student-centered learning environments

8/12/2019 Student-Centered Learning Environments

1/19

TEAC HER S EVALUATION OFSTUDENT-CENTERED LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

A s s o c . DR. ZHAL UBUKUEskiehir Osm angazi Un iversity Faculty of EducationEskiehir Turkeyzcubukcu @ ogu .edu.trProblem Statement: The student-centered teaching is thearrangement of the teaching experience focusing on the stu-dents responsibilities and activities in the learning processwhich takes into consideration the students interests, demandsand needs. According to this approach, while teaching experi-ences are planned, different learning strategies and styles ofstudents are taken into account. A student who can reach infor-mation is more valuable than the one who memorizes it.The Aim of Study: The aim of this study is to determine teach-ers evaluations of their own classes in terms of thestudent-centered learning environment dimensions of time, placeand infrastructure, psyco-social aspect.Methods: The research is descriptive in design. In this study, adata collection instrument was used that lends itself for teachersto evaluate their classes in terms of the dimensions of student-centered learning; namely time, place, infrastructure andpsycho-social.Findings: Teachers evaluations of student-centered learningenvironments in relation to different variables highlight thatteaching area is an effective factor putting elementary schoolteaching at an advantage in terms of scores. Teachers, whenasked to evaluate the dimensions of student-centered learningenvironments, have given the highest score to psycho-socialdimension, followed by time, equipment and place dimensions.on lusions and Discussion: Basen on the results of the study,the following suggestions are made. Teachers, while determin-ing on educational models and approaches in theirteaching-learning process, should ensure that it allows studentsto learn on their own. Within the school and class context, teach-ers should allocate time for activities that increasestudent-centered learning, individual and social activities likeextra-curricular activits, student club activities. Teachers shouldbe offered chances of in-service training so that they canimprove their skills and gain knowledge about student-centeredlearning with respect to their teaching areas.Keywords: Learning environment, student-centered education,student-centered teaching/learning, learning environment dimen-sionsntrodu tion s tages of decision ma king, planning , appli-

The concept of student-centered educa ti on , and ev al ua tio n du rin g thecation has led to perce ptua l chan ges in teaching-learning process learners partie-


2/19

50 / Education Vol 133 No 1

that student-centered teaching has broughtabout the change in quesfions from W hatshould we t eac h? , How should weteach? , With what should we teach? toa perspective where W hat would s/he liketo learn? , W hat will s/he do to learn? , What would assist him/her in his/herlearning? , 'T o w hat extent did s/he learn?In other wo rds, in student-centered teach-ing learners actively participate in thedecision making process about what tolearn, how to learn, and what kind of helpis required, and how to decide how m uchis learned (Bery, Sharp, 1999; Lea , Stten-hanson & Tray; Hartly, 1987; Sharma,Millar Seth, 1999; citedin :Acat, 2005).For over 100 years, philosophers suchas John Dewey, Lev Vygotsky, Jean Piaget,Jerome Bruner, Ferriere, Rousseau, F reinet,

Howard Gardner, Gianni Rodari, BrunoCiari, Maria Montessori and others havereported on the benefits of experiential,hands -on, s tudent -centered l earn ing .Involving learner in decision making andusing student interest to drive curriculumand projects supports a growing body ofevidence that concurs with these revolu-tionary philosop hers. Learning is not onlyabout knowledgemaking.Children need tobe acve learners within the context ofcul-ture, community, and past experiences.Teachers who adhere to student-centeredclassrooms are influenced strongly byconstrucfivism, naturalisfic, social con-structivism, existenfiahsm, humanism, andprogressive philosophies.

Student-centered learning, or studentcenteredness, is a model which puts thestudentinthe center of the learning process.

own learning styles and learning strate-gies.W hile learning, internal motivation isof vital importance. Individual systemiz-ing is more important than standardizeds ys t ems . S t uden t - cen t e r ed l ea r n i ngimproves learning to learn and learninghow to improve skills such as crifical think-i ng , p r ob l em - s o l v i ng and r e f lec t i vethinking. Students apply and display dif-ferent styles. Student-centered learningdiffers from teacher-centered learning inwhich itischaracterized by the more activerole of the learner when compared to theteacher.Student-centered learning helps stu-dents to get their own goals for learning,and determine resources and activitiesguid ing them to meet those goal s(Jonassen, 2000). Because students pur-

sue their own goals, all of their acfivifiesare meaningful to them. Student-centeredlearning which is based on experientiallearning helps knowledge and skills to begr as ped mor e ex t ens i ve l y and pe r -mananet ly (Lont , 1999) . S ince bothstudents and teachers participate in learn-ing process, teache rs are perceived to be amem ber of teaching environment and stu-dents to be the persons w hose individuallearning needs should be addressed. Thus,teachers by using more recent teachingmethods involve s tudents in learningprocess more actively. This improves andexpands teachers' roles, which in ttim con-tributes to team spirit and and the cultureof working together. The prop erties of stu-dent-centered teaching program that wasprepared by the Mid-continent RegionalEducatinoal Laboratory are as follows


