Learner-centered principles in teacher-centered practices?

ARTICLE IN PRESS

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 are complex interactions among a variety of elements, including teacher and student perceptions, instructional practices, learning needs, and larger system issues (McCombs, 1999) such as prescribed curricula, available resources and funding, governmentguided accountability standards, and so on. For this study, I focus on one aspect of a particular learning environment, the pedagogical ‘‘look’’ of a sixth-grade social studies class—the degree to which this learning environment may be considered teacher- or learner-centered based on the Tel.: +1 319 335 5667; fax: +1 319 335 6145.

E-mail address: [email protected] (K.L. Schuh).

activity in the classroom. Through this, I demonstrate the importance of data triangulation as a means to better understand this particular learning environment. Descriptions of the teaching and learning process often use a continuum ranging from what is considered ‘‘traditional’’ or teacher-centered, to ‘‘alternative’’ or learner-centered (Cuban, 1983; Kember & Gow, 1994; Samuelowicz & Bain, 2001). Although these descriptions do not imply a dichotomy (Cuban, 1983), unfortunately it seems that they are often accepted as such. Indeed, as teachers begin to understand new teaching and learning paradigms, they may conceptualize the continuum as a dichotomy in a process that does, in time, increase their understanding. For example, Saunders and Goldenberg (1996) describe the

0742-051X/$ - see front matter r 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.008

ARTICLE IN PRESS 834

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

process by which four teachers moved from more traditional paradigms of teaching to more contemporary paradigms. Initially, these teachers drew on their implicit understandings of direct teaching (i.e., traditional) and alternative instructional strategies, characterizing traditional teaching as bad, the alternative as good, and drawing a crisp line between the two based on instructional strategies in particular. As their understanding progressed, they became more explicit in defining types of instruction, finding value in both traditional and alternative instruction, and thus improving their teaching. These overgeneralizations about traditional and contemporary teaching strategies are not uncommon. For example, Airasian and Walsh (1997) describe cautions about constructivism that stem from overgeneralizations of the theory. Where do these overgeneralizations come from? Perhaps these overgeneralizations are drawn because of a focus on surface pedagogical features, the overt instructional practices in a classroom. Understanding of instruction may be based on how instruction ‘‘looks’’ (the activity), rather than on underlying theoretical roots about learning and how it is fostered. For example, teacher-centered instruction may be assumed to look different from learner-centered instruction (LCI). Strategies such as direct teaching, drill and practice, and collaborative work all bring to mind placement of the instruction on a unidimensional teacher-centered to learner-centered scale. Casual observation of a class using lecture or direct instruction may prompt one to believe the classroom follows a teacher-centered pedagogy, while using collaborative group work may be construed as using LCI. The corollary to this belief is that teachers may believe they are using LCI just because they have students work in groups. This is not necessarily the case. Overgeneralizations are not the jurisdiction of teachers alone. Researchers are susceptible to them as well, and in fact, research methodologies provide a variety of tools to avoid overgeneralization and to provide for credibility of findings. Triangulation of data collection methods is one such tool (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 1995). At a minimum, triangulation will allow verification

and credibility of research findings (see, for example, McGroarty and Zhu (1997) for their discussion of the usefulness of triangulation in their quasi-experimental study that included collection of both quantitative and qualitative data). In addition, triangulation can illuminate discrepancies that will lead to interpretations that might not otherwise arise. This case study is such an example. In it, I explore the ‘‘look’’ of instruction by juxtaposing two types of data collected in a sixth-grade social studies class. When viewed through the lens of observation data, the classroom seems well grounded in a quite traditional, teacher-centered framework. However, perceptions of the classroom as reported by both the teacher and the students on a measure of learnercenteredness (McCombs, Lauer, & Peralez, 1997) provide a view of the classroom from which it may also be considered moderately learner-centered. The secondary question that this study explores is: What features of LCI do students perceive and are embedded within teacher-centered practices? More importantly, this study demonstrates how data triangulation can reveal discrepancies, and thus better informed interpretations, of a learning environment.

2. Background 2.1. Teacher-centered practices The label teacher-centered instruction or practices (TCP) is applied quite broadly to include a variety of views, and thus strategies, for teaching and learning. Teacher-centered instruction is often aligned with ‘‘transmission’’ models of teaching. Within this framework, instruction is the activity in which the information is moved or transmitted to and into the learner (Bonk & Cunningham, 1998; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Greeno, Collins, & Resnick, 1996; Kember & Gow, 1994). In addition, models of teaching that promote response acquisition, such as drill and practice (Mayer, 1998), also fall within this teachercentered focus. In a teacher-centered model of instruction, the development of the instruction and control of the learning process is retained by the

