FUENTES PRIMARIAS 6-

The concept of “student-centred learning” has proved somewhat difficult to define. Over fifteen years ago, Farrington (1991: 16) stated that there was “considerable disagreement about what student centred learning actually is”, and this assertion seems as relevant now as it was then. One of the main problems is that many different definitions of student- centred learning exist, reflecting the fact that it has been, and continues to be, interpreted in a number of different ways by different people (Lea et al., 2003; Griffith and Lim, 2010; Schweisfurth, 2013).

The fact that there is no single, unequivocal definition of student-centred learning is not particularly helpful, both from a teacher training and a research perspective. Lea et al. (2003: 321), for example, argue that “a lack of attention to and consistency in defining student-centred learning has resulted in a plethora of synonyms (e.g. learner-centred education, flexible learning) and an inability to compare studies or teaching practices directly.” This statement has certainly rung true throughout the process of carrying out this research; indeed, one of the key methodological issues of this study was attempting to reach a shared understanding of the concept. In the end, arriving at a unified definition of the term proved both unrealistic and undesirable; I explain this in more detail in the Methodology chapter.

For now, I will provide a definition which I feel is generally representative of the way student-centred learning has been interpreted in the literature. This is the definition of Lea et al. (2003), although similar interpretations can also be found in other texts (see, for

example, Felder and Brent, 1996; Jacobs and Farrell, 2001; Schweisfurth, 2013). Drawing on the works of Fay (1988), Brandes and Ginnis (1996) and Cannon and Newble (2000), Lea et al. describe student-centred learning as having the following key characteristics:

1. Reliance upon active rather than passive learning; 2. An emphasis on deep learning and understanding;

3. Increased responsibility and accountability on the part of the student; 4. An increased sense of autonomy in the learner;

5. An interdependence between teacher and learner;

6. Mutual respect within the learner-teacher relationship; and

7. A reflexive approach to the learning and teaching process on the part of both teacher and

learner.

(Lea et al., 2003: 322; numbering and emphasis mine)

My personal interpretations of the points above are as follows:

1. Under more student-centred approaches, students participate as much as possible. The teacher does not always lecture to them, but rather provides them with opportunities to do things, to explore, to experiment, to interact with the topics that they are studying.

2. There is a focus on students learning things which will remain in their long-term memories, as opposed to simply memorising facts to be reproduced in examinations. Learners must find some degree of real-world relevance in what they are doing, in order for them to retain information that may be of use for them in their lives.

3. There is an awareness that the teacher is not (solely) responsible for “making” the students learn. The students are aware that it is, to a great extent, their own responsibility to work and to learn. Because of this, the role of the teacher begins to change from merely an “instructor” of knowledge to a “facilitator” of students’ learning.

4. Similar to the previous point, students are willing to learn, to explore and to look for their own solutions to any issues they might have, without (solely) relying on the teacher to solve all of their problems. Autonomous learning activities therefore form an integral part of teachers’ planning and are built into programs of studies.

5. Similar to the previous two points, students do not (solely) depend on the teacher for their learning. In the same way, the teacher recognises that students will also be working somewhat autonomously, and therefore does not expect the student to (solely) depend on them.

6. The teacher-student role changes from a traditional role in which the teacher is the only person whose opinions are worthy of respect, towards a more egalitarian perspective in which both students and teachers’ opinions are valued.

7. Both teacher and students are aware that they must constantly reflect upon what they are doing and how they might improve their teaching and/or learning.

The fact that Lea et al.’s definition includes seven points makes it increasingly clear that student-centred learning is not a simple or straightforward concept. Moreover, it further illustrates how difficult it is to compare teachers or teaching directly, given that teachers might demonstrate any number or combination of these characteristics and still be considered, or consider themselves to be, “student-centred” teachers. Again, I explore these issues in more detail in the Methodology chapter.

A last point to consider within this sub-section is the term we might use to denominate student-centred learning. That is to say, should student-centred learning be considered a set of “techniques”? A group of different “methods”? A teaching “approach”? Or, more generally, as a kind of “spirit” or “principle” teachers use to guide their practices? Within the literature, by far the most common way of describing student-centred learning is to call it an “approach” (see, for example, Lea et al., 2003; Schweisfurth, 2013). This would make sense, given that student-centred learning is a way of looking at teaching and learning which may involve a wide range of individual methods and/or techniques. However, given the numerous ways in which student-centred learning has been interpreted, I have tended to use the plural “approaches” in this thesis, as opposed to the

singular “approach”, which may be seen to suggest that there is one single interpretation of the term. By doing this, I hope to acknowledge that there are a wide range of different approaches that could be defined as “student-centred”.

Finally, it is important to mention that, in my view, all of the seven characteristics in Lea et al.’s definition should be considered equally as valid. I see no reason to “choose” which one might be the most important or useful, as they may all have their uses at certain times and for certain reasons.