3/19

Tea chers Eva luation... / 51

emp hasizes tasks that attract studen tsvarious interests, organizes content and activities aroundthe subjects that are meaningful to thestudents, contains clear oppo rtunities that let allstudents develop their own learningskills and progress to the next level oflearning, contains activities that help studentsunderstand and improve their own view-points, allows for global, interdisciplinary, andcomplemetary activities, supports challenging learning activitieseven if the learners find them difficult,and em phasizes activities that encouragestudents to work with other students in

cooperation.Learning nvironment

Learning is a dynamic process duringwhich individuals make internal adjust-men ts individually and develop necessaryskills.Th us, in ordert enhance effectivessof learning, the learning itself should bethe starting point and other concep ts, suchas instruction and curriculum or teachingtechniques, should be built on it. Learningis a process that takes place in mind. Indi-viduals do not merely mechanically reactto the internal and external stimuli w ithoutthinking. Yet, they develop their ownknowledge and patterns of perception ininteraction with stimuli that reaches theorganism. They form a net of structuresout of their interpretations, and they formmeanings regarding different dimensions

improved or changed they can perceive anevent differently and they can develop dif-ferent knowledge structures (Yaar, 1998;iman, 2003; imsek, 2004; Senemoglu,1997).In student-centered learning, the teachertakes a more active role in learning ratherthan being the person in the center ofknowledge. The student, rather than beingpassive, takes a role in the application,analysis, synthesis and evaluation process-

es. In learning, the factor of place iseverywhere where learning takes place.The time factor shows differences withrespectt the learning activity. In add ition,in student-centered learning, technologyis used in such a way that it realizes teacher-student and student-student interaction(Brge, 1998).Kolb (1984) argues that active learningis acquired by individuals by doing morethan thinking. According to Kolb, activelearning can develop by thinking about thedetails of thoughts, experiences, percep-tions,and emotions that come about duringexperiences. According to this , activelearning involves four stages of concreteexperience (gaining experience): observa-

tion and reflection based on experience,forming ab stract concep ts, and new expe-riences. It is possible to participate in thiscycle at any stage and follow the cycle inits logicalorder Active learning takes placeonly when these four stages are material-ized. Independently none of the stagesconstitutes active learning (Kili, 2010 ).Student-centered learning environments

provide interactive, complimentary activ-ities that enable individuals to address their


4/19


and deepen understanding (Hannafin,1992). The concept of a learning environ-men t is not new. Its roots can be traced toearly apprendceship. Socratic and similarmovements that have sought to immerseindividuals in authendc learning experi-ences, where the meaning of knowledgeand skil ls are realist ically embedded(Dewey, 1993; Pask & Boyd, 1987; citedin: Land & Hannafin, 1996).Various learning environments can beclassified accordingtothe mannerinwhichthey m anifest their underlying foundadons.Hannafin and Land (1997) emphasize thateducational environments have psycho-l o g i c a l , t e c h n o l o g i c a l , c u l t u r a l a n dpragmatic principles. All learning envi-ronments expHcitly refiect these underlyingmodels for foundations. Psychological

principles take as the basis the individu-a l s ' knowledge and ski l l acquis i t ion ,organizadon and application . In student-centered learning environmen ts, students'experience, content, and the constructionof knowledge are important. Psychologi-cal foundadons are rooted in beliefs abouthow individuals think and learn. Peda-gogical principles take acdv ides, methodsand the structure of learning environm entsas their basis. For student-centered learn-ing to t ake p lace , exempl i fy ing ,discovering, researching, and learningbased on problem -solving are vital. Tech-no lo g ica l p r in c ip le s t ake ass i s ta n ttechnology and technology to enrich thelearning environment as their basis. Instudent-centered learning environments,different tools can be imp lemented in var-ious ways. Technological capabil i t ies

principles highlight social values such asresearching, invendng, and cridcal think-i n g . S t u d e n t - c e n t e r e d l e a r n i n genvironments support researching, dis-covering, and cridcal thinking. Pragmadcprinciples cover economic conditions,technological facilides and the ability toreach innovadons . Pragmadc condidonsdefine the limitations in implementadon;for example, the financial situation. Fivefoundadons are funcdonally integrated inlearning systems designs.Student-centered learning environmentsare set up in such a way that they give stu-dents the chance to take the responsibilityfor organizing, analyzing and synthesiz-ing knowledge, and consequeny play amore active role in their own learning(Means, 1994). These environments pro-

vide students with the opportunities ofexplaining complex problems and solvethose in cooperation, and by applying todifferent sources (Hannafin Land, 1997).This approach gives students the chanceto take individual responsibility and adaptan active role in the teaching-learningprocess at the highest level. The mecha-nisms of self-confidence and self-controlin individuals improve at a better rate.Student-centered teaching focuses onthe student. Decision-making, organiza-don and content are determined for mostby taking individual students' needs andinterests into consideradon. Student-cen-tered teaching provides opportunities todevelop students' skills of transferingknowledge to other situadons, triggeringretendon, and adapdng a high motivadonfor learning. T he active involvement of stu-