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

teacher. In this framework, there is the assumption that the teacher needs to do things ‘‘to’’ and ‘‘for’’ the learner. In other words, the teacher manipulates the learning situation to obtain the desired outcomes guided by generalized characteristics of the learners (Wagner & McCombs, 1995). The teacher’s role is seen as giving knowledge that has been defined and organized from the teacher’s or expert’s perspective to the students. Typical characteristics of teacher-centered instruction include more teacher talk and questions than student talk and questions, more whole group instruction, reliance on textbooks with other sources such as media used as support, recall of factual information, and a classroom in which desks are in rows facing a board with the teacher desk nearby (Cuban, 1983). Generally, students do the same tasks at the same time, following explicit directions given by the teacher (Daniels, Kalkman, & McCombs, 2001). The teacher decides what is required for the learner from a perspective outside the learner by defining characteristics of instruction, curriculum, assessment, and management (Wagner & McCombs, 1995). 2.2. Learner-centered practices Learner-centered practices (LCP) move the focus from the teacher and instruction to the student and learning. LCP are based on a proposed a set of principles (APA Task Force on Psychology in Education, 1993) derived from over a century of previous research on teaching and learning (Alexander & Murphy, 1998). These principles take into account a variety of psychological factors that are primarily internal to the learner while also recognizing that the environment and other contextual factors will interact as well (McCombs, 1993). Thus, the focus is on attributes of complex learning environments that are most likely to affect learning (Wagner & McCombs, 1995). Currently, 14 principles articulate factors that influence all learners both in and out of the classroom and provide an integrated perspective of learning with a holistic view of the learner (APA Work Group of the Board Educational Affairs, 1997). The principles address individual learning, motivation, and developmen-

835

tal needs and are organized in four dimensions: cognitive and metacognitive factors, motivational and affective factors, developmental and social factors, and individual differences. Learner-centered principles provide a theoretical foundation for LCI drawing on a research base from a variety of theoretical perspectives (Lambert & McCombs, 1998). Practices based on these principles have no prescribed format (McCombs, 1997), although instructionally, the principles are typically in contrast to TCP (Wagner & McCombs, 1995). Instruction based on learner-centered principles provides opportunities for learners to draw on their own experiences and interpretations of the learning process (McCombs, 1997; Wagner & McCombs, 1995). LCP regards learning as a life-long process rather than a process that takes place only through young-adulthood (Lambert & McCombs, 1998). The view aligns with advocates of situated cognition (e.g., Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) in that school activities (done by students) are generally not authentic activities that prepare learners for problem solving outside of school. Foundations of LCP include that learning is a natural, constructive process where learning is most productive when it is relevant and meaningful to the learner, in positive learning environments. It is a holistic view of the learner in a complex living system that extends well beyond the classroom walls in both time and space. LCP acknowledge that learners have different perspectives, and that for learners to be engaged in and take responsibility for their learning, these perspectives need to be tended to. Further, appropriately supportive learning opportunities that are challenging for individuals need to be provided (Lambert & McCombs, 1998). When implementing LCP, teachers need to understand the learner’s world and support capacities already existing in the learner to accomplish desired learning outcomes. Learning goals are achieved by active collaboration between the teacher and learners who together determine what learning means and how it can be enhanced within each individual learner by drawing on the learner’s own unique talents, capacities, and experiences (McCombs & Whisler,

ARTICLE IN PRESS 836

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

1997). Although Cuban (1983) uses the term student-centered, he identifies observable measures that seem aligned with expectations for LCP as well: more or equal student talk and questions than teacher talk, more individual and moderately sized group instruction, varied instructional materials, evidence of student choice and organization of content and classroom rules, and a physical arrangement of the classroom that allows for working together. Students who perceive their teachers to use LCP exhibit greater achievement and motivation (McCombs & Whisler, 1997).

classrooms chosen from a pool of six who participated in a larger study on student knowledge construction (Schuh, 2003). His class was chosen for the further analysis reported here because it provided an interesting case in that the narrative description of the class gained through observation (how the instruction ‘‘looked’’) seemed at odds with scores obtained on a measure of learner-centeredness (McCombs et al., 1997). Mr. Jackson’s classroom offered a venue to explore the varied descriptions that can exist between different data collection methods and thus the need for data triangulation.

2.3. Student perceptions 3.2. The Learner-Centered Battery In addition to relationships with positive learning outcomes, students’ perceptions of their classroom provide added value in that they are often a better measure of learner-centeredness than teacher perceptions (McCombs & Quiat, 2002). For example, even at the early elementary level students were able to identify characteristics of learner-centered teachers based on the extent to which they viewed their teachers having learnercentered qualities. In addition, these young learners’ descriptions were consistent with those of educational, developmental, and motivational psychologists (Daniels et al., 2001). Student perceptions provide a viable form of information about classrooms. In the current study, student perceptions of their teacher and classroom practices, in conjunction with observation and interview data, demonstrate how learner-centered principles can be entwined in TCP.

