Definition and conceptual understanding
Over the years, the need for educational change by shifting from teacher-oriented pedagogy to student-oriented pedagogy has been subject to debate and is a topic that has attracted researchers in the education field. Mascolo (2009) defines teacher-centered pedagogy as a process of sharing knowledge with students within a learning setting whereby the teacher takes the control role as the primary responsibility and students receive information as passive characters. In this case, the teacher-centered approach allows the teacher to take a greater part in leading the learning experience and providing information while the students have few opportunities for interactions between themselves and with teachers. Serin (2018) compares the Teacher-centered approach to the behaviorist theory by Skinner, which is concerned that behavior changes are influenced by external stimuli. Based on the theory,
The conceptual framework of teacher-centered pedagogy that is demonstrated by (Dole et al., 2016, p.1) illustrates how the teaching process in a classroom is teacher-driven, in the sense that the successful sharing of knowledge to students depends on the level of mastery they have of a given subject, their explanation towards it and the practice put on the teaching process. At the core of teaching and learning experience, Kain (2003, p. 105) identifies that the teacher-centered approach allows teachers and administrators to be the only individuals with the power to make decisions on the content that will be studied and how it will be studied since the learning process is thought of as a reflection of what students are likely to face after their education. In line with this idea, Jacobs and Renandya (2019) posit that teacher-centered pedagogy is dominantly influenced by extrinsic motivations since the focus of the teaching and learning process is almost exclusively based on cognitive outcomes, including the idea of test scores. The process through which the teacher-centered approach is delivered involves an interaction that is guided and controlled by the teacher and based on the usual patterns, teachers often ask questions as the students provide an answer, and the teacher examines and evaluates the answer provided.
As the term “student-centered” pedagogy suggests, it is a learning and teaching method that focuses on the learner as the center of interest (Armbruster et al., 2009, pp. 203-213). In particular, the approach is characterized by students’ autonomy for self and lifelong learning while the teachers support the process by breaking down potential challenges that might affect their success. According to Richard and Schmidt (2013), self-centered pedagogy entails a belief that learning should depend on the will and nature of learners so that the attention of the students needs to be kept at the center of all other aspects, including of valuation process and planning teaching. While there is no unanimous agreement on the definition of student-centered pedagogy, different theorists have come up with different definitions based on their points of view; it defines the concept as a teaching approach where students decide and makes choices on what to study and the manner in which they will study while other theorists like Felder and Brent (1996) believe that the pedagogy is an approach concerned with holding students responsible for learning by substituting the passive learning through teacher guidelines with active learning through interactions and corporations.
According to Cuban (2006), the concept of student-centered pedagogy has its origin in the constructivism framework in which students are demonstrated to learn more through interacting with others, experiencing the learning process, and participating in doing exercises rather than observing. Bruning et al. (2004) give a similar perspective and suggest that the constructivist view of the student-centered approach requires that learners engage in constructing much of their learning and understanding through interactions with different people and situations in which they are likely to acquire significant knowledge and skills.
Through the student-centered approach, the students are likely to access opportunities that will enhance their analytical skills, critical thinking and problem-solving skills, as well as other skills that will facilitate deep learning abilities, motivational and reflective learning, self-directed learning, and lifelong learning (Connell et al., 2016, p. 3). The conceptual understanding of student-centered pedagogy is based on the objective of achieving desired learning outcomes and will bring satisfaction to the learner as part of the goals. According to Blonder and Dinur (2016, p. 55), the student-centered approach is characterized by several elements based on the learning process, the mode of knowledge delivery and the participation strategy. In particular, students are guided by teachers on the side as they undertake autonomy in their learning process since they have control over how to learn, either through self-engagement or with peers. In this case, students have a clear understanding of the content of the study and the rationale for taking the studies. As much as teachers may be involved in guiding and supporting the students, the approach allows students to link the knowledge gained to other life aspects outside the classroom, and for this reason, teachers are recommended to keep the students’ needs in mind while guiding them. As Peyrefitte and Lazar (2018, pp.63-68) suggest, student-centered pedagogy is dominated by intrinsic motivation, whereby everyone in the classroom has the ability to motivate themselves, their teachers, and their peers. In other words, the approach allows students corporate towards an atmosphere in which each individual is appreciated and supported, and through such motivations, they are likely to grow a willingness to take risks.
