Reflective Journal Post #5

 

Description:

            The readings this week in EDAT 6115 drew attention to the benefits, challenges, and impacts of student-centered instructional strategies. Although many teachers and students find this approach of teaching and learning full of challenges, research has shown that student-centered learning promotes increased peer interaction, problem solving skills, and practice with self-regulated learning (Slavin, 2018).

Analysis:

            With its foundation deeply rooted in a constructivist view of learning, student-centered instruction promotes investment by the student in the learning process, requiring them to seek knowledge and build upon previous experiences to create new meanings and connections (Slavin, 2018). Proponents of this approach to teaching and learning assert that the benefits of students working together to solve problems, uncover new information, and apply their knowledge to new situations creates cognitive and social learning opportunities far greater than teacher-centered instruction. With students in control of their own learning, the investment and motivation are greater leading to a need and desire to learn more. As teachers this is what we want! We are all hoping to have students actively engaged in our content, wanting to know more, and using what they have learned to solve problems. With such positive outcomes shown, it is hard to argue that student-centered instructional strategies are not the only way we should be teaching. Student-centered instructional strategies have become quite popular in professional development and best practice discussions and luckily, resources and suggestions for successful integration have been created for teachers. In nearly every content area, resources are being developed that assist teachers in creating effective, student-centered lessons. By using discovery learning, peer interaction, and other cooperative and problem-based instructional strategies, teachers can allow students more autonomy in the learning process (Slavin, 2018).

However, such a large shift in pedagogy comes with a steep learning curve, full of challenges for both students and teachers. One of the biggest challenges for teachers is relinquishing the role of instructional leader and taking on one more of a facilitator of learning. Traditionally, teachers instruct students on what they need to know, how to use the content or skill, and how to apply this new knowledge to novel situations. In a student-centered approach, learning begins “with problems (often proposed by the students themselves) and then helping students figure out how” to do the rest (Slavin, 2018, p. 190). The teacher’s role shifts dramatically in the planning of these lessons as well as their role as students are progressing. Instead of crafting presentations, practice questions, and assessments teachers using this approach will spend more time anticipating student learning struggles, providing resources for knowledge acquisition, and monitoring progress and accommodating as needed.

Students exposed to constructivist instructional strategies show increased engagement, motivation, and investment in learning promoting skills of life-long learners that are beneficial to all. But there is a learning curve for students to be successful using this style of instruction. In the beginning, students may struggle with being able to self-regulate their learning. It is difficult at times for students who have been taught using very teacher-centered methods to be comfortable with less structure and teacher direction in the learning process. Slavin (2018) found, some students may need additional scaffolding to be successful in self-directed tasks. Integration of the constructivist approach in elementary grades is essential so students to begin learning in this manner and allow them to build skills as they progress through grade levels. Slavin (2018) pointed out that “self-regulated learners are motivated by learning itself, not only by grades or others’ approval” (p. 192). This is a challenge in high school as students are keenly aware of the importance of assessment grades, grade point averages, and class rank as they prepare to go to college or apply for scholarships.

 

Reflection:

The readings this week allowed me to reflect on my own beliefs and practices about the constructivist approach to instruction. I am beginning my eighteenth year in education and was glad to have the opportunity to examine the changes I have seen in curriculum and instruction throughout my career. I began teaching when Georgia still taught the QCC standards in a largely teacher-centered manner. Since then, standards have been rewritten becoming more focused on big ideas and application of content instead of rote memorization of facts. With this shift, there has also been a change in instructional strategies needed to teach today’s students. What I teach and the way in which I teach it have changed dramatically since I first began my career. As any educator should, each year I work to better my instructional practices. Over the years, my own thoughts and beliefs have become more inclusive of student-centered instructional practices. I intentionally plan opportunities for problem-based learning, student collaboration, and inquiry- based investigations to uncover new knowledge because I have seen the benefits. But I have struggled to completely embrace a totally student-centered approach. I am not sure if it is the courses I teach (Advanced Placement courses), the “old-school” in me, the lack of proper time and energy to devote to the planning, or the student feedback and performance but I still see value in some teacher-centered instruction.

I prefer a varied instructional approach that incorporates components of both teacher and student-centered instruction. In science, discovery learning is key to keeping students engaged and seeing the real-life application of what we are learning. I also see the tremendous benefits from student collaboration, peer learning opportunities, and self-directed investigations in my classes. Especially because I teach many gifted children, these strategies are a part of my typical differentiation for learning anyway. I struggle with the disconnect between how we instruct and assess in our classrooms versus how students are assessed on EOG/EOC tests, ACT/SAT, AP Exams, and other standardized assessments that are important to my students. If I only use performance-based assessments that are based on growth and effort, I worry that my students will not be prepared adequately for the other assessments they are taking. In AP Biology, for example, students must be prepared for multiple-choice and free response exam questions that are very content and skill specific. If I do not share my knowledge with them about the content expectations, scoring guidelines, test taking strategies, and other insights I worry they will not discover them on their own. I have yet to be able to design student-based investigations that can ensure students cover the depth and breadth of content specifics needed in certain complex content areas and assess them in the way they will eventually be assessed. So, for now, I will continue to incorporate student-centered pedagogy as often as possible and work to improve my ability to create lessons that effectively achieve my teaching and learning goals.

 

References

Slavin, R.E. (2018). Educational Psychology: Theory and Practice (12^th ed.). Pearson.