3. Method 3.1. Participants The focus of this case study was Mr. Jackson and his sixth-grade students. The 14 boys and 10 girls in Mr. Jackson’s class were one of three sixthgrade classes in the elementary school of 430 students in a small Midwestern city. During his 22 years of teaching Mr. Jackson primarily taught sixth grade, although he had also taught first and fourth grades. Mr. Jackson’s class was one of three

The Learner-Centered Battery (LCB, now named the Assessment for Learner-Centered Practices), grades 6–12, is a self-assessment tool for professional development for teachers (McCombs, 1997). The purpose of the LCB is to assist teachers in becoming more reflective and aware of ‘‘their basic beliefs and assumptions about learners, learning, and teaching; the relationship of these beliefs to their school and classroom practices from their own and their students’ perspectives; and the impact of these practices on student motivation, learning, and academic achievement’’ (McCombs & Lauer, 1997, p. 1). Scores that result from use of this instrument indicate students’ and teachers’ perceptions of the classroom practices. The student questionnaire contains 75 items. Responses are given on a four-point scale indicating agreement with the statement (almost never, sometimes, often, almost always). The teacher questionnaire contains 126 questions. During development, the LCB was subjected to two phases of validation. Subscales and alpha coefficients resulting from 4828 students’ and 672 teachers’ responses that addressed teachers’ beliefs and assumptions were (a) learner-centered beliefs about learners, learning, and teaching (alpha=0.87), (b) nonlearner-centered beliefs about learners (alpha=0.83), and (c) nonlearnercentered beliefs about teaching and learning (alpha=0.82). Perceptions of classroom practices were measured by (a) creates positive personal

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

relationships and classroom climate (alpha=0.91), (b) honors student voice, challenges students, and encourages perspective taking (alpha=0.84), (c) encourages higher-order thinking and self-regulated learning (alpha=0.85), and (d) adapts to individual developmental differences (alpha= 0.71) (McCombs & Lauer, 1997). Further validation using 484 students and 236 teachers sought relationships between the subscales and measures of student motivation and achievement to establish construct and predictive validity of the LCB. Students’ perceptions of classroom practice were positively associated with their own classroom achievement (rX0:13 for all four subscales, po0:01), self-efficacy (rX0:27 for all, po0:01), performance-oriented goals (rX0:18 for all, po0:01), state epistemic curiosity (rX0:34 for all, po0:01), use of active learning strategies (rX0:41 for all, po0:01), and task-mastery goals (rX0:41 for all, po0:01). Students’ perceptions were negatively associated with their use of effort-avoidance strategies (rp 0:05 for three 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 as part of a selection process for the larger study and prior to any observation (Schuh, 2003). Although Mr. Jackson was the students’ homeroom teacher as well, I told students to specifically consider social studies class when they answered the questions. Following administration of the LCB, I observed the students in Mr. Jackson’s classroom during their Roman Empire unit in social studies. This unit extended over a two and a half week period. During the unit, the class met nine times and I observed eight of the 30-min class periods. The focus of my observation was not on Mr. Jackson’s instructional methods specifically, but on the nature of the classroom and the opportunities for learners to create meaning based on their own prior experiences that they brought to the classroom. I was a passive participant observer (Spradley, 1980) in that I sat in a back corner of

837

the classroom and did not interact with the students. I took notes on an electronic organizer with an attached keyboard capturing as much of the dialog and happenings of classroom as possible. My observation strategy in this study was to gather as much information as possible. Thus, the observation data provided a rich description of the classroom in general. I interviewed three boys and three girls. Students were chosen for an interview if they shared a comment/question in class that seemed tangential to the conversation in the classroom (Schuh, 2003). When I did not identify an incident during the observation session, I randomly selected a student for the interview. Three of the children (two boys, one girl) were invited to the interview by random selection. In the 15-min semistructured interview, I asked the students to tell me about the Roman Empire, followed up on any tangential comments made during class, and asked them if there was anything else in class that had come into their mind that perhaps they did not share during class. The interviews generally fell into casual conversations with the students sharing topics 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 of central tendency for Mr. Jackson’s and his students’ LCB subscales. In additional, I calculated discrepancy scores indicating the distance between Mr. Jackson’s perception of his classroom and his students’ perception. Observation and interview data were analyzed following standard qualitative methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), with an eye towards understanding this classroom in terms of how the learning and instruction could be characterized. Lincoln and Guba recommend erring on the side of inclusion in a first draft of a case study, given that early in the process it is difficult to know what to include and exclude. Initially, I sent a document including all the observations with supporting ideas from the interviews and field notes to Mr. Jackson for review, correction, and comment, thus providing