Under the conceptual understanding of the teaching and learning pedagogy where teacher-centered and student-centered methods are demonstrated, the two are contrasted based on the form of content delivery and knowledge sharing, as well as the intensity of participation in acquiring and using the skills. As Kain (2003) suggests, teacher-centered pedagogy involves teachers sharing knowledge with learners in a form that makes them seem like passive receivers since the approach is unilateral, with teachers being the source and the students receivers. In this case, the students are placed in a position where they are limited from the ability to gain beneficial outcomes such as analytical skills from their learning. On the other hand, Bray and McClaskey (2015) suggest that under the teacher-centered approach, teachers are tasked to control the learning process by deciding on the protocol in which students are supposed to learn as well as providing them with information while monitoring and evaluating their progress. However, in the student-centered approach, a teacher’s primary responsibility is guiding. Therefore, they are expected to commit to their professional and personal growth through the support they provide to their students so they have the ability to integrate real-world learning experiences into their learning procedures. From a wider perspective, (Crumly et al., 2014) suggest that a student-centered approach allows students to serve as co-designers of the institution’s curriculum and the overall learning environments through which the learning goals are established and the process is reflected outside the classroom.
Evidence of Change
Several countries have established a shift from teacher-centered pedagogy to student-centered pedagogy, and the process has been explicitly made effective even though some are still experiencing challenges making the innovation. The section illustrates evidence of successful instances that have adopted the shift, and the outcomes are suggestively impressive. For instance, following a systemic review conducted by Bremner et al. (2022) concerning the outcomes of student-centered pedagogy, findings suggest that a successful implementation of student-centered pedagogy is associated with high student motivation to learning, enhanced cognitive, critical and problem-solving skills, and improved relationships in their lives. The systemic review involves an examination of 62 journal articles that provide evidence on the student-centered learning approach in low-income countries, and the outcomes demonstrate that the approach leads to deeper learning among the students since they are committed to emancipatory and the sharing of knowledge in peer groups improves their cognitive perspectives. According to the authors, unlike the previously adopted teacher-centered pedagogy, the student-centered approach increases a sense of autonomy since learners take the responsibility of seeking alternative content, which is fundamental in helping them develop lifelong learning skills.
In another study, Prince (2004) conducts a review of research findings that provide evidence on how effective active learning is in the learning process. Following a range of review considerations over the traditional teaching method, the author suggests that collaborative and corporative learning are fundamental in ensuring desirable learning outcomes. According to the author, with active learning, student engagement and activity are essential in the sense that the instructional method allows them to collaborate with other groups to pursue a common goal even though the teacher’s support, guidance and evaluation are done individually. The author demonstrates that the active learning model, which greatly accounts for student-centered pedagogy, is concerned with specific tenets such as promoting mutual interdependence between students through group and peer work, regular personal assessment through individual learning and skills, continuous practicing of interpersonal interaction skills, and promoting personal accountability. Considering that the active-learning process also involves a problem-based approach, it influences students’ study habits and attitudes since they are likely to retain the information taught in class longer.
Following a study carried out by (Dervic et al., 2018) to compare the effectiveness of the teacher-centered approach and student-centered approach under the teaching of physics with simulations at the upper secondary level, findings suggest that even though students that focused on the teacher-centered approach managed to solve part of conceptual kinematics, they were not able to successfully solve the majority of quantitative problems like the student-centered approach. The authors conducted an experimental study on 43 students, the majority of them comprised 15 years olds and the test questions were basically concerned with assessing their conceptual complexity in physics, their level of procedural learning, and their ability to engage in problem-solving skills. The results demonstrate the use of a teacher-centered approach in a physics classroom can only be effective in the development of basic conceptual understanding for dummies; however, the practical implication on the simulation abilities of students is limited. On the other hand, the findings indicate that a student-centered approach is an effective way to undertake physics classes here simulation since it allows the students to develop abilities to solve real-world problems and other quantitative problems which are in line with procedural knowledge. In this case, while the students are allowed to take different measures and conduct manipulations on simulation parameters, metacognitive abilities are enhanced since procedural knowledge is developed, leading to effective problem-solving abilities. Therefore, the authors contend that the progression of shifting teacher-based pedagogy to student-centered will be appropriate for optimal student learning experiences.