5/19

Teachers Evaluation... / 53

Student centered LearningEnvironment DimensionsIn student-centered learning environ-ments, it is essential that students takesresponsibility for learning, they are direct-ly involved in the discovery of knowledge,the materials used offer students a chanceto acdvate their background knowledge,the activides done are based on problem-solving, for cooperative learning to takeplace, the society, home and workplace areused as sources, and various institutionsand outside-class activities are incooper-ated to support students learning. Time,place, infrastructure-hardware and psyco -social environment dimensions of thelearning environment and the characteris-dcs of these dimensions in student-centeredlearning envirotmients are determined asfollows:Time D imension

Among the student-centered learningdimensions, itisthe one which should havepriority. Apart from sufficient dme, it isalso important that arrangements shouldbe done for using time efficiently. Timehas to be flexible so as to allow changeswhen necessary. The characterisdcs of themain five components of the dme dimen-sion can be listed as: For the effecdve use of dm e in terms ofthe psychological component, i t isimportanttogive students dm e to reachinformation, to construct it cognitivelyon their own, and to establish a con-

n e c t i o n b e t we e n t h e a c q u i r e dknowledge and real-life.

ogy serving communicative purposesshould be aimed at; the time used forcommunicadon should not be limited;and for students to have concrete expe-r i e n c e , t e c h n o l o g y a s s i s t e d t i meplanning should be made.For the effective use of time in terms ofthe pedagogical component, studentsshould be given dm e to acquire knowl-edge in natural settings, and flexibledme plan to allow students to learn attheir own pace.For the effecdve use of dm e in terms ofthe cultural component; dm e should begiven so that students can research p re-vious studies, inventions and productsrelated to what is being learned. Timeshould be left for thorough learning,synthesizing, observing and applyingwhatislearned to social life, w ork-life,family and society.For the effective use oftim in terms ofusefulness, dme should be given to real-ize key learning-teaching conditionsaimed at objectives. A dme plan thatallows individuals to fulfil their respon -sibilides and affects the effecdvenessof both students and teachers posidve -ly should be made.

Place DimensionIt is the place where education or var-ious studies take place. In student-centerededucation, place covers allth places wherethe student lives and engages in activities.This includes places such as school, school-

yard, library, museums, work-place andhom e. In student-centered educadon, these


6/19

54 / Education Voi 133 No 1

work, the basic characteristics of placedimension needs to carry out with respectto the educational environm ent s basiccomponents can be listed as follows: For effective u se of place in terms ofthe psychological component, placesshould give students the opportunitiesfor constructing their own knowledge,s tudying on thei r own, perceivingknowledge out of class-in, its real-lifecontext, and guiding their learningaccording to their own individual char-acteristics. For effective use of place in terms ofthe technological component, placesshould ease communication, supportlearning visually, offer access to vari-ous in fo rmat ion sources and be

accoustically convenient. For effective u se of place in terms ofthe pedagogical component, placesshould support natural learning, relateto students individual interests, encour-age students to exhibit their skills andproducts, and support the improvem entof problem-solvingskills. P laces shouldbe established in such a way that teach-ers and s tudents can communicatecomfortably, students can produce andobserve their own products, performgroup work and study in cooperation.

For effective u se of place in terms ofcultural componen t, places should offerstudents the chance of seeing conduct-ed research and inventions for gainingin-depth knowledge, taking the socialstructure into consideration and offer-ing solutions to problems.

their goals.Infrastructure Hardware DimensionEducational tools, equipment and orga-nizational skills form the infrastructuredimension. All factors related to equip-ment, which can be called educationaltechnology, fall under this dimension. Asregards student-centered learning,th infra-structure dimension has to exhibit thefollowing characteristics in terms of thefive main components: With respect to psychological com po-nent, the infrastructure has to providestudents opportuninites of establishingtheirownknowledge, recalling and acti-va t ing the i r p r io r knowledge andexperience, perceiving the natural con-

text, reahzing activities in line with theirpersonal viewpoint and value judge-ments. With respect to technological com po-nent, the infrastructure has to be givenwhich allows use of developing tech-nology, offers communication withoutgiving any place for limitations, sup-ports concrete learning with visuals and

provides a variety of sources. W ith respect to pedag ogical com po-nent, the infrastructure has to offernatural learning contexts, has to givestudents opportunity of putting togeth-er information from different times andareas. The infrastructure has to bearranged in such a way that studentscan realize their individual aims, inter-ests and ideals, and teachers get theopportunity of guiding and interacting.