ARTICLE IN PRESS 838

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

another source of potential interpretation (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Stake, 1995), although he provided no comment. As analysis continued, a second researcher participated in the analysis process. We each reviewed the data and characterized classroom excerpts regarding the teacher role, classroom dialog, and the general nature of the classroom. Overall, there was consensus in our interpretations in that the activity in Mr. Jackson’s classroom was very consistent from day to day. Our understanding and consensus of Mr. Jackson’s classroom was triangulated by investigator, data source (different times, places, and people), as well as methodological triangulation through observation, interview, and class documents (e.g., textbook) (Stake, 1995). Although initially the LCB provided no role in the larger study other than for classroom selection (Schuh, 2003), a discrepancy between the LCB scores and the qualitative data gathered became apparent as educators (tenured faculty in a School of Education at a major university) read the final narrative of Mr. Jackson’s classroom in light of the outcomes of the LCB. The LCB administration materials provide the most preferred score (MPS) for each subscale. This metric is based on the validation samples, creating a boundary above which a classroom may be described as learner-centered (McCombs et al., 1997). Although the LCB scores indicated that the students’ perceptions of classroom practices hovered near the MPS for the subscales, and thus placed Mr. Jackson’s classroom as showing characteristics of LCP, the narrative description painted a picture of a very teacher-centered approach. It is this discrepancy that prompted the findings reported here in which I identified specific questions that students had answered in the LCB that indicated a tendency towards learner-centeredness in this classroom. Then I reviewed the narrative for incidents that could support these student perceptions. In this, the purpose of the analysis was further data triangulation in that I sought to understand the seemingly discrepant LCB data in light of the qualitative data that were gathered, trying to understand how this classroom could be considered learnercentered.

4. Findings My approach in articulating the findings in which students may have reported learner-centered characteristics in what appears from observation to be a teacher-centered classroom is to first provide a narrative description and interpretation of the classroom. In this, I echo the tendency to focus on surface characteristics of the instruction and the environment as might be done when initially viewing a classroom identifying many characteristics of TCP including the physical setup of the room, the use of whole group instruction to gain factual information that is orchestrated outside of the students, and using the textbook as an authority source. Then I discuss the classroom in light of the student responses to questions that indicate aspects of the classroom that they perceived as being most learner-centered, thus highlighting the value of an additional data source in understanding this classroom. 4.1. Teacher-centered practices in Mr. Jackson’s classroom I wrote in my field notes following my first observation of Mr. Jackson’s classroom, ‘‘The classroom was very well structured, the teacher really has a routine of how they go about things. The kids were not at all surprised about anything that he did. The class runs like a well-oiled machine. There was absolutely no extraneous talking, messing around, I mean, discipline was just there. And this came right after lunch, right after recess; they came in from outside, they came in at 1:00, and at 1:00 they’re in their desks and they’re ready to go.’’ The physical setup of this well-oiled machine was representative of a place where one might consider that teacher-centered instruction occurs. The 24 student desks in Mr. Jackson’s classroom were 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 my first day of observation, I arrived 15 min before social studies began, while the students were still at lunch. When the students returned, they immediately went to their desks, were quiet, and ready for

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

social studies. Columns of social studies words were on the chalkboard. Mr. Jackson called on students to go to the board and draw a rectangle around a word in the list that reminded them of Rome. Very quietly, the selected students drew rectangles around gladiator, Julius Caesar, polytheistic, matrilineage, and philosophy. The activity continued, Mr. Jackson providing feedback to the students. ‘‘I’m pretty impressed, you found a lot,’’ Mr. Jackson encouraged the class. ‘‘I’m glad no one chose domestication, that was from a previous chapter.’’ Following this pre-instructional activity, they began the unit on the Roman Empire. A typical objective in sixth-grade social studies is for students to learn about the Roman Empire. In this classroom, equally important was Mr. Jackson’s objective for students to develop note-taking skills. During his May 3 interview he mentioned, ‘‘I’m not as interested that they remember all the facts and things about Rome as much as they have learned to take notes, save their notes, be organized with them, study the notes, start early in the year, things like that.’’ He communicated this to his students as well. The lesson continued, ‘‘Open your books to page 224. Remember, this grading period the test will be on your notes. Take good notes, but on 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 for the pictures on the first two pages of the chapter. ‘‘Find out how Augustus Caesar helped develop Romey. These are the focus questions in the unit,’’ Mr. Jackson continued. Chuck had his hand up while the teacher was reading the questions. ‘‘Begin on page 225—the main idea,’’ Mr. Jackson said. Chuck was called on and began to read aloud. He read loudly and clearly. I was in the opposite corner of the room from where he sat. ‘‘Main Idea: Rome grows from a citystate into a world empire. According to an ancient myth, two helpless baby boys were abandoned in a basket to drift down the Tibber or Tiber, (‘‘Tiber,’’ Mr. Jackson interjected.)