Kahl and Venette (2010) outline an exploratory study in which they comparatively analyze the differences between the structure and content of speech outlines from students who have been to teacher-centered and student-centered classrooms. The study involves a review of one hundred and fifteen formal speech outlines through which the authors sought to examine the quality of speech, and involved teachers was interviewed to ensure that the capacity of knowledge delivered in class and the manipulation aspect was proportional to the potential efforts student-centered learning put in their writing. For all the formal speech outlines obtained, instructions were presented in a similar format and structure to avoid disparities, and the specific elements that were tested included credibility, central idea analysis, inclusive language, thesis statement, and transitions. Based on the results, students in the student-centered environments produced high scores in the structure and content compared to those from teacher-centered environments. The authors suggest that from the findings, incorporating student-centered pedagogical models in the teaching and learning processes can be effective compared to teacher-centered models since they are concerned with engaging students in relevant activities that reflect real-life aspects and equip them with valuable skills.
Granger et al. (2012) conducted a randomized-cluster experiment through which they examined the efficacy demonstrated by student-centered pedagogy to support science learning. The study involved elementary school learners who were tested on the ability to understand space-science concepts whereby the test data was collected to determine the capacity of student learning and active learning characteristic, while teachers were examined for fidelity characteristics based on the knowledge instruction approach. Based on the research findings obtained, the authors indicate that students who have enrolled in student-centered practice for space-science concepts score high learning outcomes compared to those who engage in a teacher-centered approach. In this case, the authors indicate that the increased learning outcome was influenced by student engagement in inquiry experiences which is fundamental in the development of scientific proficiency.
Barriers to change
Systemic constraints
So much criticism is being revealed based on the existing teaching and learning approaches being adopted in European education institutions, especially in Malta. However, implementation of change is often faced with challenges due to barriers that affect new approaches, including systemic issues where resources are the major factors impacting the process. Some of such issues that may limit the implementation of change from teacher-centered pedagogy to student-centered pedagogy are material resources and curricula. In particular, according to Thanh (2010, pp. 22-30), reading materials are generally supplied in small volumes within many European educational institutions, and for this reason, students in secondary schools are limited from exercising independent learning. In most instances, the schools use textbooks as the prime information resources that they reference, which makes the students believe that the text teacher recommends as the definitive source for the subject is enough, and thus, they are not supposed to consult other sources for information (Oman et al., 2015, p. 265). For this reason, students remain with one option, having a single point of view, instead of developing their analytic skills to compare other perspectives, which makes it difficult to introduce the student-centered approach that requires them to take responsibility for learning on their own and understanding the concepts through several consultations.
The student-centered approach involves cooperative learning, where students are expected to share knowledge among themselves as they seek alternative perspectives. In some instances, the process of peer learning involves group work so that the instructional engagement allows teachers to participate in monitoring the students and offering support where possible. One of the obstacles to the effective implementation of a student-centered approach in several schools is limited class size. According to Yoder et al. (2021, pp. 845-850), class size is one of the primary reasons that will prevent schools from implementing a team-wok learning approach, and since the resources used in the construction of classrooms are limited, the administrators and relevant stakeholders may opt to maintain the teacher-entered approach. According to Benabentos et al. (2021, p. 344), an average class size requires students to be divided into groups containing not more than four individuals. Since the majority of classes in Europe averagely contain 60-70 students, the groups will be 15-18 groups that will be working simultaneously with teacher monitoring and support. Realistically, teachers may not have enough time to reach out to every group for supervision, monitoring, and support, and therefore, for effective knowledge acquisition, the teachers are left with no choice but to adopt the teacher-centered pedagogy. Teachers believe that the method will be the only one that will make them feel satisfied in their distribution of knowledge since it is the single source of talking, and instruction will increase fairness.
