Category: 
Summary of Literary Review
There are two opposing viewpoints on how to properly instruct children in the classroom. There is the teacher-centered approach where the role of the teacher is to dispense facts and the role of the student is to listen and memorize said facts. In the child-centered, or constructivist, approach the children are more in control of their education. They do hands on activities to promote a higher order of thinking (analysis, critical thinking), and projects are usually branched off from the main topic of discussion. Critics of the child-centered approach say that children waste too much time with such activities and would be better served learning mathematics facts and physics. Advocates of the child-centered approach say that allowing children to make discoveries of their own is vital to obtaining a higher order of thinking which better serves children throughout their lives. Supporters also assert that in most classrooms there is simply only the occasional child-centered activity but that classrooms have largely remained teacher-centered (Abbeduto, 2006).
Summary of Yes Position
Teachers needs to rethink their role as teachers. Is a teacher simply the dispenser of information or is a teacher the facilitator of learning? Windschitl states that current teachers simply copy the teachers they had had as children which hinders the goal of going beyond the teacher-centered method of rote memorization to learning. He says that therein lies the problem of creating a truly constructivist classroom. Educators are married to the current norms of curriculum and standardization. A part of the issue may lie in the greater depth of knowledge teachers will need to have in the topics that they teach. Windschitl uses the concept of density as an example. In a constructivist classroom there would be different groups of students tackling the issue of density using a variety of methods. One group may take a purely mathematical approach while another may use the story of the Titanic. The teacher would need to have an understanding of the mathematical concepts with density as well as the complexity of the issue as illustrated in the sinking of the Titanic. Once a teacher reconciles this issue the hands on, child-centered, approach will lead children to be more engaged in the topic being studied and allows them to learn how to think critically and analytically, as well as learning problem solving skills. Windschitl believes that the constructivist approach can be reconciled with state standards. He also states that teachers needs to have a firm understanding of why they are using the constructivist approach instead of the widely accepted teacher-centered approach, since it is inevitable that someone would ask them why they run their classroom the way they do. Assessments will need to be made of each child’s progress using journals, reports, and other projects that demonstrate the student’s understanding of the topic being studied which will aid in determining whether or not the class is meeting the standards of education. To aid teachers in giving children the best education possible school administrators need to be supportive in the “less is more” concept, encourage teacher collaboration, and school wide changes such as block scheduling. (Windschitl, 1999).
Summary of No Position
Hirsch sets out to debunk the constructivist approach through research comparing ineffective American classrooms and effective Asian classrooms. He states that classrooms that are filled with projects where children are responsible for their own learning did not perform as well as children in teacher-centered approached classrooms, where there was more focus and time allotted to learn a subject. Hirsch asserts that there is importance in drill and practice which helps children retain the information being learned, following the adage of “use it or lose it”, and that the constructivist approach does not offer enough in the way of drill and practice thereby cheating the students out of retaining information. He also argues that breadth is more important than depth. Students need to learn as much as they can about various subjects because by the time a child is in college the focus of study narrows. Hirsch also asserts that the policy of “best practices” by organizations such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children, is not founded upon research but upon pedagogical romanticism. Children learn best by the teacher introducing new material in small increments and by having the teacher make connections to previously learned topics that relate to the new material. Whole class instruction should dominate in the classroom, and students should be given challenging work to keep their interest. Hirsch states that children in classrooms with whole class instruction and a focused schedule are more motivated and interested in the subjects being taught than children in classrooms that are filled with workshops and projects. Teachers that exude warmth as well as a businesslike air have more successful classrooms than teachers that exude warmth but are more concerned about a child’s self esteem. Over concern about a child’s self esteem causes them to give praises without giving instruction on how to improve their work. Hirsch addresses the idea of higher order thinking, and states that higher order thinking is the difference between a novice and an expert and is domain specific. Thus the idea that constructivist approach fosters higher order thinking in the various academic subjects is unfounded. The class period should be “formed into a little drama with a beginning, middle, and end, well directed but not rigidly scripted by the teacher” (Hirsch, 1996).
My Position
Windschitl and Hirsch are both shortsighted. A blend of the two methods is best. Windschitl makes his argument by discussing how to solve some of the challenges of the child-centered approach, completely ignoring the fact that it is impossible to have students responsible for their own learning all the time. Hirsch claims that traditional methods of teaching are best as is indicated in current research. What the research he used actually says is that time, focus, and knowing what to expect for the day, or class period, are essential for academic success, as well as having teachers with high warmth, giving constructive feedback, and are businesslike in manner; which, in my experience, can also be interpreted as firm but fair. All of those qualities are necessary in a teacher whether it be in a child-centered classroom or in a teacher-centered classroom.