839

Tiber River.’’ Chuck continued to read, slowing on the words Romulus and Remus, but pronouncing them correctly. Students were following along in the books. One girl was taking notes. After Chuck finished reading, Mr. Jackson asked, ‘‘What’s on that page that we should copy down in our notes?’’ ‘‘The main idea,’’ a student said. Mr. Jackson summarized the main idea from the page that had just been read. Chuck shared, ‘‘You should write down the key vocabulary and fill it in.’’ ‘‘That’s an excellent idea, that’s exactly what I do and write down the meanings as you get to them,’’ 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 the unit. He also said that taking notes was something they had worked on all year. Mr. Jackson’s strategy for developing knowledge about notetaking skills and the Roman Empire was that of direct instruction and modeling. For example, as the instruction progressed on Day 2, Mr. Jackson showed his own notepaper to the class and how he had organized it. After a student had offered a valid answer to be written as a note, Mr. Jackson commented about how his own notes aligned with the student’s. Given the brief narrative above, typical of the class sessions that I observed in Mr. Jackson’s classroom, the classroom appeared very teachercentered—the teacher and textbook providing the structured information and students capturing similar descriptions of the information. Using TCP, the teacher will engineer conditions outside of the learner (evident in the structure of this activity) and do things to and for the learner (Wagner & McCombs, 1995). Although Mr. Jackson did not ‘‘do’’ the note taking for the learners, the method was very structured regarding how they should take notes, doing it in the way that Mr. Jackson himself did. In this informationextraction process, there was an authority in terms of content. During his May 3 interview, Mr. Jackson described himself as a textbook-led

ARTICLE IN PRESS 840

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

teacher, attributing it to his own limited knowledge of the content. Thus, Mr. Jackson chose to have the textbook as an authority source. The content and its source were both conditions orchestrated outside of the learner. In a way, Mr. Jackson scaffolded the students’ note-taking skills. For example, when questions required multiple answers, he told the students how many parts the answers contained and whether they should be written in sentence form. In addition, he was very specific about the information that the students were to take from their textbooks and the students were generally not to deviate from that source. Consider this example addressing the focus question that required multiple answers about everyday life in the Roman household. ‘‘Who can tell me about the father? What did the father do?’’ he asked. After a student came up with the appropriate answers, Mr. Jackson asked, ‘‘If the father makes all the decisions, what does the wife do?’’ A girl responded, ‘‘She cooked, 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 were entitled to property but could not vote. ‘‘She cared for the children,’’ another offered. This was the answer in the book and Mr. Jackson wrote it on the board at number 2: ‘‘the care of the children belonged to the wife.’’ (Day 4, April 12) Although the initial answer above was incorrect, even potentially correct answers could be rejected if the student shared that they were from another source that might not be appropriate for school. For example, Marcus raised his hand to answer the focus questions about ‘‘Who was Jesus of Nazareth and what did he believe?’’ and commented that he knew the answer from Sunday School. Mr. Jackson said, ‘‘We all would have ideas based on what we learned in Sunday School, but we can’t do that,’’ explaining how he could not proselytize students, and then prompted answers from the textbook.

Mr. Jackson was open, however, to answers that students provided that may have been better summaries from the textbook than he himself had prepared. For example, he acknowledged that ‘‘Jesus raises from the dead’’ was a better definition of resurrection than ‘‘rose to heaven on clouds’’ that he had in his own notes in the section on early Christianity in their unit on the Roman Empire. As the unit progressed, Mr. Jackson altered the strategy as the students gained independence as seekers of correct information from their textbook. ‘‘I’m going to give you a few minutes to write down your answers.’’ Mr. Jackson read through the questions again, and told how many parts there would be to answer each one. ‘‘First one has three, the second just has one, the third has five. They’re in the book, there’s no magic way to get them, I just want you to find them in the book.’’ The students began looking for the answers. (Day 5, April 13) Mr. Jackson also acknowledged that there were instances where other fun and interesting things could be done, if the students allowed as he noted in his interview. For example, Friday afternoons were used for showing videos. Although a change in the routine, this type of activity remained teacher-centered as well in that Mr. Jackson determined the content and purpose of the video use, generally as an enhancement to instruction rather than a means for instruction. Given the above excerpts, Mr. Jackson’s classroom seems very teacher-centered and traditional, aligning quite strongly with Cuban’s (1983) description of characteristics of teacher-centered instruction. Mr. Jackson, along with textbook format, orchestrated the nature of what was learned and how it was to be learned by each student. Mr. Jackson’s method of modeling note taking for finding correct answers was aligned with direct instruction methods of teaching. He provided students many opportunities for practice and immediate feedback on their efforts. However, the strategy did not provide opportunities for personal processing of information or generative learning. Generally, this social studies class appeared to provide none of the features that one

