusquestions in the unit,’’ Mr. Jackson continued.Chuck had his hand up while the teacher wasreading the questions.

‘‘Begin on page 225—the main idea,’’ Mr.Jackson said. Chuck was called on and beganto read aloud.

He read loudly and clearly. I was in theopposite corner of the room from where hesat. ‘‘Main Idea: Rome grows from a city-state into a world empire. According to anancient myth, two helpless baby boys wereabandoned in a basket to drift down the Tibberor Tiber, (‘‘Tiber,’’ Mr. Jackson interjected.)

Tiber River.’’ Chuck continued to read, slowingon the words Romulus and Remus, butpronouncing them correctly. Students werefollowing along in the books. One girl wastaking notes.

After Chuck finished reading, Mr. Jacksonasked, ‘‘What’s on that page that we shouldcopy down in our notes?’’

‘‘The main idea,’’ a student said.

Mr. Jackson summarized the main idea fromthe page that had just been read.

Chuck shared, ‘‘You should write down the keyvocabulary and fill it in.’’

‘‘That’s an excellent idea, that’s exactly what Ido and write down the meanings as you get tothem,’’ Mr. Jackson shared in a positive voice.‘‘Rome grows from a city-state to an empire.’’(Day 1, April 5)

I interviewed Chuck after this first lesson in theunit. He also said that taking notes was somethingthey had worked on all year. Mr. Jackson’sstrategy for developing knowledge about note-taking skills and the Roman Empire was that ofdirect instruction and modeling. For example, asthe instruction progressed on Day 2, Mr. Jacksonshowed his own notepaper to the class and how hehad organized it. After a student had offered avalid answer to be written as a note, Mr. Jacksoncommented about how his own notes aligned withthe student’s.

Given the brief narrative above, typical of theclass sessions that I observed in Mr. Jackson’sclassroom, the classroom appeared very teacher-centered—the teacher and textbook providing thestructured information and students capturingsimilar descriptions of the information. UsingTCP, the teacher will engineer conditions outsideof the learner (evident in the structure of thisactivity) and do things to and for the learner(Wagner & McCombs, 1995). Although Mr.Jackson did not ‘‘do’’ the note taking for thelearners, the method was very structured regardinghow they should take notes, doing it in the waythat Mr. Jackson himself did. In this information-extraction process, there was an authority interms of content. During his May 3 interview,Mr. Jackson described himself as a textbook-led

ARTICLE IN PRESS


teacher, attributing it to his own limited knowl-edge of the content. Thus, Mr. Jackson chose tohave the textbook as an authority source. Thecontent and its source were both conditionsorchestrated outside of the learner.

In a way, Mr. Jackson scaffolded the students’note-taking skills. For example, when questionsrequired multiple answers, he told the studentshow many parts the answers contained andwhether they should be written in sentence form.In addition, he was very specific about theinformation that the students were to take fromtheir textbooks and the students were generally notto deviate from that source. Consider this exampleaddressing the focus question that required multi-ple answers about everyday life in the Romanhousehold.

‘‘Who can tell me about the father? What didthe father do?’’ he asked. After a student cameup with the appropriate answers, Mr. Jacksonasked, ‘‘If the father makes all the decisions,what does the wife do?’’ A girl responded, ‘‘Shecooked, cleaned and did all the chores.’’

‘‘Where did you find that in the book?’’ Mr.Jackson asked.

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

Another student offered that women wereentitled to property but could not vote. ‘‘Shecared for the children,’’ another offered. Thiswas the answer in the book and Mr. Jacksonwrote it on the board at number 2: ‘‘the care ofthe children belonged to the wife.’’ (Day 4,April 12)

Although the initial answer above was incorrect,even potentially correct answers could be rejectedif the student shared that they were from anothersource that might not be appropriate for school.For example, Marcus raised his hand to answerthe focus questions about ‘‘Who was Jesus ofNazareth and what did he believe?’’ and commen-ted that he knew the answer from Sunday School.Mr. Jackson said, ‘‘We all would have ideas basedon what we learned in Sunday School, but we can’tdo that,’’ explaining how he could not proselytizestudents, and then prompted answers from thetextbook.

