Child-Centered Learning: Are We Going Too Far?

by Guest Blogger
April 1st, 2008

In  The Fundamental Importance of the Brain and Learning for Education, Kurt W. Fischer and Mary Helen Immordino-Yang warn, “Expectations for educational neuroscience are extremely high, but at this point it could turn out to be just another fad, a popular enthusiasm that fades with time as the unreality of exaggerated expectations becomes clear.” Given Fischer’s role as advisor and former president of the International Mind, Brain and Education Society, one cannot easily dismiss such a statement. It is peculiar, in this light, that the NYC Department of Education would award a multi-million-dollar no-bid contract to a “brain-based” program like Schools Attuned®, which specifically trains teachers to diagnose students’ learning breakdowns in terms of brain function and apply relevant strategies. “Brain-based” and “child-centered” approaches both view the child (and brain) as the starting point—a laudable premise on the surface, but treacherous beneath.

My purpose here is not to criticize Schools Attuned® (whose workshops I have attended), nor to comment on the scientific aspects of brain-based programs in general. Rather, as a teacher of middle-school students, I ask whether our schools might not be taking child-centered and brain-based ideas too far, glorifying the strategy at the expense of knowledge, and accommodating the individual student beyond reason. As nice as it is to reach out to the kids, perhaps we ignore some of the dangers of over-accommodation: dilution of curriculum, isolation of the student, confusion of roles, and invasion of students’ privacy.

In Education and the General Welfare (1920), Frank K. Sechrist writes, “Any activity that is made an end in itself, when it is properly only a means to a higher end, is an educational fad.” Perhaps “success” is one such fad today. We are supposed to help every child succeed, but what does that mean? Success is only as meaningful as the thing it serves. One cannot “succeed” in general; one succeeds at a particular activity, for a particular purpose. In order to help students learn, we must establish a curriculum. Conversely, if we ignore curriculum, then we will chase our own tails in pursuit of success.

Some might argue that we are not ignoring curriculum, but rather tuning it to the individual. Why demand that an entire class read Antigone, when the individuals have different interests, levels, and needs? To these child-tuners I reply: How can we ignore two of the deepest human needs of all: to understand the world around us and to communicate with others? When I teach literature, music, or theatre to my students, I am often struck by the meanings they find and the bonds they form. Without common knowledge and common vocabulary, we are stranded and can only send out help signals.

The teacher, then, becomes the rescuer. Instead of conveying subject matter, she circulates from student to student, providing “strategies” for vague purposes. The “strategy” may be a tape recorder, checklist, behavior chart, mnemonic device, highlighting technique, stuffed animal, or soothing music. The teacher is now psychologist, maid, surrogate parent, and “guide on the side.” Students quickly figure out that teachers are supposed to serve them, and treat them accordingly. A teacher who actually teaches a specific book may be taken to task for not “differentiating” the instruction enough, or for making students read something they might not want to read. The teacher is supposed to turn her eyes away from the book and toward the child. Yet such a gaze has its dangers.

Perhaps the most insidious effect of this ultra-sensitive pedagogy is the invasiveness. We are supposed to scrutinize, diagnose, and remedy every possible learning obstacle in every child. Are they not entitled to some dignity and privacy? If the child’s mind wanders in class, must we find a “strategy” to rein the child back in? What about the child who loves daydreaming and is not harmed by it? Is it our duty or even our business to make every student perform in the way we expect? I always appreciated the teachers who let me be and who gave me help only when I asked for it. Students differ in this regard; but no child should be subjected to diagnoses that have not been substantiated by research, nor should teachers be required to diagnose brains.  Teachers should remain teachers.

This is not to say that teachers should ignore students’ individual obstacles and challenges. By all means, teachers should do their best to help their students learn the subject at hand, striking the appropriate balance of class instruction and individual assistance. Teachers must know and love their subject. Within the context of excellent lessons, we can offer appropriate help to our students, who must respond with their own efforts and choices. If we do not give them this opportunity to learn and choose, then we will turn schools into social service centers– and futile ones at that, as we will have forgotten what they are for.

Diana Senechal teaches ESL and drama at a Brooklyn middle school and holds a Ph.D. in Slavic Languages and Literatures from Yale.

6 Comments »

  1. [...] drama and English as a Second Language teacher, wonders whether schools are going overboard on child-centered and brain-based learning, “glorifying the strategy at the expense of knowledge, and accommodating the individual [...]

    Pingback by Strategy without knowledge at Joanne Jacobs — April 2, 2008 @ 5:34 am

  2. [...] Ipsum’s scathing ”Why Gifted Students Still Hate School”, a counterintuitive post asking if Child-Centered Learning has gone too far, and Lead From the Start’s post about great teachers being “warm demanders” who [...]

    Pingback by The 166th Carnival of Education « The Elementary Educator — April 8, 2008 @ 8:56 pm

  3. I heartily agree — and I am distressed by the inherent assumptions made by CLL, specifically:

    1. Learning is inherently distasteful to most people, and like Mary Poppins’ magic potion, it must therefore change flavors to suit all palates or no one will swallow it.

    2. Rarely is it ever explained what the “guide on the side” is guiding students TOWARDS. No goal is given, no specifics are offered, no capital letters or concrete nouns are used.

    3. If students do not learn, it is wholly and solely the fault of the teacher.

    4. Most students cannot learn material that is “hard.” Most of Western literature is “hard.”

    Very thought-provoking post.

    Comment by Adso of Melk — April 9, 2008 @ 8:19 pm

  4. I was putting together an annotate bibliography, and came across your comments on child-centered learning. I happen to agree with your comments,and wanted to send you a study from Bonnie Grossen at univ of Oregon. She has a relatively long paper that shreds the child-centered learning, and I thought you might like to see it – if you don’t already now about it.

    The page is at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bgrossen/pubs/cdp.htm

    I also have a pdf of the study but don’t know how to attache it to this.

    I have never even looked at a blog before, so I hope this works.

    Chuck Swanson

    Comment by Chuck Swanson — June 24, 2008 @ 12:25 am

  5. Dear Mr. Swanson,

    Thank you for your comment and for the link to the article! It is quite interesting and detailed. I will keep it on file as a resource.

    Best,

    Diana Senechal

    Comment by Diana Senechal — June 24, 2008 @ 12:32 pm

  6. Hello Mr Swanson,

    Can you possible provide the name of the journal in which the paper that miss Grossen wrote is published. I am unable to use the website that you provided. I am an SFU Graduate student looking at Child Centered vs Subject Centered teaching! that would be great.

    Comment by GG — November 16, 2009 @ 4:04 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

While the Core Knowledge Foundation wants to hear from readers of this blog, it reserves the right to not post comments online and to edit them for content and appropriateness.