Teacher resistance
The existing European system is based on the belief and assumption that teachers are always better than learners, and for this reason, students have culturally adopted the perception that teachers are the ultimate sources of knowledge. In this case, the perception about teaching and learning is culturally understood that teachers have the responsibility to seek knowledge from books and are supposed to engage the students by elaborating, analyzing, and interpreting the points for them. Due to such independence levels, students do not find it necessary to seek complementing or alternative knowledge from sources or rather think independently to draw their own conclusions or to develop contradictions with the teacher’s knowledge. The essence of seeking, creating, and sharing knowledge effectively with students makes teachers feel superior in their responsibilities, which brings in the idea of hierarchical relationships (Plaisir, 2020). In this case, students are taught to respect authority, whereby in the educational realm, teachers are among the authority personnel that they are supposed to respect and obey, not only in school but in all life aspects. For this reason, the suggestion to shift teacher-centered pedagogy to student-based may render teachers reluctant because it would mean lowering their role as an authority in the education sector, and the respect they are accorded as teachers will fade since they are limited from performing their responsibilities.
Considering that student-centered practices require that students develop the learning skill on their own or with peer students while they exchange the knowledge and skills in groups with minimal teacher support and guidance, teachers are likely to feel detraction from their authority and with the expectation of always leading ahead of students, it would be difficult for teachers to accept the implementation of student-centered pedagogy since they would be at risk of losing their entitlement. As Thanh (2010, p. 28) suggest, shifting from teacher-centered pedagogy to student-centered pedagogy is like lowering their king role in facilitating the teaching and learning process whole to a mere facilitator since their role will change given that they will be expected to observe the progress of students, support them, solve potential challenges they may be experiencing and motivating them during the learning process.
High-stake testing and accountability
High-stake testing and accountability pressure is other barriers in the majority of schools that seek to shift from teacher-centered pedagogy to student-centered pedagogy. On the one hand, student-centered pedagogy involves a learning process where students actively construct knowledge and acquire various skills, such as critical thinking and problem-solving, while teachers are meant to facilitate the process. In this case, teachers are deprived of the responsibility of giving answers to students. Instead, they formulate a question, seek answers by retrieving information from sources that might be beneficial for deeper understanding and thus are committed to finding appropriate answers to questions raised (Lorenz, 2018). High stake testing is an assessment that tests achievement programs so that teachers, students and schools are held accountable for their learning modes, especially with standardized tests that are uniformly administered for easy comparability across schools in terms of results and performance (Rodriguez, 2021). in this case, the pressure that is experienced with the high-stake and accountability measures in terms of knowledge delivery makes teachers prioritize analyzing, interpreting and taking control of the learning to help students cover the content being tested and to prepare for the test, which makes it hard for them to solely depend on student-centered learning environments. In other words, following the need to remain relevant and in line with the cultural perceptions of educational achievements, the emphasis put on standardized tests may be a discouragement to teachers if they adopt the student-centered pedagogy since they will be accountable for not achieving the high-stake test outcomes.
Case studies
Case 1
The Montessori education system is one of the schools that have successfully shifted from teacher-centered pedagogy to student-centered pedagogy. In this idea, teachers who are in charge of classrooms are considered as support systems whose responsibility is to provide guidance to students since they do not transfer knowledge to them but to let them learn and realize their abilities to flourish (Montessori, 2019). In other words, students are the ones responsible for developing concepts and conducting research on various concepts as teachers guide and facilitate their development by providing them with appropriate resources and materials so that they master their abilities. Montessori has established a specific principle to foster student education in this case, providing an environment that will facilitate a wide range of opportunities for them to learn, explore and master their abilities and potential. By preparing and creating this environment, students are able to emancipate their skills freely since it stimulates their interests and talent, and they are protected from virtuous obstruction from teacher judgments. Besides, when the environment surrounding the students allows them to develop positive attitudes, they tend to develop quality cognitive stimuli and experience positive socio-emotional interactions, proper language use, and enhanced autonomy (Macià-Gual & Domingo-Peñafiel, 2021). On the other hand, since the environment is developed in a way that accounts for external forces to create internal developments, they are likely to exhibit advanced abilities, including respect for others, tolerance, and self-control. According to Montessori (2019), when learning is encouraged through constructive choices and freedom of choice instead of direct instructions, students experience autonomy and independence, as the case in Montessori, which is a great source of motivation for participating in other activities with the aim of acquiring more skills relevant for future use including life-long learning ability.