7/19


With respect to usefulness com ponent,the infrastructure has to be establishedin such a way that it supports reachingtargets and fulfilling responsibilities.Psycho social Dimension

One ofth main elements that form thelearning environment is the psycho-socialdimension. During learning process, thepsycho-socia l envr ionment is a maindeterminerinreaching objectives. S tudent-centered learning is mainly based oninternal motivation. Therefore, student-centered learning environments offercontext for students to learn their own byfocusing on their wishes, expectafions andinterests. According to student-centeredlearning, the psycho-social dimension hasto carry the following characterisfics withrespect to the five main components: In order to use the psyc ho -so cia ldimension effectively in terms of thepsychological com ponent, the environ-ment should allow students to learn ontheir own, support learners for gainingconfidence and helping them to learnabout themselves. In ordertouse the psycho-social dimen-s ion effect ively in terms of thetechnological component, learning envi-ronment should be available so thatstudents can, among themselves andwith the teacher, have ongoing interac-fion. In ordertouse th psycho-social dimen-s ion effect ively in terms of the

pedagogical component, the environ-ment should be prepared in which it

expectafions, and increases their inter-nal motivafion. From the cultural perspecfive, the psy-cho-social dimension needs to includecultural values. For the usefulness of psych o-socialdimension, the environment shouldraise studen ts awareness of responsi-bility and give place to a feedbacksystem.

The aim of this study is to reveal teach-e r s eva lua t ions abou t g iv ing p lacestudent-centered learning environments intheir own schools within dimensions offime, place, infrastructure hardware andpsyco-social environment. Within theframework of this general aim, the answersto the following research quesfions wereseeked;1. What are teac hers evaluafions aboutgiving place to student-centered learn-ing environments as a whole in theirschools?2. Do teachers evaluations about givingplace to student-centered learning envi-ronments in their schools show any

difference according to independentvariables (gender, teaching area, workexperience, graduated higher educafionprogramme)?3. What are teachers evaluations aboutgiving place to student-centered learn-ing environments when the dimensionsof time, place, infrastructure-hardwareand psyco-social environment are taken

distinctively?4. Do teachers evaluations about giving


8/19


difference according to independentvariables (gender, teaching area, workexperience, graduated higher educationprogramme) when the dimensions aretaken distinctively?MethodIn this study, data collection instrumentproviding to collect teachers' evaluationsabout giving place to student-centeredlearning environments in their schools withrespect to time, place, infrustracture-hard-ware and psycho-social dimensions wasused.

Sample GroupThe study was conducted w ith teachersin ten elementary schools of Eskiehir inTurkey. Information about the samplegroup is shown in Table 1.

Data ollection InstrumentIn the study, data collection instrumentconsists of two sec tions. The first sectionis composed of questions that elicits per-sonal information related to the teachers;the second section is composed of the Scale on Student-centered Learning Envi-r o n m e n t s , w h ic h e l ic i t s t e a c h e r s 'evaluation of their own classes in terms ofthe student-centered education dimensions;namely time, place , infrastructure, and psy-cho-social. Scale on Student-centered LearningEnvironments (QSC LE ) was developedby Acat (2006). The scale consists of fourd i mens i ons e l i c i t ed by 50 i t ems :Psycho-social environment 13 ,Infirastruc-ture-Hardw are 14, Place 12, and Time 11items. The indications in the questionnaire

on student-centered learning environments

Table 1.Personal Information about the Sample GroupVariablesGenderFemaleMaleTeaching AreaElementary school teachingBranch teachingWork experience1-1011-2021 +Graduated programmeEducation FacultyFaculty of Science and LettersOthers (Engineering, Religion, Faculty ofAdministrative Sciences)Total

N13212810815294897711050100260

50,749,341,658,436,134,229,742,319,238,5100,0


9/19

Teachers' Evaluation... / 57are labelled as Always (5) , Frequent-ly (4) , Som etimes (3) , Rarely (2) , Never (1) . In the pilot study conductedwith the study group, alpha coefficient wascalculated as .9756.Analysis of the DataIn the analysis of the data, beside todescriptive s tadsdcal techniques like arith-methical average and standard deviadon,parametric stadsdcal techniques oft-test fortwo group comparisons, and One-wayVariance Analysis (ANOVA) for more thantwo group comparisons were used. In allstatistical analysis, significance level istaken as .05.

FindingsThis secdon consists ofth findings asa result ofth analysis ofth data and dis-cussions of the findings. Findings relatedto the research quesdons asked in reladonto the aim of the study.

1. Teachers' evaluations about givingplace the student-centered learningenvironmentsIn ordertoget a general idea of the par-dcipant teachers related to student-centeredlearning environments, the arithmethicalaverages and standard deviations of thescores received from the scale have beencalculated. The results are shown in Table2.

