In many USA schools in the 1970s, learning was implied when practical work was used. The Intermediate Science Curriculum Study (ISCS programmes) was an epitome of the practical approach. Atash and Dawson, did a meta-analysis where they compared the practical approach to the teacher-centred one (Atash & Dawson, 1986). Their findings indicated that in the achievement tests, the teacher-centred group outperformed the ISCS group.
The effect of student centred and teacher centred approaches using technology mediated instruction on the different aspects of “engagement” was investigated. Wu and Huang decided to differentiate between emotional, cognitive and behavioural engagement (Wu & Huang, 2007). In other research (Rutten, van Joolingen, & van der Veen, 2012; Riess & Mischo, 2010; Duran, Gallardo, Toral, Martinez-Torres, & Barrero, 2007) it was found that in many instances teachers use technology to extend their existing practices. However,
research to determine what encouraged achievement with regard to teacher-directed or
student-centred computer applications instruction, it was found that the learners in the teacher directed one performed much better than those in the student centred one Chang (2003). In their study data was captured from various sources: they videotaped the whole teaching scenario, and also chose to observe 6 students from each of the two groups. They placed audio recorders on the tables they were working on so that they would capture the discussion of the learners in the course of the activity. They also used a software package called
Camtasia Studio which records the screen as the students are working. The capturing of the screen enabled researchers to synchronise what the students were doing with what they were talking about as they watched or worked with simulations in this case physlets. They then used the NVivo software to analyse the expressions on the faces of the students frame by frame comparing with what they were saying and doing. The research was on the
engagement of, cognitive, behavioural and emotional dimensions. Six categories were identified which they used to analyse student engagement: manipulating simulations, solving problems, making reflections, asking for help, filling out work sheets and off-task. The degree of analysis they used was based on the following categories: interacting with subject matter, the cognitive level, cognitive engagement and behavioural engagement. The analysis also looked at how the two groups performed with regard to the two teaching methods. The six students identified in the groups were from three performance levels, the high, medium and low achievers. The research also wanted to establish the performance of the different levels. The overall results show that the teacher centred group which used a data projector to work on the different simulations performed better than where the students were left to work on the simulations (student centred). When the various analyses were made, they found that the medium and high achievers greatly improved on the pre and delayed post test scores in the student centred group, however, the low achievers did not improve as much. The medium
and high achievers improved by as much as 15 and 19 points in the teacher centred approach whereas the low achievers only with 7. This category interpreted as the low achievers would benefit most from the teacher’s guidance other than being left on their own. Structured instruction would seem to be beneficial to the low achievers. The researchers also found out that the effect of the two instructional methods did not last long, when there was a delayed post-test they found that the gains had more or less gone down. This means that there appears to be no long term effect from their findings.
One of the strengths of teacher-centred approach, is the reliance on scaffolding. When the learner learns new information, a teacher can guide the learner by starting with what the learner already knows (Paas, Renkl, & Sweller, 2003; Paas & Sweller, 2012; van
Merrienboer, Kirschner, & Kester, 2003; Vygotsky, 1986). Initially the teacher is very
supportive as the learner interacts with what is to be learnt for the first time. The teacher fades out gradually and the learner is left to work on his or her own with little or no assistance at all. This is initiated and implemented by the teacher because he is more knowledgeable than the learner (van Merrienboer, Kirschner, & Kester, 2003). Linked with what has been said, the teacher is able to assess how much the learner knows and as a result operate in the zone of proximal development to increase his knowledge (Vygotsky, 1986). Where the learner is able to work in an incremental area so as to grasp what he has to learn.
The final advantage could be that the teacher-centred approach could work well within the tenets of the Information Processing Model of learning. Paas and Sweller (2012) in their paper differentiated the type of offerings to be learnt or subject or unit, they used the terms primary biological information and secondary biological information. The primary biological information is where the organism has evolved to make learning effortless and what is learnt is accommodated in the long term easily. Examples of primary biological information include face recognition, mother tongue learning. The secondary biological
information is where it has to be taught. School subjects or sections thereof, for example, geometrical optics with its knowledge and skills falls in the secondary biological information category. It needs someone who knows and is able to determine at what stage information should be taught and linked. This shows that it would need guidance and it is this guidance we have referred to as teacher-centred. The learner is not simply left on her own to grapple with the new knowledge in self-discovery. The case for the teacher-centred comes in with regard to a need where someone takes charge and determines what has to be learnt and also taught.