In a post last year, Carl Hendrick asserted that:
“The science of learning is student-centred, and just not in the sentimental sense. It attends to the learner’s cognitive architecture, not the teacher’s preferred aesthetic.”
An interesting claim, one that has been rehashed by a number of folks as a means of legitimating explicit teaching through an ethical lens.
I believe it is worth revisiting how student-centred, or learner-centred approaches, have been conceptualised historically before making such claims. So, in this episode we explore the basic ideas surrounding learner-centred ideologies and what they mean for practice.
After listening, let me know whether you agree or not with Hendrick’s claims and why in the comments to keep the dialogue going.
Go thoughtfully,
Original draft
In this edition I provide a rough outline for the second episode of a regular series I currently present on the Teacher's Education Review (TER) podcast. The series, Ideology in Education, seeks to provide listeners with a brief exploration of the most prominent ideologies impacting on Australian education today. This episode explores Learner-centred ideology, its prevalence in Australian education policy and its impact on the teaching profession.
Introduction
Hello TER listeners and welcome to the second episode of Ideology in Education. A series providing a snapshot of the most prominent ideologies influencing Australian educational policy and discourse today, and how it impacts on your teaching practice.
In this episode, I focus in on an ideology that often elicits some fairly strong responses for and against its influence on education and schooling. One that is often seen as falling under the label of progressive, it has been heralded by some as the saviour of education and seen by others as fluffy and idealistic educational practice that is lowering the academic rigour of schooling. Very much inspired by the works of Dewey, I am of course referring to that of Child-centred ideology. In this episode just so we’re all on the same page however, I will be using the term Learner-centred to encapsulate the wide reaches of this ideology.
So, what is Learner-centred ideology?
Learner-centred approaches see the ideal school as one that is radically different from what might be called the traditional school. The vision painted by learner-centred advocates is that of bright and cheerful classrooms, filled with the noises of excited and engaged children all working on various projects of their own interests.
There are two fundamental beliefs of Learner-centred ideology. These are that education ought to be shaped around the learner’s needs and desires and that education’s core purpose is to facilitate the growth of the individual in a wholistic way. That goes for curriculum, teaching methods, assessment, school policy and structures. In a wholistic sense, which considers how all involved in education are learners, Learner-centred ideology seeks to go beyond students and to facilitate the growth of teachers, school staff and the wider community.
How does this play out in Australian education?
We can see evidence of Learner-centred approaches in the 2019 Alice Springs (Mpartwe) Education Declaration, which is the core document detailing Australia’s vision for education. Mpartwe not only frames young Australians as learners, but holds them as the centre of the declaration. We see in this document references to nurturing the growth of the individual, to meeting their needs and personalising their learning. These are all based around Learner-centred beliefs.
So there is this desire in Australian education policy to consider the uniqueness of the young people we teach. Whether or not this plays a dominant role in the actuality of schools is something to consider, especially as we review the other ideologies impacting Australian education.
We might consider an education that values the uniqueness of each individual student as a positive thing in many ways, but it is important to explore how these beliefs may contribute to individualistic expressions within a democratic schooling system. When we hold the learner as the centre of education, it is possible that this type of thinking could contribute to the marketisation of education (as discussed in last week’s episode on neoliberalism) that we currently see in Australian schools and furthering equity gaps within the system. We are currently experiencing great movement in Australia of enrolments from public to private schools and parents are increasingly considering the various schools that are available to them, in order to find the best ‘fit’ for their children’s needs and desires. Policies framing parents as responsible actors for their child’s schooling in many ways also encourages parent engagement in these kinds of behaviours. It is important as educators that we consider the impacts of this kind of thinking more widely. Such as the impact on children whose parents might not have the time or money to be surveying an educational market to find the ‘best’ school for their child.
What does this mean for me as an educator?
From a learner-centred perspective, educators are considered to have three main functions; to diagnose learner needs and interests, provide environments in which these students will learn best based on that diagnosis and to facilitate the growth of students by intervening within the learning environment to assist students as they learn. We can see the impact of this train of thought on Australian education in the Mparntwe document, which when discussing the use of data states:
“Good quality data allows teachers to evaluate the effectiveness of their classroom practice and supports educators to effectively identify learners’ progress and growth, and design individualised and adaptive learning programs” (Berry et al., 2019, p.18).
As educators, this leaves us with the grand task of determining the appropriate measures for learner progress and growth and creating engaging units of work that not only meet individual needs, but are adaptive to ever changing conditions. This is quite an exciting and flexible approach to teaching, but one that is very time consuming and requires a great deal of thought and preparation in its implementation. A Learner-centred approach would reflect on how open-ended, relevant and engaging units of work could meet these requirements. However, we should take note that to develop these sorts of tasks within the limitations of mandated curriculum is a lot for teachers to manage in an already administratively heavy profession!
Learner-centred approaches encourage the teacher to consider the different ways they might engage their students, by developing rich and engaging tasks. Now, this can really bring life and joy to the classroom, as teachers get excited themselves about the relevant and engaging units of work that they develop. This can work as a double edged sword however, as students may feel justified in disengaging in tasks that they feel are not relevant or engaging for them. One thing to ask in this situation, is whether or not tasks need to be ‘relevant’ and ‘engaging’ in order to be valuable educational experiences? Is it possible that ‘boring’ tasks have a place within schooling?
Educators may find, depending on how influenced their community is by Learner-centred models, that certain methods of teaching might be prioritised or valued above others. Learner-centred ideology is heavily influenced by the philosophy of Naturalism and the scientific field of Psychology, and as a result favours Constructivist pedagogies. These pedagogies often oppose the didactic role of the teacher, framing the educator more as a facilitator of learning rather than an authority of knowledge. Biesta (2017) describes how such pedagogy has contributed to the learnification of education and a reduction in the impact of teachers on learning. To use his words, the educator becomes defined as the “guide on the side” rather than the “sage on the stage”. This type of thinking has done much to value student voice and consider how teachers may cater to the heterogeneous nature of Australian schools. However, devaluing the role of the teacher can potentially contribute to the deprofessionalisation of the educators. We might even see the implementation of “fool-proof” teaching practices for “what works” as a result of this type of thinking, which severely undervalues to importance of teachers in the work of education.
So, where to from here?
Learner-centred ideology has done much to stimulate educational thought and practice. In particular, in acknowledging the uniqueness that each student brings to a classroom it has challenged educators to develop stimulating, engaging and enriching tasks that their students are able to connect with on a personal level. Following developments in Psychology, learner-centred approaches have changed the way we structure schooling and the specific content required at the various levels of schooling.
However, if we do consider the role of educators as integral to learning, it might be wise to consider how a central focus on the learner might impact on perceptions of teachers as professionals within Australia. Pushes in the educational sector towards learnification (by having teachers defined as “guides on the side”), there is a risk to the professionalism and value involved in the complex and integral work of teachers.
Considering this, can I challenge you to consider your role within this ideology and whether you agree or not? You might find that considering the impact of this ideology on your practice, you might be better equipped to speak to the importance of teachers.
So that concludes the second episode of Ideology in Education. Stay tuned for the next episode, where I discuss an ideology that has its roots in scientific enquiry and one that finds quite a central place in current educational discourse, the Social Efficiency ideology.
Till next time.
References
Biesta, G. 2017, The Rediscovery of Teaching, Taylor & Francis Group.
Berry, Y., Tehan, D., Mitchell, S., Uibo, S., Grace, G., Gardner, J., Rockliff, J., Merlino, J., Ellery, S., 2019, Alice Springs (Mparntwe)Education Declaration, Council of Australian Governments.