Mr. Jackson was open, however, to answers thatstudents provided that may have been bettersummaries from the textbook than he himselfhad prepared. For example, he acknowledged that‘‘Jesus raises from the dead’’ was a betterdefinition of resurrection than ‘‘rose to heavenon clouds’’ that he had in his own notes in thesection on early Christianity in their unit on theRoman Empire.

As the unit progressed, Mr. Jackson altered thestrategy as the students gained independence asseekers of correct information from their textbook.

‘‘I’m going to give you a few minutes to writedown your answers.’’ Mr. Jackson read throughthe questions again, and told how many partsthere would be to answer each one. ‘‘First onehas three, the second just has one, the third hasfive. They’re in the book, there’s no magic wayto get them, I just want you to find them in thebook.’’ The students began looking for theanswers. (Day 5, April 13)

Mr. Jackson also acknowledged that there wereinstances where other fun and interesting thingscould be done, if the students allowed as he notedin his interview. For example, Friday afternoonswere used for showing videos. Although a changein the routine, this type of activity remainedteacher-centered as well in that Mr. Jacksondetermined the content and purpose of the videouse, generally as an enhancement to instructionrather than a means for instruction.

Given the above excerpts, Mr. Jackson’s class-room seems very teacher-centered and traditional,aligning quite strongly with Cuban’s (1983)description of characteristics of teacher-centeredinstruction. Mr. Jackson, along with textbookformat, orchestrated the nature of what waslearned and how it was to be learned by eachstudent. Mr. Jackson’s method of modeling notetaking for finding correct answers was aligned withdirect instruction methods of teaching. He pro-vided students many opportunities for practiceand immediate feedback on their efforts. However,the strategy did not provide opportunities forpersonal processing of information or generativelearning. Generally, this social studies class ap-peared to provide none of the features that one

ARTICLE IN PRESS


might except to see in a learner-centered class-room—students working collaboratively, solvingproblems, seeking understanding in ways that gobeyond repeating information from a textbook.Yet, students’ perceptions of Mr. Jackson’s class-room on the LCB provided a slightly differentpicture.

4.2. Learner-centered perceptions of Mr. Jackson’s

classroom

Table 1 includes the LCB scores for thestudents’ perceptions of the classroom practice.Mr. Jackson’s perceptions of the classroompractice as measured by the teacher version ofthe LCB were similar, as indicated by the smalldiscrepancy score (e.g., Mr. Jackson’s score on thefirst subscale was 3.14 (3.18–0.04)). Mr. Jackson’sstudents perceived the classroom to be morelearner-centered than did their teacher on threeof the subscales. Although Mr. Jackson’s class-room was not highly learner-centered accordingto the LCB scores, the MPS indicated thatMr. Jackson’s class likely contained elementsof learner-centered principles from which thestudents developed their perceptions. Further,each score for students’ perception of classroompractice was at most 0.25 below the MPS.Variables that related to students’ learning andmotivation as reported by the students were near

Table 1

Classroom results for four learner-centered battery subscales on s

classroom

Scale M SD

Creates positive interpersonal

relationships/climate

3.18 0.66

Honors student voice, provides challenge,

and encourages perspective taking

2.95 0.62

Encourages higher-order thinking and

self-regulation

3.09 0.64

Adapts to individual developmental

differences

2.17 0.86

n=23; M=mean; SD=standard deviation; D=discrepancy score; R=

the 25 validation sample teachers with the highest proportion of

motivation. For the validation sample, data were collected from 113 m

school teachers and 3136 high school students from six states: AK, C

the MPS as well. Although student perceptionsare a better measure of learner-centeredness ina classroom (McCombs & Quiat, 2002),Mr. Jackson’s belief scores, although not stronglylearner-centered, were also similar to the MPS forlearner-centered beliefs (Table 2). Given theseperceptions, although the LCB scores did notindicate that the classroom was strongly viewed bythe students as learner-centered, neither was itstrongly viewed as being teacher-centered. Thisseems contrary to the observation data describedearlier.

