Child Centred Versus Teacher-Centred Approach to Curriculum

Name: Hind Al Atassi Date: February 17th, 2011

When we think back to our school days, some of us might remember those fantastic moments when we sailed off to an imaginative land and turned a piece of furniture into a sailing ship. It is hard to forget those memories and those teachers that encouraged us to be explorers of the world. On the other hand, many of us have a different experience and remember a more rigorous and controlled time at school but yet, are still as successful in our lives as our counterparts. As a future educator that is still developing her teaching skills and philosophies, I often question the adult-centered versus the child-centered approaches to curriculum and teaching. I also wonder whether one of them is more effective than the other in bringing success to our children’s future or whether a combination of both is the most appropriate way. The child-centered approach proposes that children are actively involved in their learning. Hence, it assumes that it develops children’s initiative and creativity and as a result boosts their self-confidence in themselves. First, in my opinion, in order for teacher’s to apply this approach, they must trust the children to lead the way. They must believe that working alongside them can result in great learning experiences for the children. In addition, they should be open to accepting new ideas that conflict with their past experiences or their present comfort levels. Teacher must also believe in what Rousseau advocated; that children must be at the center of the educative process and that knowledge is there to be drawn out of them. Furthermore, teachers have to acknowledge his theory which Wolfe (2002) describes in her book, Learning from the Past: Historical Voices in Early Childhood Education. In this theory, it is assumed that children’s growth and learning are cultivated through the educative process but that their unique ways of thinking and doing things would only be harmed by adults’ attempts at teaching them what they believe is worth knowing. Wolfe (2002) also explains that Rousseau saw childhood as its own time of life and that they are by nature different from adults. This theory has a major impact on how educators who follow a child-centered approach ought to teach children. It becomes their responsibility to know the nature of each developmental stage and to plan experiences that meet these stages rather than hurrying the child into academic work or responsibilities earlier than appropriate. With all that has been said, it seems that a child-centered approach places children’s school experiences and learning at their summit. However, in my opinion, this approach has its flaws which must be highlighted. From my past experiences with my cooperating teachers at my internships, I have come across educators who believe in Socrates’ philosophy of “teacherless education” and who proudly admitted to follow a child-centered approach in their teaching. However, I have sadly witnessed them waste a lot of time in unconstructive, badly unstructured and carelessly planned lessons that did not involve higher order questioning and did not stimulate critical thinking. In my opinion, these teachers seemed to interpret a child-centered approach as forgoing traditionally taught topics and lesson planning for the sake of building on children’s interests and what they want to learn about. Yet, in Developmentally Appropriate Practice. Curriculum and Development in Early Childhood Education, C. Gestwicki explains that, “Unfortunately, this planning method, or lack of method, does not permit the deepening of questions and richness of experience that support constructivist learning” (Gestwicki, 1999, p.52). As a result, my past experiences led me to think whether we should be so quick to strike down the teacher-centered approach and replace it completely with the child-centered approach. First, it must be noted that this approach which goes hand in hand with what Realists believe, also has its flaws. For Realists, the teachers and schools’ primary role is to inform, develop and guide human reason. Students are taught information that is based on authoritative knowledge with an over arching goal to help them develop their reasoning skills. With these skills, students are assumed to learn how to acquire knowledge and free themselves of ignorance as well as make intelligent choices and decisions. In addition, this approach is critiqued by many textbooks and is described by teachers who feel burdened to meet state mandated learning objectives. Traditionally, these teachers directly transmit knowledge to their students through rigorous methods, and students are expected to master the material. Often, these teachers can “Overlook the opportunity to have the children explore their own understandings and underlying rationale for the project. [And] there is no ‘real’ connection to their lives as children; there is even less sensory exploration or active participation” (Gestwicki, 1999, p.52). However, when I reflect on the successes that I as well as many others have been able to achieve albeit being taught in highly teacher-centered schools, I wonder as a future educator if I should ‘throw out the baby with the bath water’. In addition, according to UNICEF, the literacy rate for children in Japan in 2008 was 100%. This according to Katsuko (1995), “Is the result of a perfectly teacher-centered approach. Japanese teachers using a teacher-centered approach establish a high level of attainment as an important learning objective. Focusing on mastering course contents and frequent testing promotes this outcome” (Katsuko, 1995, p.3). In contrast, in Quebec where efforts are being made to adopt child-centered approaches in curriculum and teaching, “The dropout rate in the province 's high schools increased from 26 per cent to 29 per cent between the year 2000 and 2007” (Quebec Ministry of Education, 2009). Finally, I do not think that any of these approaches is superior to the other. In fact, I believe that as educators we need to carefully analyze the positive aspects of both the child-centered and the teacher-centered approach and try to implement a healthy balance between the two. As teachers we need to evaluate and think about how we can extract and merge together those techniques and activities that seem to yield the best results. Gestwicki (1999) explains one way that teachers could achieve this is by trying to implement what she calls, “[An] emergent curriculum…that develops when exploring what is socially relevant, intellectually engaging, and personally meaningful to children” (Gestwicki, 1999, p.53). Furthermore, teachers seeking a middle ground between the two approaches never plan their lessons on children’s interests alone; they incorporate essential skills and knowledge that will help those children succeed in the world as we know it now and as we predict it will be in the future. For example, many children today are digital natives and are thus very interested in technology. Hence, it would not make sense that educators today do not follow up on this interest and teach students how to use various technology and multimedia sources. However, it would also seem irrational to forgo planning for students to master the multiplication table just because they seem uninterested in it. Hence, in order for students to master such an important skill, teachers would have to give students lots of practice. Yet, instead of following an all teacher-centered approach by giving students meaningless and endless exercises to work on, teachers can show a more balanced approach by developing this math skill through meaningful situational problems that come directly from children’s experiences and interests. At last, as I have explained earlier, I do not believe that we should discard the teacher-centered in favour of the child-centered approach. Educators who are genuinely concerned about their students’ future should try to merge both methods where students are guided more often through moderately regulated techniques and approaches that still keep the children’s needs and interests in perspective.