When the findings are analyzed, it canbe said that the scores of participantteachers received from the Scale on Stu-dent-centered Learning Environmentsshow a distribudon like: 1.54 as the low-est score, 5.00 as the highest score, 3.43 asthe average score. In this case, it is notwrong to say that the general tendency cen-t e rs a round f r eque n t ly l eve l .Student-centered education, having thebasic characteristics of being flexible int ime, motivating, highlighting studentresponsibility and individual differences,inc ludes the t ra in ing of ind iv idua lsequipped with the skills of cridcal think-ing, adapting to innovations, learning, andlife-long learning ability (Hartly, 1987;Yeomans,1993;Berry, Sharp, 1999; K elly& Horder 2001; Lea, Stehanson & Tray,2003;cited in Acat, 2006). As classroomschange and become m ore student-centered,it is essential to provide teachers withopportunides that enhance their learning ofdifferent strategies. One strategy com-monly seen in student-centered classroomsis use of learning centers.

2. Teachers' evaluadons about givingplace student-centered learning envi-ronments in their schools show anydifference according to independentvariables

In this study, gender, teaching area,work experience, and graduated higherTable 2.Teachers Thoughts in terms of Their Evaluation of Student-centered Learning Environm ents

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation


10/19


Table 3.Teachers Thoughts in terms of Their Evaluation of Student-centered Learning EnvironmentsBased on Gender

Gender N Mean Std.DeviationStd.ErrorMean Sd .P

Female 132Male 128 3 42453 4528 ,65900,61426,06401,06052 -,321 258 ,749

education programm es are the indepentedvariables. Teachers thoughts about givingplace student-centered learning environ-ments in their schools show any differenceaccording to independent variables areshown in Table 3.According to the findings, when aver-age scores are considered based on 0.05significance level, it can be observed thatgender snot a significant factor regardingthe participant teachers evaluadons of stu-dent-centered learning environments .Teach ers thoughts in terms of their eval-ua t ion of s tudent -cen te red lea rn ingenvironments based on teaching area areshown in Table 4.According to the findings, when aver-age scores are considered based on 0.05significance level, it can be observed that

teaching area is a significant factor regard-ing the participant teachers evaluations ofstudent-centered learning environments,and elementary school teaching exhibits ahigher score level.Student-centered learning envirorunentscomprise many forms, often with fewapparent similarides. Isolated student-cen-t e r ed env i ronmen t s i n s c i ence ,mathemadcs, social science, hterature, andother domains have prompted educatorsto explore the structure, goals, and per-spectives of student- centered systems. Theefforts, however, often appear dissimilarin funcdons, goals, and features, thus mak-ing it dificult to identify general designprinciples. Despite such variations, com-mon assum ptions have been identified andremanifested either explicitly within the

Table 4.Teachers Thoughts in terms of Their Evaluation of Student-centered Learning EnvironmentsBased On Teaching AreaTeaching Area N Mean Std.Deviation

Std.ErrorMean t Sd

Elementaryschool teachingBranch

108 3 5768 ,54582 ,058522 695 258 ,008


11/19


Table 5.Teachers Thoughts in terms of Their Evaluation of Student centered Learning EnvironmentsBased on WorkExperienceWork experience1-1011-2021+Total

Mean3 38973 44693 4893 4385

N9489 260

Std.Deviation,62511,54860,74285,63597

Table 6.TheVarianceAnalysis Results Based on the ParticipantTeachers Evaluations ofStudentcentered Learning EnvironmentsVariance Source Sum ofSquares Sd Mean SquaresBetween GroupsWithin GroupsTotal

,34383,78584,1282257259

,171,407 ,421 ,657

environment (Hannafin, Hall, Land Hill,1994).Presents results from a study of teach-ing and learning characteristics and therole of teachers in ICT (information andcomm unication technology) learning envi-ronments of 25 technology-rich primaryand secondary schools in five Europeancountries. Results indicate that learningenvironments are more pupil-centeredwhen there is greater curriculum differen-tiation and when teachers act as coaches(Smeets Mo oij, 2001).

Report results of survey developed toassess the use of learner-centered tech-niques in undergraduate sc ience andmathematics classrooms. It reveals thatlearner-centered techniques are used infre-quently, but when used, they are applied toall aspects of teaching . It is suggested that

in promoting its use (Walczyk Ramsey,2003). Teachers' distribution in terms oftheir evaluation of student-centered learn-ing envi ronments based on workexperience is shown in Table 5.The Variance Analysis results based onthe participant teachers' evaluations of stu-dent-centered learning environments, thevalue is found as F= ,421 (P>0 .05). Thus,

it can be said that there is no meaningfuldifference when work experience is takeninto consideration. Teachers' distributionin terms of their evaluation of student-cen-tered learning environments based ongraduated programme is shown in Table7.The Variance Analysis result based onthe participant teachers' evaluations of stu-

dent-centered learning environments, thevalue is found to be F= ,547 (P>0.05).