Some of the barriers that Montessori schools faced shifting from teacher-based pedagogy to student-based pedagogy include the traditional educational practices that students were already subjected to in their early school days. In this case, students were used to receiving instructions from the teachers, and their role was sitting idle while doing as directed because teachers were considered to have superior knowledge constructed to be transferred to students. According to Macià-Gual & Domingo-Peñafiel (2021), the students in the school were used to receiving education forcefully since their autonomous will was suppressed. Considering that they were observed as objects to be filled with education instead of being engaged in practices that would encourage them to use their mind, shifting to such a method was challenging. Besides, the school organization strategy of timetables and the sequential arrangement of subjects was a barrier to a generalized education that contained interdependent education. However, with the use of concepts from books and handouts and using them in exams and rewards, the process provided dependent instruction from teachers (Zoll et al., 2023, p. 219). Another barrier that affected the shifting process for Montessori schools is a limited allowance for diverse aspects of understanding human differences. In this case, while educational pedagogies need to be understood from the need to support individual development, it is evident that change and transformation are conceptualized on individual levels. With the new understanding of Montessori school educational practices, the pedagogy is focused on creating a guiding environment and teacher facilitation to allow effective stimulation of student interests and skills.
Case 2
Another case study involves Frederiksborg School, which has successfully shifted from teacher-centered pedagogy to student-centered pedagogy even though the experience is affected by several barriers and challenges. The comprehensive approach has made it possible for the school to set an active learning pace, whereby teachers’ responsibilities have been shifted from sharing knowledge with the students as instructors, and now the learning process has been changed from passive to active interactions in classrooms. In this case, the school has created environments where students are motivated and encouraged to participate in class discussions and group work and to conduct their own learning. The school takes into consideration the fact that students have different interests and skills, and thus, students have been given opportunities to make choices on the learning paths to enhance individual development (Ettrup). In line with this idea, teachers are also allowed to provide support and support on an individual level rather than a collective one. With the idea of providing the learners with the opportunity to choose their subjects of focus based on their abilities, skills and interests, they develop their own curriculum and take responsibility for individual learning, hence equipping themselves with long-term goals, including life-long learning abilities.
One of the barriers experiences during the implementation of student-centered pedagogy after shifting from teacher-centered pedagogy is resistance from other professional teachers and principals. In this case, different teachers have different perceptions concerning what a good service to students is and what is good for students to consume in preparation for their future. The contradictions between bureaucratic and the ‘street level 4’ teachers make it difficult for them to come to an agreement on what is expected when handling classroom content delivery and knowledge sharing. According to Hill and Hupe (2006), the implementation of student-centered pedagogy will pose pressure on teachers since they have developed routines on how to interact with students, and slight changes will cause disruptions, which require adequate training. However, in the case of Frederiksborg School, the change of structure from content management to goal management made teachers experience pressure, especially with the new policies developed, and thus resting was the only option to safeguard their profession.
Another barrier experience by Frederiksborg during the implementation of a student-centered is limited resources in running the program. On the one hand, the school has been using textbooks as the sole source of information in their teaching and learning process, and for this reason, implementing the pedagogy will require extended consideration of other materials that will facilitate diverse skill developments, including enough class capacities. The student-centered learning environment requires that students learn how to build independence, be able to drive their learning abilities through inquiry, develop transferable skills and engage in activities they are skilled and interested in. Therefore, a range of resources is required to establish an environment where each student is able to explore their skills based on their needs and unique learning styles so that they are driven to make choices and demonstrate their strengths in individuality and peer-to-peer learning.
