Teacher-Centered versus Student-Centered: Balancing Constraint and Theory in the Composition Classroom

Theorists and researchers of education in general, and of teaching composition in particular, have long advocated replacing teacher-centered pedagogies with student-centered ones, and many of us are familiar with the litany of differences between them (see, e.g., Bruffee 1984; Hillocks 1993; Rubin and Herbert 1998; Edens 2000; Hansen and Stephens 2000; Villaume 2000). Most critically, in teacher-centered approaches, judgments about appropriate areas and methods of inquiry, legitimacy of information, and what constitutes knowledge rest with the teacher. By contrast, student-centered approaches derive from constructivist views of education, in which the construction of knowledge is shared and learning is achieved through students' engagement with activities in which they are invested.

In principle, few of us would argue against the idea of student-centered classrooms. While "student-centeredness" sounds compelling, however, I find myself hard-pressed at times to define and accomplish it. Our classroom practices are often constrained by practical considerations, such as students' expectations and experiences, and by institutional realities, such as class size, required grading criteria, and instructor training. Add in theoretical implications, and teachers—particularly new ones—can find it quite a challenge to align classroom issues, theories of composition, and teaching strategies. The merger of practical realities and theoretical complexities tends to collapse the binary of teacher-centered/student-centered classrooms, in truth the very idea of a "centered" classroom.

Recognizing Constraints

To assume that our students share our enthusiasm for student-centered learning is tempting. However, Marshall Gregory (1997), E. D. Hirsch Jr. (1998), and Edmund J. Hansen and James A. Stephens (2000) all question its efficacy in the current educational climate. Hirsch cites several studies in which a significant number of students were more receptive to traditional methods of teaching. His interpretation of student receptivity (though not necessarily of the learning that took place) may not be surprising in light of other discussions of student attitudes. ¹

Gregory (1997) and Hansen and Stephens (2000) cite a number of factors that contribute to students' resistance to the intellectual work of student-centered learning. They suggest that society's emphasis on success, instant gratification, the retail/consumer model of education, and, paradoxically, student-centered approaches to learning lead students to look for easy answers and to count on high grades, to avoid difficult work, and to develop inflated perceptions of their abilities. Gregory (1997: 66) warns that teaching to students' comfort levels "has become so much the norm that students expect it. When students today, for example, think that a given teacher is requiring too much work or grades too hard or assigns boring readings, they take it as a student right to make these judgments about the teacher. Furthermore, students—with an unconscious assumption of their status as the court of final authority—believe that they can judge categorically and unequivocally." Similarly, Hansen and Stephens (2000: 43) suggest that students have "low tolerances for challenge" and that they, as well as some faculty members, have become "risk averse" in the classroom because of educational consumerism, institutional focus on assessment, and discomfort in dealing with diversity issues in classrooms. For student-centered learning to be effective, these scholars recommend that teachers and students reassess the ethos and ethics of learning in higher education.

But are our students really unwilling to engage in complex academic tasks, or are some simply unready to do so? In a study for the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, John Immerwahr (1999: 10) reported that "the most serious problem facing higher education, according to leaders responding to our survey, is that too many students are not sufficiently prepared academically to receive a higher education." And students may not be the only ones in the room whose preparation is insufficient for university coursework. Hansen and Stephens (2000) report that university classes still rely heavily on the lecture and other teacher-centered, content-focused...