To produce an uncontestable description of thecase, confirming as well as disconfirming evidenceshould be sought. Methodological triangulation,perhaps the most recognized of triangulationmethods, requires that multiple approaches beused to understand a case (Stake, 1995). In thisstudy, the LCB and the observation and interviewdata provided an opportunity for this type oftriangulation and the two data sets yieldedinconsistent evidence. There are a number of waysthat one could approach the disparity. One wouldbe to ignore one data collection method, believingit produced erroneous data. Another approachwould be to seek confirmation of one of theinterpretations (in this case teacher- or learner-centered) and attempt to find a reconciliation bywhich the anomaly could occur, providing a richerdescription of the case and describing how two

tudents’ perception of classroom practices for Mr. Jackson’s

D R Most preferred score

(MPS)

0.04 1.86–4.00 HighX3.3

0.09 2.00–4.00 HighX3.2

0.26 2.00–4.00 HighX3.1

�0.23 1.20–4.00 HighX2.6

range; Most preferred score patterns are based on the scores of

students who were high in both classroom achievement and

iddle school teachers and 2476 middle school students, 155 high

O, IL, KY, MI, NC (McCombs et al., 1997).

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Mr. Jackson’s learner-centered battery scores for teacher beliefs

Subscale M MPS

Learner-centered belief

about learners, learning, and

teaching

3.21 HighX3.2

Nonlearner-centered beliefs

about learners

2.11 Lowo2.4

Nonlearner-centered beliefs

about learning and teaching

2.42 Lowo2.4

M=mean; MPS=most preferred score.


seemingly divergent ideas may be represented inone particular case. This is the methodologicalstance that I took in this study.

In the interpretation that follows, I consideredindividual LCB questions in which the studentsmore strongly indicated learner-centered principlesin their classroom. These questions occurred in thefirst three subscales identified in Table 1 and werechosen because the mean score for the student’sperceptions were above the MPS or above 3.0(scale choice for ‘‘often’’). Then, I sought con-firming evidence for these perceptions within thenarrative description of the classroom, to discon-firm the teacher-centered nature of the classroombased only on a pedagogical look. Table 3provides a summary of the TCP that wereobserved in conjunction with LCP, and whichcould have influenced the students’ answers toparticular LCB questions, resulting in responsesaligned with learner-centered principles despite theTCP in which they were embedded.

4.3. Creates positive interpersonal relationships/

climate

Along with the rather structured approach toteaching and learning as described above, Mr.Jackson’s classroom was viewed by his students aspositive in terms of interpersonal relationships andclimate in a number of ways. As noted in theobservation, Mr. Jackson complimented the stu-dents for their participation in the activity andwhat they remembered. He encouraged andmodeled appropriate, polite behavior to all in-dividuals in the classroom, which may have

reinforced students’ abilities in themselves. Whenstudents who were reading asked if they shouldcontinue at the end of a section, they were alwaysencouraged ‘‘yes, you’re doing fine.’’ When stu-dents stumbled over words, they were politelycorrected and encouraged to continue.

Although extracting correct notes from a text-book aligns with TCP, the manner in which Mr.Jackson interacted with the students during thelearning tasks helped to create interpersonalrelationships and a climate that was positive,although somewhat formal, in his classroom.Therefore, within very teacher-centered practices,learner-centered principles of valuing students andcreating a positive climate were evident. Thepractices were clearly not learner-centered, yetexhibited some underlying principles of a learner-centered perspective.

4.4. Honors student voice, provides challenge, and

encourages perspective taking

When student voice is honored and perspectivetaking is encouraged, students are encouraged tolisten to and think about their classmates’ opi-nions. Specific examples of students being asked tolisten to and think about other students’ opinionswere limited because students were not necessarilyasked to voice opinions in the class. Students wereto adhere to the topic and to the prescribedinformation. In fact, in interviews both teacherand students shared that going off-track wasunacceptable. Yet, in this classroom, studentswere clearly expected to listen to one another.One student or the teacher talked at a time. Fromthe students’ perspective, one can see that thiscould be an encouragement to listen and thinkabout what one another said. Although thecontent of the comments would be prescribed bythe authority source, whomever was sharing theinformation was to have the attention of others.

4.5. Encourages higher-order thinking and self-

regulation

Given the focus of the learning and instructionalprocesses that seemed to rely on repetition,structured content, and recall and recognition for

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 3

Examples of Mr. Jackson’s teacher-centered practices mingled with learner-centered practices that may have resulted in students’

learner-centered perceptions of this classroom as indicated by specific Learner-Centered Battery questions.