The Child Centered Approach promotes the right of the child to choose, make connections and communicate. It allows freedom for children to think, experience, explore, question and search for answers. It presents a creative celebration of children 's work.

References

Gestwicki, C. (1999). Planning for Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum. In Developmentally Appropriate Practice. Curriculum and Development in Early Childhood Education. Delmar: Albany New York. 48-62.

Katsuko, H. (1995). Teacher-centered and child-centered pedagogical approaches in teaching children 's literature. BNET. Retrieved on February 11, 2011 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_n3_v115/ai_n28656078/?tag=content;col1

Kirkpatrick, T. (2010, March). Quebec dropout rate on the rise. The Review. Retrieved on February 11, 2011 from http://thereview.ca/story/quebec-dropout-rate-rise

Woolfe, J. (2002). Learning from the past: Historical voices in early childhood education. (Revised 2E). Mayerthorpe, Alta: Piney Branch Press.

References: Gestwicki, C. (1999). Planning for Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum. In Developmentally Appropriate Practice. Curriculum and Development in Early Childhood Education. Delmar: Albany New York. 48-62. Katsuko, H. (1995). Teacher-centered and child-centered pedagogical approaches in teaching children 's literature. BNET. Retrieved on February 11, 2011 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3673/is_n3_v115/ai_n28656078/?tag=content;col1 Kirkpatrick, T. (2010, March). Quebec dropout rate on the rise. The Review. Retrieved on February 11, 2011 from http://thereview.ca/story/quebec-dropout-rate-rise Woolfe, J. (2002). Learning from the past: Historical voices in early childhood education. (Revised 2E). Mayerthorpe, Alta: Piney Branch Press.