12/19


Table 7.Teachers Thoughts in terms of Their Evaluation of Student centered Learning EnvironmentsBased on Graduated Programme

Graduated programme Mean N Std.DeviationEducation FacultyFaculty of Science and LettersOthers (Engineering, Religion,Faculty of Administrative Sciences)Total

3 47443 3483 44373 4385

1105010026 0

,63970,57233,66463,63597

Table 8.TheVarianceAnalysis result based on the participant teachers evaluations of student centeredlearning environmentsVariance Source Sum ofSquares Sd Mean SquaresBetween Groups ,444 2 ,222Within Groups 83,683 257 ,406Total 84,128 259

,547 ,580

Table 9.Teachers thoughts in terms of their evaluation of student centered learningenvironments based on the dimensionsDimensionsPsycho-socialInfrastructure andEquipmentPlaceTimeTotal

N26026026 026 026 0

Minimum1,001,141,501,82

Maximum5,005,005,005,00

Mean3 54583 35373 35853 5 67

Std. Deviation,73959,78997,73634,70257

no meaningful difference when the grad-ua t ed p r ogr am m es a r e t aken i n t oconsideration.3. Teachers though ts in terms of theirevalua t ion of S tudent -centeredLearning Environments based on the

dimensions

dimensions of student-centered educafionw e r e c o n s i d e r e d : p s y c h o - s o c i a l / t h escho ol s social atmo sphere, infrastructureand equipm ent, place, fime.In order to get a general approximateidea of the participant teache rs evalua-tions regarding student-centered learning

environments, the arithmethical averagesand standard deviat ions of the scores


13/19

Tea chers Eva luation... / 61

The findings based on average scoressuggest that the scores of the participantteachers regarding their evaluations of thedifferent dimensions of student-centeredlearning can be labelled as lower for infra-structure /equipment andpl cedimensions(3,35), slightly higher for time dimension(3,50) and the highest for psycho-social(3,54) dimension.Research indicates that teachers who

readily integrate technology into theirinstruction are more likely to possess con-s t ruc t iv i s t t eaching s ty les . Evidencesuggests that teacher's student-centeredbeliefs about instruction and the nature ofthe teacher's technology-integrated lessonsare paralleled with each other. This con-nection between the use of technology andconstructivist pedagogy implies construc-tivist-minded teachers maintain dynamicstudent-centered classrooms where tech-nolo gy i s a pow er fu l l e arn in g too l .Unfortunately, much of the research to datehas rehed on self-reported data from teach-ers and this type of data often presents aless than accurate picture. Versus selfreported p ractices, direct observations thatgauge the constructivist manner in whichteachers integrate technology are more pre-cise, albeit protracted, measured (Judson,2006).

Churchill (2006), in his study exploresthe private theories of four vocational edu-cation teachers in Singapore who haveengaged in technology-based learning fortheir own classes. The understanding ofteachers' private theories is important in thecontext of contemporary educat ionalreforms, which emphasise the shift towards

might also need to tiansform aspects oftheir private theories that could impedeeffective technology integration and leadthem to continue with outdated educationalpractice. This study aims to understandand exp licate areas of private theories thatimpede the effective design of student-cen-tred technology-based learning. The finaloutcome ofthestudy w as setting prop osi-tions forre dersto examine forthepossibleapplication in their own environments.Num erous benefits of student-centeredweb-based learning environments havebeen documented in the literature; how-ever the effects on student learning arequestionable, particularly for low self-reg-ulated learners primarily because theseenvironments require students to exercisea high degree of self-regulation to succeed.

Currentiy few guidelines exist on how col-l ege i n s t r uc t o r s s hou l d i nc or p or a t eself-regulated strategies using web-basedpedagogical tools (Dabbagh Kitsantas,2004).Presenting a model for designing stu-dent-centered, technology-rich learningenv i r onmen t s he l p educa t o r s t ooperationalize constructivist and student-centered approaches for teaching andlearning. Highlights include facilitatingknowledge construction and hfelong learn-ing; technology use; s tudent at t i tudes;levels of implementation; performanceassessment; and traditional instructionalsystems design models (H irumi, 2002).

4.Teachers' thoughts in terms of theirevalua t ion of S tudent -centeredLearning Environments based on the


14/19

62 /Ed uca t ion Vol 133 No 1

Table 10.Teachers evaluations of student centered learning environm ents inDimensions GenderP.social FemaleMaleEquip. FemaleMalePlace FemaleMaleTime FemaleMale

N108152108152108152108152

Mean3 51313 57953 33 23 37793 39233 32363 47513 5393

StdDeviation,73205,74935,82428,75630,70720,76708,76856,62961

Std. ErrorMean,07110,07384,08006,07452,06869,07558,07465,06204

terms of the gendert-,649-,436673

-,659

Sd258258258258

P,517,663,502,511

Table 11.Teachers evaluations of student centered learning environmen ts in terms of teaching areaGenderDimensionsP.soc. ElementaryBranchEquip. ElementaryBranchPlace Elementary

BranchTime ElementaryBranch

N108152108152108152108152

Mean3 69323 44 73 42863 3 43 46653 28143 74823 3346

Std.Deviation,69908,75246,71628,83738,67610,76992,59930,72211

Std. ErrorMean,07495,06812,07679,07581,07249,06971,06425,06538

t2,4621,1581,80

14,374

Sd258258

258258

P,015,248

,073,000

In this study, gender, teaching area,work experience, and graduated highereducation programm es are the variables.According to the findings, when aver-age scores are considered based on 0.05significance level, it can be concluded thatgenderisnot a significant factor regardingthe pardcipant teach ers evaluations of stu-dent-centered learning environments interms of the dim ensions.