Teacher-centered practice Learner-centered practice Student perception as indicated

by LCB question

LCB question

data n=23

Creates positive interpersonal relationships/climate (MPS: HighX3.3)

While Mr. Jackson He also Indicating that he Q 1

Provided a structured approach of

information extraction from an

authority source

Complimented students on their

efforts

‘‘Appreciates me as an

individual’’

M=3.3913

SD=0.7827

Encouraged and modeled

appropriate, polite behavior

‘‘Treats me with respect’’ Q 24

M=3.6087

SD=0.6564

Encouraged students’ efforts ‘‘Helped students feel good about

his or her abilities’’

Q 17

M=3.2174

SD=0.9980

Honors student voice, provides challenge, and encourages perspective taking (MPS: HighX3.2)


Provided a very structured method

for students to interact with the

content

Asked students to apply the

method independently after

guided practice

‘‘Encouraged me to think things

out for myself while learning’’

M=3.1304

SD=.8129


Constrained student dialog by

controlling what was appropriate

content

Required that students pay

attention and listen to whomever

was speaking

‘‘Encouraged students to listen

and think about my classmates’

opinions’’

M=3.2174

SD=0.9980

Encourages higher-order thinking and self-regulation (MPS: HighX3.1)


Prescribed a note-taking strategy and

thus controlled the means for student

interaction with the content

Provided a year-long effort for

students to develop note-taking

skills

‘‘Helped me learn how to

organize what I’m learning so I

can remember it more easily’’

M=3.5652

SD=0.7278

Modeled and described processes

to test personal understanding of

the prescribed information

Indicating that he Q 19

Helped students ‘‘learn how to

check how well I understand

what I am learning’’

M=3.2174

SD=0.9514


Provided the potential links for the

students rather than seeking them

from the students

Used links with which the

students would be familiar

‘‘Helps me put new information

together with what I already

know so that is makes sense to

me’’

M=3.0870

SD=1.0407


assessment of learning, it seems surprising thatstudents responded on the LCB that higher-orderthinking and self-regulation were encouraged.Linking new information with old, organizingnew information, and checking for understandingare included in this subscale.

Certainly, strategies that align with TCP doallow students opportunities for self-regulation.Developing note-taking strategies modeled by

Mr. Jackson was the primary objective of the unitand provided the students opportunities to reg-ulate and focus their own learning in a wayprescribed by the teacher. Although there seemedto be few indicators to confirm that the teacherhelped student integrate new information withprior learning, recall that on the first day ofobservation, Mr. Jackson asked students todistinguish among terms they learned in previous

ARTICLE IN PRESS


units. Mr. Jackson also provided an example of aswimming pool to help students understand thesize and purpose of the Roman public baths whenaddressing the focus question about the relation-ship between water and community in Roman life.On the fifth day of the observation, after a numberof students had not provided the correct answer tothe focus question, he reminded students of theswimming pool analogy presented earlier in theunit. Recall the incident in the classroom in whichthe students attempted to answer a questiondrawing on information found in Sunday Schoolrather than the textbook. Although the source ofthe information was dismissed as not valid (thus, avery teacher-centered approach), Mr. Jacksonlater allowed Marcus to use his personal experi-ences as valid answers once particular parametershad been set about information sources.

Mr. Jackson helped students monitor their ownlearning through modeling and description (e.g.,Mr. Jackson shared that his daughter wrotevocabulary on index cards and quizzed herself).In-class reviews also provided students a means tocheck understanding. If the answers were notknown, students knew they needed to study andwere told to go back and review. Mr. Jackson alsoreiterated this as the test approached and studentsdid not know answers to questions.

These incidents do not show encouragement ofhigher-order thinking. Transfer of learning stylesof instruction may depress use of a deep approachto learner (Gow & Kember, 1993). Therefore,the limited incidents found in the observation forthis unit might be interpreted as exemplars for thisclassroom that were well embedded in andconstrained by TCP. While these learner-centeredcharacteristics could be provided in a teacher-centered classroom, the encouraged thinking in theclassroom seems to be very low level—knowledgeand comprehension at best.