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

might except to see in a learner-centered classroom—students working collaboratively, solving problems, seeking understanding in ways that go beyond repeating information from a textbook. Yet, students’ perceptions of Mr. Jackson’s classroom on the LCB provided a slightly different picture. 4.2. Learner-centered perceptions of Mr. Jackson’s classroom Table 1 includes the LCB scores for the students’ perceptions of the classroom practice. Mr. Jackson’s perceptions of the classroom practice as measured by the teacher version of the LCB were similar, as indicated by the small discrepancy score (e.g., Mr. Jackson’s score on the first subscale was 3.14 (3.18–0.04)). Mr. Jackson’s students perceived the classroom to be more learner-centered than did their teacher on three of the subscales. Although Mr. Jackson’s classroom was not highly learner-centered according to the LCB scores, the MPS indicated that Mr. Jackson’s class likely contained elements of learner-centered principles from which the students developed their perceptions. Further, each score for students’ perception of classroom practice was at most 0.25 below the MPS. Variables that related to students’ learning and motivation as reported by the students were near

841

the MPS as well. Although student perceptions are a better measure of learner-centeredness in a classroom (McCombs & Quiat, 2002), Mr. Jackson’s belief scores, although not strongly learner-centered, were also similar to the MPS for learner-centered beliefs (Table 2). Given these perceptions, although the LCB scores did not indicate that the classroom was strongly viewed by the students as learner-centered, neither was it strongly viewed as being teacher-centered. This seems contrary to the observation data described earlier. To produce an uncontestable description of the case, confirming as well as disconfirming evidence should be sought. Methodological triangulation, perhaps the most recognized of triangulation methods, requires that multiple approaches be used to understand a case (Stake, 1995). In this study, the LCB and the observation and interview data provided an opportunity for this type of triangulation and the two data sets yielded inconsistent evidence. There are a number of ways that one could approach the disparity. One would be to ignore one data collection method, believing it produced erroneous data. Another approach would be to seek confirmation of one of the interpretations (in this case teacher- or learnercentered) and attempt to find a reconciliation by which the anomaly could occur, providing a richer description of the case and describing how two

Table 1 Classroom results for four learner-centered battery subscales on students’ perception of classroom practices for Mr. Jackson’s classroom Scale

M

SD

Creates positive interpersonal relationships/climate Honors student voice, provides challenge, and encourages perspective taking Encourages higher-order thinking and self-regulation Adapts to individual developmental differences

3.18

0.66

2.95

D

R

Most preferred score (MPS)

0.04

1.86–4.00

HighX3.3

0.62

0.09

2.00–4.00

HighX3.2

3.09

0.64

0.26

2.00–4.00

HighX3.1

2.17

0.86

0.23

1.20–4.00

HighX2.6

n=23; M=mean; SD=standard deviation; D=discrepancy score; R=range; Most preferred score patterns are based on the scores of the 25 validation sample teachers with the highest proportion of students who were high in both classroom achievement and motivation. For the validation sample, data were collected from 113 middle school teachers and 2476 middle school students, 155 high school teachers and 3136 high school students from six states: AK, CO, IL, KY, MI, NC (McCombs et al., 1997).

ARTICLE IN PRESS 842

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

Table 2 Mr. Jackson’s learner-centered battery scores for teacher beliefs Subscale

M

MPS

Learner-centered belief about learners, learning, and teaching Nonlearner-centered beliefs about learners Nonlearner-centered beliefs about learning and teaching

3.21

HighX3.2

2.11

Lowo2.4

2.42

Lowo2.4

M=mean; MPS=most preferred score.

seemingly divergent ideas may be represented in one particular case. This is the methodological stance that I took in this study. In the interpretation that follows, I considered individual LCB questions in which the students more strongly indicated learner-centered principles in their classroom. These questions occurred in the first three subscales identified in Table 1 and were chosen because the mean score for the student’s perceptions were above the MPS or above 3.0 (scale choice for ‘‘often’’). Then, I sought confirming evidence for these perceptions within the narrative description of the classroom, to disconfirm the teacher-centered nature of the classroom based only on a pedagogical look. Table 3 provides a summary of the TCP that were observed in conjunction with LCP, and which could have influenced the students’ answers to particular LCB questions, resulting in responses aligned with learner-centered principles despite the TCP in which they were embedded. 4.3. Creates positive interpersonal relationships/ climate Along with the rather structured approach to teaching and learning as described above, Mr. Jackson’s classroom was viewed by his students as positive in terms of interpersonal relationships and climate in a number of ways. As noted in the observation, Mr. Jackson complimented the students for their participation in the activity and what they remembered. He encouraged and modeled appropriate, polite behavior to all individuals in the classroom, which may have