Case 3
Another case where student-centered pedagogy has successfully taken place is in Agora education, which is a community that has adopted a learning strategy where students are allowed to have freedom based on their interests and life goals. In particular, the school has no specified curriculum, no classroom or classes where teachers have to be student instructors; however, the entire learning process is centered around projects and experience of real-world abilities. According to Da Silver (2022), the education system provided in Agora School allows students to control their own educational journey by exploring and learning about things that interest them, and the role of the teachers is to provide guidance through challenging and coaching them on the exploration process.
The educational concept in Agora involves students taking the autonomous learning process whereby they are the lead, and given that the approach is based on having freedom of choice on study topic, students have the authority to decide on what is meaningful to their lives. In this case, Agora school has replaced the normal school subjects with real-life research findings since students are given the responsibility to do research, analyze content through deep learning, compare the information with other resources and come up with the appropriate answer to the content (Cust, 2005, pp. 228-230). In so doing, students are able to gain knowledge and other critical skills because they are influenced by their personal interests and wishes since they are motivated and stimulated by natural curiosity. Curiosity and inquisitiveness are the primary reasons why students in Agora school have successfully engaged in student-centered pedagogy since, through such a learning process, they develop ground to grow self-knowledge and build on passion, interests, talent, and potentially several possibilities that will help them in the future.
One of the challenges that Agora School faced during the implementation of student-centered pedagogy included inadequate resources. For instance, according to Rikala (2013), following the increased mobile technologies, several devices, including tablets and laptops, are used as innovative pedagogy in student-centered schools since they allow students to flexibly access various information and practical guidelines that will help them maneuver their interests and careers. However, while the devices were effective in enhancing diversity in the learning process, it was overwhelming for the school to acquire adequate devices for every student hence serving as a barrier to successful implementation. Another challenge that the school experience during the transition is teacher resistance since they are influenced by different receptions and attitudes. According to Tawalbeh and AAIAsmari (2015), even though the teacher’s responsibility is to coach, guide and support students where possible, they are supposed to be socially and emotionally stable so that they provide a safe environment for students to learn. Therefore, since teachers have a negative attitude toward the implementation of student-centered pedagogy, they fail to acknowledge the customized and personalized student learning process, and thus, their attention does not welcome the learner’s attitudes and skills or their studying styles.
Implications and Future Directions
Implications
Education change by shifting from teacher-centered pedagogy to student-centered pedagogy has significant implications for various stakeholders, some ranging from the positive aspect of the transformation while others entailing the challenging sector. In particular, teacher-centered pedagogy involves sharing knowledge with students within a learning setting whereby the teacher takes the control role as the primary responsibility, and students receive information as passive characters. Student-centered pedagogy, on the other hand, involves learning and teaching method that focuses on the learner as the center of interest. With this understanding, the shifting process implies that students will be empowered to take responsibility for the learning process and through the autonomy aspect of the learning; they are likely to become active participants rather than passive ones. The freedoms students are granted will enable them to make choices and decisions based on their interests and an ability, which implies that students will make individualized decisions, and teachers will only be guiding and coaching them through the learning process to ensure that their needs are addressed on individual levels. Through such active learning and engagement, students maximize holding discussions with peers and participate in collaborations rather than receiving instructions and information. The implication in this sector is that through the shift, students are likely to develop critical skills that will enable them to become long-life learners, including cognitive, problem-solving and critical skills.
On the other hand, shifting to student-centered pedagogy is one way that students access the opportunities to have real-world experiences since they apply the knowledge and skills in their learning process, which implies that through connecting their experiences with real contexts, they develop the ability to solve complex issues by applying the knowledge acquired in class and tend to develop a deeper understanding of the matter. From a wide perspective, student-centered pedagogy emphasizes promoting collaborative learning where students share knowledge and discuss with their peers based on their research and perspectives, and through the process, they develop unity through group work. Such engagement implies that the approach will likely enhance the teamwork skills of an individual and the ability to collaborate with other professionals, irrespective of the setting. Besides, in a learning process, when learners’ needs and interests are addressed through experiences, they are likely to be invested in acquiring relevant knowledge, which implies that through engagement with a sense of curiosity and agency, the learners are likely to be motivated to pursue their education goals.