5. Discussion

The formal structure of Mr. Jackson’s class-room, his instructional strategy, and the overallclimate of the classroom all appeared to be quiteteacher-centered. However, the learner-centered

perspective—guided by foundational principlesbased on research in teaching and learning—doesnot prescribe what the instruction should look like(McCombs, 1999). Any variety of instructionalstrategies can be used within a learner-centeredenvironment, just as long as they are grounded inthe learner-centered principles. The principlesspeak more of acceptance of learners, andcombining a focus on individual learners witha focus on learning. From this perspective,Mr. Jackson’s classroom did contain aspects oflearner-centeredness, as indicated by the results ofthe LCB, embedded within very teacher-centeredpractices. While Mr. Jackson chose teacher-cen-tered strategies for disseminating information tohis students and structuring how they would learnthat information, this did not limit his acceptanceand encouragement of the students.

There are a variety of ways to characterize anyclassroom, often depending on the source ofinformation that is used. Any single data sourcewill certainly reduce the complexity of the class-room in some way. It is important to reconcilethese sources if needed, trying to retain thecomplexity of the classroom and use that as ameans to better understand the learning environ-ment. Overall, I believe that Mr. Jackson’s class-room aligns more strongly with the teacher-centered perspective, despite the LCB scores.Yet, looking at students’ and teacher’s LCB scoresin conjunction with the observation data helpedbetter capture the complexity of Mr. Jackson’sclassroom.

Learner-centered principles may be embeddedwithin TCP. However, the instructional strategiesmay constrain the extent to which the principlesmay become apparent. Whether practices aredefined by external authority sources (e.g., theteacher is required to teach in a particular way) oris one that the teacher chooses, it may provideconstraints and limit the appearance of actionsthat align with a learner-centered perspective, eventhough the teachers’ beliefs may be grounded inthat perspective. Fang (1996), in a summary ofteacher beliefs, distinguishes between a consistencytheory of beliefs, in which beliefs do directpractice, and an inconsistency theory, in whichactions do not mirror beliefs. Seeing a given

ARTICLE IN PRESS


strategy in action does not permit an observer todraw conclusions regarding a teacher’s beliefsabout learning. Given the case described here,one should be cautious with the ‘‘look’’ of aclassroom in that it may not provide the entirepicture. Observations alone, just as student andteacher perceptions gathered via a rating scalealone, will not capture the complexity.

There is a need for triangulated sources ofinformation to provide a more complete picture ofthe learning opportunities within a classroom.Students may interpret perception questions indifferent ways than do the researcher or otheradult. Students as a group may consistentlyinterpret and answer a question in the same way,thus perhaps providing an inflated or deflatedscore on a particular question, group of questions,or subscale. Consider question 18, where studentsresponded to whether they were encouraged tothink things out for themselves. Students mayperceive that working independently in verystructured activities that employ a prescribedsequence is being encouraged to think things outfor themselves. Without additional data sources,understanding what constitutes independent activ-ity in a classroom is impossible. This is not to saythat student perceptions are without value—theyprovide an important, and often telling, lens intothe classroom. Rather, there is further need tounderstand how students interpret perceptionquestions and the criteria on which they base theirresponses. This again points to the need fortriangulation of data sources to understand thecomplexity of classrooms.

Learning environments are complex systems.Characterizing them using a single source of dataor forcing them into dichotomous categories maycause teachers, evaluators, and researchers tounknowingly misinterpret the variables studiedby removing the characteristics that make class-rooms what they are. With renewed emphasis onteacher and student standards and accountability,it seems increasingly important to attempt morethorough understandings of learning environ-ments. Employing data triangulation should beconsidered a methodological necessity in everyassessment and research study involving complexlearning environments to better capture the inter-

play among instructional practices, student andteacher perceptions, and learning needs and out-comes.

References

Airasian, P. W., & Walsh, M. E. (1997). Constructivist

cautions. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 444–449.

Alexander, P. A., & Murphy, P. K. (1998). The research

base for APA’s learner-centered psychological principles. In

B. L. McCombs (Ed.), How students learn: reforming schools

through learner-centered education (pp. 25–60). Washington

DC: American Psychological Association.