reinforced students’ abilities in themselves. When students who were reading asked if they should continue at the end of a section, they were always encouraged ‘‘yes, you’re doing fine.’’ When students stumbled over words, they were politely corrected and encouraged to continue. Although extracting correct notes from a textbook aligns with TCP, the manner in which Mr. Jackson interacted with the students during the learning tasks helped to create interpersonal relationships and a climate that was positive, although somewhat formal, in his classroom. Therefore, within very teacher-centered practices, learner-centered principles of valuing students and creating a positive climate were evident. The practices were clearly not learner-centered, yet exhibited some underlying principles of a learnercentered perspective. 4.4. Honors student voice, provides challenge, and encourages perspective taking When student voice is honored and perspective taking is encouraged, students are encouraged to listen to and think about their classmates’ opinions. Specific examples of students being asked to listen to and think about other students’ opinions were limited because students were not necessarily asked to voice opinions in the class. Students were to adhere to the topic and to the prescribed information. In fact, in interviews both teacher and students shared that going off-track was unacceptable. Yet, in this classroom, students were clearly expected to listen to one another. One student or the teacher talked at a time. From the students’ perspective, one can see that this could be an encouragement to listen and think about what one another said. Although the content of the comments would be prescribed by the authority source, whomever was sharing the information was to have the attention of others. 4.5. Encourages higher-order thinking and selfregulation Given the focus of the learning and instructional processes that seemed to rely on repetition, structured content, and recall and recognition for

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

843

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

Creates positive interpersonal relationships/climate (MPS: HighX3.3) While Mr. Jackson He also Complimented students on their Provided a structured approach of information extraction from an efforts authority source Encouraged and modeled appropriate, polite behavior Encouraged students’ efforts

Student perception as indicated by LCB question

LCB question data n=23

Indicating that he ‘‘Appreciates me as an individual’’

Q1 M=3.3913 SD=0.7827

‘‘Treats me with respect’’

Q 24 M=3.6087 SD=0.6564 Q 17 M=3.2174 SD=0.9980

‘‘Helped students feel good about his or her abilities’’

Honors student voice, provides challenge, and encourages perspective taking (MPS: HighX3.2) While Mr. Jackson He also Indicating that he Provided a very structured method Asked students to apply the ‘‘Encouraged me to think things for students to interact with the method independently after out for myself while learning’’ content guided practice While Mr. Jackson He also Indicating that he Constrained student dialog by Required that students pay ‘‘Encouraged students to listen controlling what was appropriate attention and listen to whomever and think about my classmates’ content was speaking opinions’’ Encourages higher-order thinking and self-regulation (MPS: HighX3.1) While Mr. Jackson He also Prescribed a note-taking strategy and Provided a year-long effort for thus controlled the means for student students to develop note-taking interaction with the content skills

While Mr. Jackson Provided the potential links for the students rather than seeking them from the students

Q 18 M=3.1304 SD=.8129 Q 22 M=3.2174 SD=0.9980

Indicating that he ‘‘Helped me learn how to organize what I’m learning so I can remember it more easily’’

Q3 M=3.5652 SD=0.7278

Modeled and described processes to test personal understanding of the prescribed information

Indicating that he Helped students ‘‘learn how to check how well I understand what I am learning’’

Q 19 M=3.2174 SD=0.9514

He also Used links with which the students would be familiar

Indicating that he ‘‘Helps me put new information together with what I already know so that is makes sense to me’’

Q 11 M=3.0870 SD=1.0407

assessment of learning, it seems surprising that students responded on the LCB that higher-order thinking and self-regulation were encouraged. Linking new information with old, organizing new information, and checking for understanding are included in this subscale. Certainly, strategies that align with TCP do allow students opportunities for self-regulation. Developing note-taking strategies modeled by

Mr. Jackson was the primary objective of the unit and provided the students opportunities to regulate and focus their own learning in a way prescribed by the teacher. Although there seemed to be few indicators to confirm that the teacher helped student integrate new information with prior learning, recall that on the first day of observation, Mr. Jackson asked students to distinguish among terms they learned in previous

ARTICLE IN PRESS 844

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

units. Mr. Jackson also provided an example of a swimming pool to help students understand the size and purpose of the Roman public baths when addressing the focus question about the relationship between water and community in Roman life. On the fifth day of the observation, after a number of students had not provided the correct answer to the focus question, he reminded students of the swimming pool analogy presented earlier in the unit. Recall the incident in the classroom in which the students attempted to answer a question drawing on information found in Sunday School rather than the textbook. Although the source of the information was dismissed as not valid (thus, a very teacher-centered approach), Mr. Jackson later allowed Marcus to use his personal experiences as valid answers once particular parameters had been set about information sources. Mr. Jackson helped students monitor their own learning through modeling and description (e.g., Mr. Jackson shared that his daughter wrote vocabulary on index cards and quizzed herself). In-class reviews also provided students a means to check understanding. If the answers were not known, students knew they needed to study and were told to go back and review. Mr. Jackson also reiterated this as the test approached and students did not know answers to questions. These incidents do not show encouragement of higher-order thinking. Transfer of learning styles of instruction may depress use of a deep approach to learner (Gow & Kember, 1993). Therefore, the limited incidents found in the observation for this unit might be interpreted as exemplars for this classroom that were well embedded in and constrained by TCP. While these learner-centered characteristics could be provided in a teachercentered classroom, the encouraged thinking in the classroom seems to be very low level—knowledge and comprehension at best.

