Student-centred Learning
— what does it mean for teachers?

Thomas Gradgrind, in Dickens’s Hard Times, was not a fan of student-centred education, and although a student-centred approach has been with us for a long time, there are still many teachers who, knowingly or not, may find little wrong with the idea quoted above.

I clearly recall as a 10 year-old in my English primary school the class being asked by a new teacher, “Is there anyone here stupid enough to be left handed?” We used wooden nib holders to write with in those days, and left handed pen nibs were a different shape. As I nervously raised my hand, I received a slap across the head, and a left-handed nib. Although my individual need was met, this was not student-centred learning.

Later, in my grammar school, I was lucky enough to encounter rather more enlightened teachers who actually valued my ideas, and believed the best way to develop those ideas was to be aware of them and to focus them on what needed to be learned in order to pass the tough examinations in force at that time. They weren’t ‘soft’ (the cane still swished frequently in those days) but they realised, even in the early 1960’s, that effective learning meant student-centred learning. It’s nothing new.

A highlight of the Thai National Curriculum 2002 is the proposed shift in emphasis in teaching methods towards a student-centred learning approach. The goal represents a paradigm shift in Thai education from teacher-centred to student-centred learning. For example:

“In organising the learning process, educational institutions shall:

1. provide substance and arrange activities in line with the learners' interests and aptitudes, bearing in mind individual differences;
2. provide training in thinking processes, management, how to face various situations and application of knowledge for obviating and solving problems;
3. organise activities for learners to draw from authentic experience ... enable learners to think critically and acquire the reading habit and continuous thirst for knowledge;

5. ... both learners and teachers may learn together from different types of teaching-learning media and other sources of knowledge;
6. enable individuals to learn at all times and in all places.”

However, this change is not simply something we have to make because the Government says so. It has major pedagogical benefits, which are relevant to learning in any given subject.

Student-centred learning puts more responsibility on the learners for their own learning. It involves students in more decision-making processes, and they learn by doing, rather than just by listening and performing often meaningless tasks which are often not in context and therefore ‘unreal’ to them. Because learning becomes more active (rather than passively listening to the teacher), it becomes more memorable: because it is personalised, and relevant to the students’ own lives and experiences, it can bring any subject ‘alive’ and makes it relevant to the real world.

In 13 years of teaching English as a foreign language in South East Asia, I’ve come across numerous students who are adept at choosing the one correct word from a choice of four to complete the gap in a given sentence. Many (both young learners and adults) have a better theoretical command of English grammar and spelling then many native speakers. But they stare like frightened rabbits when you ask them to deliver a sentence in English; a direct result of a teacher-centred approach, supposedly examination driven, where memory is more important than real understanding.

I was forced to learn by heart the location of various countries by poring over world maps. I taught world geography by combining my own and a student’s stamp collection, and later by using the World Cup as a theme for a cross-curricula project. Result: my students had a better grasp of world geography than I had at a similar age.

When planning more student-centred lessons it is useful to remember the following:

Ask don’t tell: always try to elicit information, ideas, and answers from the students. They are not empty vessels waiting to be filled by the all-knowing teacher. They have knowledge and their own experiences of life. The more they contribute, the more they are likely to remember. We should never underestimate the ability of our students.

Focus on students’ experience and interests: if the teacher chooses the topic, or just follows the course book, the students may not be interested. If, however, teachers use the course book as a base for then moving on to practice activities related to the students' personal lives and areas of interest and experience (personalisation), the students are more likely to become involved in the lesson, and remember more.

Communication over accuracy: the main reason for students learning a language, for example, is to be able to communicate with other speakers of that language. In reality they will probably speak English with more non-native speakers from the region than with native speakers, and the ultimate goal is to be able to understand and respond to each other. Students therefore need opportunities to practise communicating in English without the constant fear of making mistakes hanging over them. Mistakes are good! We all learn from them.

Learning by doing: the more actively involved students are in their own learning, the more they are likely to remember what they learn.

Students have choices and make decisions about learning. Group work requires negotiation and decision making – working together towards a common goal.

Focus on confidence building for real-world skills. By developing communicative competence, by doing rather than just listening, the subject becomes real and part of the students’ lives. Get them to grow their own rice – not just study its biological structure, or the growing process from the unreal world of the classroom.

Encourage interest in the subject. By using authentic materials familiar to the students (magazines, newspapers, the internet, video, television, etc.), students are constantly in touch with the subject in an absorbing way.

Tasks are open-ended, i.e. there is more than one possible answer. Traditional grammar based tasks, for example, are either right or wrong and test only one skill at a time. They are generally unimaginative, often in the form of multiple choice answers (so the students have a 25% chance of being right without actually knowing the answer at all) and totally divorced from ‘real world’ situations. Open-ended tasks are wider in their focus and involve a variety of skills.

Make homework meaningful. Encourage students to discover information for themselves; they are probably much more skilled at surfing the internet, for instance, than many of their teachers, and if they can use a computer to play games, they can use them to search for information they need!

Students learn more than just the subject. They are also encouraged to think critically and develop problem-solving skills through more creative tasks and group work.

Now that all sounds pretty good, I hope, but how do you actually put these ideas into practice? In terms of devising activities which are more student-centred, there are a few brief and very basic guidelines to follow:

• Think first of the final product. What do the students need to know at the end of the activity? Work backwards from this point – how can I get them there?
• Consider the procedures the students need to go through, the resources they’ll need and the different skills involved (e.g. team-working, decision-making).
• Make a task or an activity that’s relevant to them – not a tedious reading or written exercise.
• Never underestimate what your students are capable of achieving on their own.
• Act as a facilitator, not a gushing fountain of all knowledge. Encourage questions, and work with the students.

Change often does not come easy to teachers, especially those more experienced ones who have been working successfully for many years. My own philosophy, that has held good for all of my 25 years of teaching is that when I stop learning, I must stop teaching.

But there are many practical problems to overcome, too. Change, especially in education, cannot be made overnight, and the move from a teacher-centred to a student-centred approach is a radical change which must be made step by considered step. Some of the more common problems teachers have raised with me include:

“We don’t have the facilities to do this.” Yes you do – the most valuable facility you need is inside yourself!

“We can’t do this with 50 students in a class!” Yes, this is always a problem, but pair and group work can be conducted effectively whatever the group size, and students themselves can be appointed to monitor their own groups. If appropriate, there is always more room outside the classroom!

“If we do this, there will be too many discipline problems.” If the activities are well structured, geared to the students’ interests, and they are motivated to achieve something on their own, they should be too involved in the work to misbehave.

“We haven’t got time for this – they need to pass the Entrance Exams.” The Government plans to change the Entrance Exams to include concepts like critical thinking. A student-centred approach is more likely to lead to a greater understanding of the subject, rather than a mindless learning of facts.

“The students will just copy and not learn anything.” There are actually fewer opportunities for copying with a student-centred approach than with a more traditional approach, as students are producing their own work rather than merely completing exercises.

Student-centred learning is not the whole answer to successful education. But we always need to adapt our teaching methods to the world that our students know and understand. We need to understand our students and use their interests in order to facilitate their learning. In short, we need to listen more to what they have to say. As teachers we should always remember the ‘Wise Old Owl’:

Thomas Gradgrind had been forced to change his views by the end of Hard Times. And I’m still left-handed.

Gray Rogers is Head of the Business Communication Unit and Special Programmes at the British Council, Bangkok. This article is based on a paper delivered at Djurakijbundit University in May 2002, and additional acknowledgements are due to Assoc. Prof. Richard Watson Todd, King Mongkut’s University of Technology, Thonburi, and Ms Sheila Taylor, formerly of the British Council.