Future directions
In the current world, Countries are working to shift their learning process from teacher-centered to student-centered pedagogy and considering that the process is ongoing in the education sector, it needs active research and practices to serve emerging trends and address possible challenges affecting the process. The research study explores future directions regarding the shift. On the one hand, since transforming from teacher-centered pedagogy to student-centered pedagogy demands a change in teacher or instructor roles and responsibilities, ongoing and future research should focus on suggesting adequate programs that will be designed to foster professional development so that teachers can adopt the student-centered approaches. In this case, the programs should be designed in a way that teachers can be able to develop coaching and guiding strategies, grow the attitude of collaborating with students at an individual level and enhance the ability to incorporate technological devices. While professional development can be essential, future studies should consider incorporating teacher training practices that will prioritize a pedagogy that is culturally responsive so that students from minority backgrounds can be engaged and motivated to achieve their desired goals.
Student-centered pedagogy is concerned with students personalizing and customizing their learning styles and process since they have the freedom to determine what they learn and how they learn it. Considering that such experiences are gaining traction in the current educational system, the future direction for the learning pedagogy should consider tailoring technological aspects, including artificial intelligence, so that the used learning platforms are adaptive based on student needs. By refining the usable technologies on students, it would be easier for student outcomes to be impacted positively since their engagement and participation will be enhanced. Besides, shifting to student-centered pedagogy entails adopting projecting learning experiences rather than the traditional grading system and assessment modes, and the process is fundamental in allowing students to develop critical skills such as problem-solving and critical thinking, which will allow for real-world life experiences. In this case, the ongoing research should assess the extent to which project-oriented studies can facilitate the development of life skills and the possible length that knowledge acquired can be retained.
Based on the above case studies demonstrating the transformation from teacher-centered pedagogy to student-centered pedagogy, resource challenges are the major identified issue that affects effective shifting. The student-centered approach requires a wide range of support materials and resources, including funds, technology and policies supporting the process, and for this reason, future directions concerning research require that researchers come up with strategies that will help schools, administrators and other relevant stakeholders to address the issue including suggesting ways that ensure equal resource distribution, ensuring maximized support from community authorities and initiatives, and enhancing the integration of technology. Besides, with the increase in emerging technological trends, student-centered pedagogy is heavily influenced by technological issues and data findings, which entails the need for ethical considerations. In this case, future research should consider addressing the concerns related to possible data security issues by suggesting productive ways to enhance the security and privacy of data used by students during their learning process. Also, the research can focus on suggesting guidelines that will enhance data use and storage on technological devices, especially when exploring educational information.
Bibliography
Benabentos, R., Hazari, Z., Stanford, J.S., Potvin, G., Marsteller, P., Thompson, K.V., Cassone, V.M., Murasko, D. and Kramer, L., 2021. Measuring the implementation of student-centered teaching strategies in lower-and upper-division STEM courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 69(4), pp.342-356.
Bray, B. and McClaskey, K., (2015). Personalization vs. Differentiation vs. Individualization Report (PDI) v3. Viitattu, 16, p.2015.
Bremner, N., Sakata, N. and Cameron, L., 2022. The outcomes of learner-centered pedagogy: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Development, 94, p.102649.
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Ronning, R. R. (2004). Cognitive psychology and instruction. Prentice-Hall, Inc., One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, NJ 07458.
Crumly, C., Dietz, P. and d’Angelo, S., 2014. Pedagogies for student-centered learning: Online and on-ground. Augsburg Fortress Publishers.
Cuban, L. (2006). Getting past futile pedagogical wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(10), 793-795.
Cust, K., (2005). Philosophers Return to the Agora. Ethics Expertise: History, Contemporary Perspectives, and Applications, pp.227–241.
da Silva, R.M.R., 2022. Teaching Physical Education through student-centered Approaches: A year-long action research study of an Early-career Teacher.
Dervić, D., Glamočić, D.S., Gazibegović-Busuladžić, A. and Mešić, V., 2018. Teaching physics with simulations: Teacher-centered versus student-centered approaches. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 17(2), p.288.