5. Discussion The formal structure of Mr. Jackson’s classroom, his instructional strategy, and the overall climate of the classroom all appeared to be quite teacher-centered. However, the learner-centered

perspective—guided by foundational principles based on research in teaching and learning—does not prescribe what the instruction should look like (McCombs, 1999). Any variety of instructional strategies can be used within a learner-centered environment, just as long as they are grounded in the learner-centered principles. The principles speak more of acceptance of learners, and combining a focus on individual learners with a focus on learning. From this perspective, Mr. Jackson’s classroom did contain aspects of learner-centeredness, as indicated by the results of the LCB, embedded within very teacher-centered practices. While Mr. Jackson chose teacher-centered strategies for disseminating information to his students and structuring how they would learn that information, this did not limit his acceptance and encouragement of the students. There are a variety of ways to characterize any classroom, often depending on the source of information that is used. Any single data source will certainly reduce the complexity of the classroom in some way. It is important to reconcile these sources if needed, trying to retain the complexity of the classroom and use that as a means to better understand the learning environment. Overall, I believe that Mr. Jackson’s classroom aligns more strongly with the teachercentered perspective, despite the LCB scores. Yet, looking at students’ and teacher’s LCB scores in conjunction with the observation data helped better capture the complexity of Mr. Jackson’s classroom. Learner-centered principles may be embedded within TCP. However, the instructional strategies may constrain the extent to which the principles may become apparent. Whether practices are defined by external authority sources (e.g., the teacher is required to teach in a particular way) or is one that the teacher chooses, it may provide constraints and limit the appearance of actions that align with a learner-centered perspective, even though the teachers’ beliefs may be grounded in that perspective. Fang (1996), in a summary of teacher beliefs, distinguishes between a consistency theory of beliefs, in which beliefs do direct practice, and an inconsistency theory, in which actions do not mirror beliefs. Seeing a given

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

strategy in action does not permit an observer to draw conclusions regarding a teacher’s beliefs about learning. Given the case described here, one should be cautious with the ‘‘look’’ of a classroom in that it may not provide the entire picture. Observations alone, just as student and teacher perceptions gathered via a rating scale alone, will not capture the complexity. There is a need for triangulated sources of information to provide a more complete picture of the learning opportunities within a classroom. Students may interpret perception questions in different ways than do the researcher or other adult. Students as a group may consistently interpret and answer a question in the same way, thus perhaps providing an inflated or deflated score on a particular question, group of questions, or subscale. Consider question 18, where students responded to whether they were encouraged to think things out for themselves. Students may perceive that working independently in very structured activities that employ a prescribed sequence is being encouraged to think things out for themselves. Without additional data sources, understanding what constitutes independent activity in a classroom is impossible. This is not to say that student perceptions are without value—they provide an important, and often telling, lens into the classroom. Rather, there is further need to understand how students interpret perception questions and the criteria on which they base their responses. This again points to the need for triangulation of data sources to understand the complexity of classrooms. Learning environments are complex systems. Characterizing them using a single source of data or forcing them into dichotomous categories may cause teachers, evaluators, and researchers to unknowingly misinterpret the variables studied by removing the characteristics that make classrooms what they are. With renewed emphasis on teacher and student standards and accountability, it seems increasingly important to attempt more thorough understandings of learning environments. Employing data triangulation should be considered a methodological necessity in every assessment and research study involving complex learning environments to better capture the inter-

845

play among instructional practices, student and teacher perceptions, and learning needs and outcomes.

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 learnercentered, constructivist, and sociocultural components of collaborative educational learning tools. In C. J. Bonk, & K. S. King (Eds.), Electronic collaborators: learnercentered technologies for literacy, apprenticeship, and discourse (pp. 25–50). Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 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.

ARTICLE IN PRESS 846

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

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 learnercentered 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). Washington, 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: American Psychological Association. McCombs, B. L. (1997). Self-assessment and reflection: tools for promoting teacher changes toward learner-centered practices. National Association of Secondary School Principals 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 learnercentered classroom and school: strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: JosseyBass. 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 learning: implications for teacher assessment. The Elementary School Journal, 97(2), 139–161. Schuh, K. L. (2003). Knowledge construction in the learnercentered 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.