Hirsch’s attack on the less-more admonitions of various national education organizations that promote best practices is foolish. Less does not mean eliminate. More does not mean replace. Best practices promotes that which is developmentally appropriate, and takes into account the diversity in the classroom. As Dr. Clifford Hansen, a music teacher at San Jose City College, once said, if I have 30 students in a classroom then I need to have 30 different ways to explain the concept I am teaching (Glasgow, 1969, paraphrased). Dr. Hansen understood that while for some learning the circle of fifths in the lecture is sufficient, other students will need to see a diagram, to hear it, to see it played, to play it themselves, or see it demonstrated in a real piece of music, or any combination of these. Does providing sufficient time and attention to the individual needs of his students in understanding the concept of the circle of fifths take away precious time from instruction? I think not.
On the other hand there are times when the teacher does act primarily as the dispenser of knowledge. In Kindergarten there is much in the way of teacher directed activities because the children are too young to take charge of their own academic learning. A child is not going to discover phonics without a teacher telling them about the relationship between sounds and letters and words. This does not mean that there can not be some activities that give children creative freedom, such as painting a holiday themed picture. When the opportunity occurs you can give them the time they need to create a good piece of work, the tools they need to do so, and the techniques on how to use the tools effectively and how to create a particular effect a child might be looking for (Knight, 2007). Time, tools and techniques also apply to other subject areas, such as math. Students need time to master a new mathematical concept, they need the tools to work with the new math problem, and they need the techniques to effectively use their time and tools. The concept is true in every classroom.
An artist can not be rushed when creating a piece of art without compromising the intended finished work. A child learning how to read can not be rushed without compromising their ability to become fluent readers. A child learning number sense can not be rushed into learning addition and subtraction without compromising their future understanding of multiplication and division. Breadth is important. People need to be well rounded. In fact, breadth is so important that there are general education requirements in college. However, depth is also needed, otherwise the information will have no lasting value to the student and will not be retained.
The old adage of, “practice makes perfect”, is true and correct. We know that the more you read the better you get at it. The more you work at playing the piano the easier it gets to sight read and to play more complex pieces. Practice is important. No one with their head on straight will say otherwise, and I dare say that most advocates for a child-centered approach have their heads on straight. Practice, however, does not denote understanding. If a six year old can read at a 5th grade level that does not mean they understand what they are reading. If a preschool aged child knows their ABCs it does not mean that they connect it to reading. This is where we need reflective inquiry and innovative classroom activities to gauge the actual understanding of students, and help facilitate understanding. Reflective inquiry is often out of the picture in a teacher-centered classroom where the teacher does most of the thinking (Brown, 2003). The teacher-centered approach does work, but it does not mean that we can not do better. Mimeographs and type writers have been replaced with the more efficient computer. Should we still widely use those today? Granted, the teacher-centered approach is not nearly so outdated, and still has its place, but the argument that it’s worked for all these years, as is (Hirsch, 1996), is a bit fallacious and closed minded. Modern thought and technology have simply made old ideas better.
Both the teacher-centered approach and the child-centered approach have value. When this is understood by teachers they pedagogically improve. Over generalizations of the two approaches lead to a dichotomy that should not exist and can be harmful (Schuh, 2004). Either approach “is not appropriate in all situations and cannot cover all of the complexities and idiosyncrasies of subjects and teaching situations” (Ahara, 1995). Polarizing the issue can cause an unbalanced approach to teaching, which would be a great disservice to students.
References
Abbeduto, L. (2006). Should Schools Adopt a Constructivist Approach to Education? Taking Sides: Clashing Views in Educational Psychology, 4th Ed., 148(2). McGraw-Hill
Ahara, K. (1995). Teacher-centered and child-centered pedagogical approaches in teaching children’s literature. Education, 115(3), 332.
Brown, K. L. (2003). From teacher-centered to learner-centered curriculum: Improving learning in diverse classrooms. Education, 124(1), 49-54.
Hirsch, Jr., E. D. (1996). Reality’s Revenge: Research and Ideology. American Educator.
Glasgow, J. (1969). Personal Journal.
Knight, R. (2007). The Three T’s. Creative Arts Lecture. Yuba College.
Schuh, K. L. (2004). Learner-centered principles in teacher-centered practices? Teaching & Teacher Education, 20(8), 833-846. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2004.09.008
Windschitl, M. (1999). The Challenges of Sustaining a Constructivist Classroom Culture. Phi Delta Kappan.
Recently:
- Out of the Mouth of Babes
- Hazel’s Talk on Jesus always obeying Heavenly Father
- Lazy Game Design
- Teacher-centered vs Child-centered Classrooms
- An Aesthetic Experience
- The Looking Glass Wars – Arch Enemy
- Whatever You Want.
- Woof.
- Facebook for me
- What Hazel wrote on the computer.