APA Task Force on Psychology in Education (1993). The

Learner-centered psychological principles: guidelines for

school redesign and reform. Washington DC: American

Psychological Association and the Mid-Continent Regional

Educational Laboratory.

APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs. (1997).

Learner-centered psychological principles: a framework for

school redesign and reform, (website). Available: http://

www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html (2004, March 18).

Bonk, C. J., & Cunningham, D. J. (1998). Searching for learner-

centered, constructivist, and sociocultural components

of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk,

& K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: learner-

centered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and dis-

course (pp. 25–50). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated

cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Research-

er, 18, 32–42.

Cuban, L. (1983). How did teachers teach, 1890–1980. Theory

Into Practice, 22(3), 160–165.

Daniels, D. H., Kalkman, D. L., & McCombs, B. L. (2001).

Young children’s perspectives on learning and teacher

practices in different classroom contexts: implications for

motivation. Early Education and Development, 12, 253–273.

Duffy, T. M., & Cunningham, D. J. (1996). Constructivism:

implications for the design and delivery of instruction. In D.

H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research for educational

communications and technology (pp. 170–198). New York:

MacMillan.

Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and

practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65.

Gow, L., & Kember, D. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and

their relationship to student learning. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 63, 20–33.

Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996).

Cognition and learning. In D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 15–46).

New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and

their effect on the quality of student learning. Journal of

Higher Education, 65(1), 58–74.

http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html

http://www.apa.org/ed/lcp.html

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Lambert, N. M., & McCombs, B. L. (1998). Introduction:

learner-centered schools and classrooms as a direction for

school reform. In N. M. Lambert, & B. L. McCombs (Eds.),

How students learn: reforming schools through learner-

centered education (pp. 1–22). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.

Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Mayer, R. E. (1998). Cognitive theory for education: what

teachers need to know. In N. M. Lambert, & B. L.

McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: reforming school

through learner-centered education (pp. 353–377). Washing-

ton, DC: American Psychological Association.

McCombs, B. L. (1993). Learner-centered psychological

principles for enhancing education: applications in school

settings. In L. A. Penner, G. M. Batsche, H. M. Knoff, & D.

L. Nelson (Eds.), The challenge in mathematics and science

education: psychology’s response. Washington, DC: Amer-

ican Psychological Association.

McCombs, B. L. (1997). Self-assessment and reflection: tools

for promoting teacher changes toward learner-centered

practices. National Association of Secondary School Princi-

pals Bulletin, 81, 1–14.

McCombs, B. L. (1999). What role does perceptual psychology

play in educational reform today? In H. J. Frieberg (Ed.),

Perceiving, behaving, becoming: lessons learned (pp.

148–157). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

McCombs, B. L., & Lauer, P. A. (1997). Development and

validation of the learner-centered battery: self-assessment

tools for teacher reflection and professional development.

The Professional Educator, 20(1), 1–21.

McCombs, B. L., Lauer, P. A., & Peralez, A. (1997). Researcher

test manual for the learner-centered batter (grades 6–12

version). Aurora, CO: McREL.

McCombs, B. L., & Quiat, M. (2002). What makes a

comprehensive school reform model learner centered?

Urban Education, 37, 476–496.

McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-

centered classroom and school: strategies for increasing

student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

McGroarty, M. E., & Zhu, W. (1997). Triangulation in

classroom research: a study of peer revision. Language

Learning, 47(1), 1–43.

Samuelowicz, K., & Bain, J. D. (2001). Revisiting academics’

beliefs about teaching and learning. Higher Education, 41,

299–325.

Saunders, W., & Goldenberg, C. (1996). Four primary teachers

works to define constructivism and teacher-directed learn-

ing: implications for teacher assessment. The Elementary

School Journal, 97(2), 139–161.

Schuh, K. L. (2003). Knowledge construction in the learner-

centered classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology,

95(2), 426–442.

Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt,

Reinhart, and Winston.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of the case study. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE Publications.

Wagner, E. D., & McCombs, B. L. (1995). Learner

centered psychological principles in practice: designs

for distance education. Educational Technology, 35(2),

32–35.

Documents

Learner-centered principles in teacher-centered practices?