Dole, S., Bloom, L. and Kowalske, K., 2016. Transforming pedagogy: Changing perspectives from teacher-centered to learner-centered. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 10(1), p.1.
Ettrup, M., Navntoft, M.V., Andreasen, M.H. and Danneskiold-Samsøe, M.F., REFORMEN INGEN KUNNE VÆRE UENIG I.
Felder, R.M. and Brent, R., 1996. Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College teaching, 44(2), pp.43-47.
Felder, R.M. and Brent, R., 1996. Navigating the bumpy road to student-centered instruction. College teaching, 44(2), pp.43-47.
Granger, E.M., Bevis, T.H., Saka, Y., Southerland, S.A., Sampson, V. and Tate, R.L., (2012). The efficacy of student-centered instruction in supporting science learning. Science, 338(6103), pp.105–108.
Hill, M. and Hupe, P., 2006. Analyzing policy processes as multiple governances: accountability in social policy. Policy & Politics, 34(3), pp.557-573.
Jacobs, G.M. and Renandya, W.A., 2019. Student-centered cooperative learning: Linking concepts in education to promote student learning. Springer.
Kahl Jr, D.H. and Venette, S., (2010). To lecture or let go: A comparative analysis of student speech outlines from teacher-centered and learner-centered classrooms. Communication Teacher, 24(3), pp.178–186.
Kain, D.J., (2003). Teacher-centered versus student-centered: Balancing constraint and theory in the composition classroom. Pedagogy, 3(1), pp.104–108.
Lorenz, H.L., (2018). The Compliance Conundrum: Addressing Student-centered Compliance Systems at Small, Private, Tuition-dependent Institutions (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania).
Macià-Gual, A. and Domingo-Peñafiel, L., 2021. Demands in Early Childhood Education: Montessori Pedagogy, Prepared Environment, and Teacher Training. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(1), pp.144-162.
Montessori, M. (2019). The absorbent mind. Montessori-Pierson.
O’Neill, G. and McMahon, T., 2005. Student-centered learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers?
Osman, S.Z.M., Jamaludin, R. and Iranmanesh, M., 2015. Student-Centered Learning at USM: What Lecturers and Students Think of This New Approach? Journal of Education and Practice, 6(19), pp.264-277.
Peyrefitte, M. and Lazar, G., 2018. Student-centered pedagogy and real-world research: Using documents as sources of data in teaching social science skills and methods. Teaching Sociology, 46(1), pp.62-74.
Plaisir, L.J., 2020. Perceptions of Middle School Teachers’ Experiences with Student-Centered Learning Strategies (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
Prince, M., 2004. Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of engineering education, 93(3), pp.223-231.
Richards, J.C. and Schmidt, R.W., 2013. Longman Dictionary of language teaching and applied linguistics. Routledge.
Rikala, J., Vesisenaho, M. and Mylläri, J., 2013. Actual and potential pedagogical use of tablets in schools. Human technology: an interdisciplinary journal on humans in ICT environments.
Rodriguez, D., 2021. The Variation of New Teacher Experiences With STAAR (Doctoral dissertation, Northeastern University).
Serin, H. (2018). A comparison of teacher-centered and student-centered approaches in educational settings. International Journal of Social Sciences & Educational Studies, 5(1), 164-167.
Tawalbeh, T.E.I. and AlAsmari, A.A., 2015. Instructors’ Perceptions and Barriers of Learner-Centered Instruction in English at the University Level. Higher Education Studies, 5(2), pp.38-51.
Thanh, P.T.H., 2010. Implementing a student-centered learning approach at Vietnamese higher education institutions: barriers under. Journal of Futures Studies, 15(1), pp.21-38.
Yoder, R.J., Bobbitt-Zeher, D. and Sawicki, V., 2021. Understanding the use of student-centered teaching methods in undergraduate chemistry courses. Research in Science Education, 51, pp.845-863.
Zoll, S., Saylor, L. and Ansari, A., 2023. Assessment in Montessori Education. The Bloomsbury Handbook of Montessori Education, p.219.
write