According to the findings, when aver-age scores are considered based on 0.05significance level, it can be concluded thatteaching areaisa significant factor rega rd-ing the participant teachers evaluations ofthe dimensions of student-centered learn-

dimension, teaching area causes elemen-tary school teaching to receive higherscores.The two s tudent-centered learningmethods, concept checks and just-in-dm e

teaching were tested. While both of themethods were found to be valuable foractive participation ofth student in his orher education, just-in-time was perhapsmore effective as regards getting the stu-dent to prepare ahead of the next lectureand in the process getting better knowl-edge of the concerned topic (Slunt andGiancarlo, 2004).


15/19

Teachers'Evaluation... /63

Table 12.Teachers evatuations of student centered learning environments in terms of the work experienceWork Experience Psycho-social Equipm ent Place Time1-10MeanNStd.Deviation

3 520294,746313 274494,78055

3 327994,665603 449894,73913

11 20MeanNStd.Deviation3 531089122

3 344289,704493 42 389,62999

3 506389,6129521MeanNStd.Deviation

3 5952,78483

3.4637,89115

3 3224,92139

3 578277,75788TotalMeanNStd.Deviation

3 5458260,739593 3537260 3 3585260,73634

3 5067260,70257

The Variance Analysis result based onthe scores participant teachers' received inthe Scale on Student-centered Learning

Environm ents shows that there is no rela-donship between learning dimensions andwork experience (See Table 13).Table 13.Teachers evaluationsof student centered learningenvironmentsin term s of the workexperienceGraduated Higher Psycho -Education Programm es social Equipment PlaceEducation Faculty

Mean 3 5670 3 4222 3 4064N 110 110 110

Std.Deviation ,77942 ,78746 ,67089

Time

3 5056110,74739

Science and LettersMeanN

Std.DeviationOthers

MeanN

Std.DeviationTotal

Mean

3 517350,66423

3 5365100,73802

3 5458

3 214350,71465

3.3473100,82768

3 3537

3 239650,66858

3 3646100,83411

3 3585

3 436450,62619

3 5432100,69279

3 5067


16/19

64 / Education Voi 133 No 1

The V ariance Analysis result based onthe scores participant teachers' received inthe Scale on Student-centered LearningEnvironm ents shows that there is no rela-tionship between learning dimensions ahdthe programmes they graduated from. onclusions and DiscussionThe fol lowing conclus ions can bedrawn from the findings of the study: Itcan be observed that the scores participantteachers received from the Scale on Stu-dent-centered Learning Environmentsshows an average score of3.43. This cor-respondstothe label of frequently , whichreflects the participa nts' evaluation of theextent to which their classes possess fea-tures of student-centered learning.

It can be concluded that teachers' eval-uat ions of s tudent-centered learningenvironmen ts do not show any significantdifferences based on different variables;namely gender, work exp erience, teachingarea and graduated higher education pro-gramme.Teachers, when asked to evaluate thedimensions of student-centered learningenvironments, they have given the highest

score in psycho-social dimension, followedby time, infrastructure/equipment and placedimensions.Teachers' evaluations of student-cen-tered learning environmen ts in relation todifferent variables highlight that teachingarea is an effective factor putting elemen-tary school teaching at an advantage interms of scores.The evaluations of the participant teach-ers regarding different dimensions of

Student-centered learning environmentsevolved as result of changing beliefs andassumptions related to the role of individ-ual in learning. Based on the results of thestudy, following suggestions can be m ade.Student ownership for their goals and activ-ities is essential for a student-centeredapproach. Because students make deci-sions about their work and take actions tomeet their goals that are meaningful tothem, which in turn encourages indepthunderstanding and intrinsic motivationalorientation. Teachers, while determiningon educational models and approaches intheir teaching-learning process, shouldensure that they allow students to learn ontheirown.Within the school and class con-text, teachers should allocate time foractivities that increase student-centeredlearning, individual and social activitieslike extra-curricular activits, student clubactivities. Teachers should be offeredopportunities of in-service training so thatthey can improve their skills, gain know l-edge about student-centered learning w ithrespect to their teaching areas and theyshould maintain the sustainability for fol-lowing improvements and implementingthese improvements.


17/19


ReferencesAcat, M. B. (2005.) grenci merkezli egitimdegrenme ortami boyutlarinin diizenlenmesi.[Organizing learning envirotiment dimensionsin student-centered education], V. UluslararasiEgitim Teknolojileri Sempozyumu, Sakarya,Turkey.Acat, M. B. (2006). grenci merkezli egitimdegrenme ortami boyutlari ve bunlaridegerlendirmeye ynelik lcek gelitirme al-ismasi. [Questionnaire on student cen teredlearning environments QSCL E)]6th Intema-tional Educational Technology Conference,Eastern Mediterranean University, Ktbns.Brge, E. J. (1988). Gender in distance education.In: CC. Gibson, Editor, Distance learners inhigher education.Madison, WI: Atwood Pub-lishing,Churchill, D. (2006). teachers ' private theoriesand their design of technology-based learning(EJ736364). British Journal of EducationalTechnology,57(4) 559-576.Dabbagh, N . Kitsantas, A. (2004). Supportingself-regulation in student-centered web-basedlearning environments (EJ723806). AnastasiaInternational journal on E-Leaming, 3 1)4 0-47.Hannafin, M.J. (1992). Emerging technologies,ISD and learning environments: Critical per-spectives.Educational Technology Researchand Development, 40 1).49-63.Hannafin, M.J., Hall, C , Land, S. M . Hill, J. R.

(1994). Learning in open ended environments:Assumptions, methods and implications.Edu-cational Technology, 34 8),48-55.Hannafm M.J. and Land S.M. (1997). The foun-dations and assumptions of technologyenhanced student-centered learning environ-ments.Instructional Science 25 3), 167-202.Hirumi, A . (2002). Student-centered, technology-rich learning environments (SCENTRLE):Operationalizing constructivist approaches toteaching and learning (EJ666533). Journal ofTechnology and Teacher Education, 10 4)497-537.

iman, A. (2003). gretim teknolojileri vemateryal gelitirme. [Teaching technologiesand material development].Istanbul: Degiim.

Jonassen, D.H. (200 0). Revisiting activity theoryas a framework for designing student-centeredlearning environments. In D.H. JonassenS.M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations oflearning environments(pp. 89-121). Mahwah,New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum A ssociates.Judson, E. (2006). How teacher integrate technol-ogy and their beliefs about learning: Is there aconnection? (EJ729639). Journal of Technol-ogy and Teacher Education, 14 3),581-597.Kili, A. (2010). Learner-centered micro teachingin teacher education. International Journal ofInstruction, 5(1), 77-100.Land, S. M . Hannafm , M. J. (1996 ). Student-centered learning environments: Fotindations,assumptions and implications. ED 397 810.vtfww.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/recordPetail?accno=ED397810Lont, D. (1999). Using an intranet to facilitatelearner-centered learning.Journal of Account-ing Education, 17 2-3),293-320.Means, B. (1994). Introduction: Using technologyto advance educational goals. In: B. Means,Editor,Techn ology and education reform: Thereality b ehind the promise, (p p 1-21 . SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.Senemoglu, N. (1997).Geli^im, grenme ve gre-tim: Kuramdan uygulamaya [Progress,learning and teaching, -om theory to p ractice].

Ankara: Spot Matbaacilik.Slunt, K. M. Giancarlo, L. C. (2004). Student-centered learning: A comparison of twodifferent methods of instruction (EJ717219).Journal of Chemical Education, 81 1),985.Smeets, Ed. M ooij, T. (2001). Pupil-centedlearning, ICT, and teacher behaviour: Obser-vations in educational practice. (EJ635530).British Journal of Educational Technology,52(4), 403-17.


18/19

66 /Ed uca t ion Vol 133 No 1

imsek, A. (2004). Yapici grenme kuram ina greegitimde program gelitirme. [Program devel-opment in education based on the concept ofconstructive learning]. VI. Uluslar ArastEgitim Teknolojileri Sempozyumu, Sakarya,1330-1344.

Unver, G. Dem irel, O. (2004). gretmen aday-larinin grenci merkezli ogretimi planlamabecerilerini gelitirme zerine bir aratirma.[A research on developing student teachers'planning abilities in student-centered teach-ing]. Hacettepe niversitesi Egitim FakltesiDergisi,26, 188-195.W alczyk, J. J. Ram sey, L. L. (2003). Use oflearner-centered instruction in college scienceand mathematics classrooms (EJ675416).Journal o f Research in Science Teaching,40 6),566-84.

Yaar, S. (1998). Yapisalci kuram ve grenmegretme sreci. [The concept of constructivismand teaching-learning process].Ulusal EgitimBilimleri Kongresi, [National Education Sci-ences Congress], (pp.695-700), Konya, Selukniversitesi.


19/19

Copyright of Education is the property of Project Innovation, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed

to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,

users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

student-centered learning environments

Documents