Student-centered teaching in higher education and the teaching of literature

Marjela Progni-Peci

Student-centered teaching in higher education and the teaching of literature 

Traditionally, literature teaching in higher education has been characterized by lectures and textual analysis. These lectures are typically structured around a professor- centered approach, where the professor delivers specific content related to the course, while students take on a more passive role, expected to listen, take notes, and absorb the material. Since, during this process the professor typically dictates the pace, topics, and structure of the course, students have limited opportunities to share their interpretations, offer suggestions or explore different perspective. In other words, while this approach effectively delivers knowledge of the literary canon, it does not provide students with opportunities to develop critical thinking, engage in creative expression, or conduct independent scholarly research. Teacher-centered teaching is characterized by a learning environment where students tend to passively absorb information without having the opportunity to actively engage in the learning process.

On the other hand, student-centered teaching that shifts the focus from the professor to the student remains an underutilized practice during lectures. This approach emphasizes active student participation in the learning process, encouraging critical thinking and fostering students' abilities to learn and study independently. Through this model, students are more dynamically engaged in the educational process, increasing the probability of effective learning. The effects and benefits of this method have been studied by numerous educational theorists, who have analyzed its impact on enhancing the acquisition of knowledge and development of academic skills.

The principle of individualized learning

The need to approach students individually in learning, adapting to their psycho-physical abilities has contributed to the consolidation of the principle of individualized learning within the educational process. According to Brada (2008), this principle, requires a positive differentiation of students in the learning process. This differentiation aims to create the necessary didactic conditions and circumstances for the individualized treatment of each student. Brada argues that traditional teacher-centered teaching implements negative differentiation by dehumanizing the learning process. It favors average students, hindering the progress of those who struggle and limiting opportunities for bright and talented students to advance further. This occurs because students are required to acquire the same content in terms of volume, depth, and complexity, regardless of their psycho-physical capabilities. Brada (2008) notes that in traditional learning students who lag behind are burdened beyond their capacity, while those who are smart and talented fail to fully develop their abilities. On the other hand, the individualization of learning establishes requirements and outlines the directions for adapting the extensive and intensive aspects of learning content, teaching techniques and technology, as well as the pace and rhythm of work and progress. It also involves the control and evaluation of each student based on their psycho-physical capabilities with the aim to develop these capabilities to the fullest possible extent.

This principle raises several issues reflected in theories such as Maslow's (2013) who emphasizes that students' ability and motivation to learn are closely linked to their basic needs, including  physical and psychological needs. In other words, high-level results cannot be achieved when students' needs for security, belonging, self-esteem, and other factors are not met. Differentiated learning and individualization help students feel supported and motivated, therefore Maslow emphasizes the importance of recognizing individuals as whole beings with diverse needs and concerns, implying that teaching sessions must be sensitive to the human nature of students in order to make it possible for them to advance more easily to higher levels of learning and in this context, each individual is given the opportunity to achieve their full potential. 

From the students' perspective, this approach is also considered necessary. According to a study (Baker, 2003) organized by Inside Higher Education which included 3004 second- and fourth-year students from various colleges, more than half reported struggling with a teaching style that didn’t work for them. This highlights the importance for teachers to commit to the principle of individualized learning, in order to achieve the most satisfactory results with all students, regardless of their academic level, by adapting to their psycho-physical abilities. In the study of literature, this approach is particularly applicable due to the nature of its object of study and subject matter. Once students have established a robust theoretical-methodological foundation, ensuring their interpretations are grounded in solid arguments, and considering that literature fosters critical thinking, personal interpretation, emotional engagement, and more, teachers are presented with the opportunity to implement the principle of individualized learning, allowing them to emphasize each student’s strengths without compelling them to conform to standardized teaching and learning frameworks. 

Constructivism theory

Teaching is divided into three theoretical levels (Biggs & Tang, 2011), which reflect how teachers conceptualize the learning process. The first level emphasizes teaching as a process of knowledge transmitting, with the teacher being the central focus throughout this process. The teacher is the sole source of knowledge, while students remain passive recipients of information. The success of this teaching process is measured by the teacher’s performance in imparting knowledge, without considering whether the students have deeply understood the material. The second level, which centers on teaching as a student activity, focuses on engaging students during the teaching process by encouraging them to be actively involved in the learning process, allowing them to develop their understanding through their own activity. In this case, the teacher, assumes the role of a facilitator, assisting students in constructing new knowledge through their perception and prior knowledge. The third level views teaching as a facilitation of learning, with its primary focus on constructive alignment. Therefore, the learning process at this level does not regard the teacher merely as a transmitter of information (level 1) or a as facilitator of student’s activity (level 2), but rather as a thoughtful architect of the entire learning process. Grounded in the concept of constructive alignment, this approach emphasizes that aspects of teaching must be adapted to align with the intended learning objectives. The constructivist alignment framework promotes student-centered learning. Since learning is an active process, constructivist learning theory is based on learning through students' prior experience and cognitive structures. The concept of constructive alignment emphasizes the necessity of designing all course elements to be interconnected and mutually supportive. When objectives, activities, and assessment are appropriately adapted, learning becomes more deeper, more meaningful, and, most importantly, more natural. This is achieved by fostering students' independent thinking and analytical skills through methods that facilitate knowledge construction based on their prior "schemas"- that is, students build new knowledge by connecting new concepts with their existing experiences and understanding. In higher education, the learning process that is organized according to constructivist principles offers an authentic approach to supporting students in the study of literature. The study of literature involves not only the accumulation of information about authors, works, literary periods, and so on, but also a critical, analytical, and interpretive engagement with texts. The application of constructivist learning theory aids students in constructing their own understanding through active engagement with educational material. In this context, intended learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities, and assessment should be interconnected to encourage students to not only develop knowledge of literature but also to cultivate skills such as critical thinking, argumentation, and academic interpretation through interactions, exploration, and continuous knowledge construction. For example, intended learning outcomes may include helping students develop skills to interpret and analyze literary texts critically, to connect literary works to historical, cultural, philosophical, etc. contexts, to conduct textual, theoretical, comparative analysis, etc.

In this context, activities should be aligned with the intended learning outcomes. For example, students should be encouraged to read in depth and reflect on the text by exploring its subtext, figurative language, form and the connections between ideas within a work, as well as its relationship with other literature works, various contexts within and beyond the field of literature. Teacher-led discussions can be conducted to encourage students to share their perspectives with one and other. Comparative analyses of texts can be organized in order to identify universal themes, influences between authors or periods, etc. Literary theories can be taught through concrete analyses, for example, by interpreting a text from different perspectives, such as formalism, post-structuralism, and others. Students can engage in individual research based on academic sources while developing original arguments, or they can be assignet creative projects.

Assessment according to constructivist theory aims not only to measure what a student knows, but also how he uses and applies knowledge in certain contexts. For example, instead of relying on traditional assessments that primarily measure students' ability to reproduce information, alternative forms can be employed, such as writing critical argumentative essays based on specific literary texts or theories, or assigning research projects on particular topics that are grounded in academic references but presented through the students' own original perspectives.

It is important to note that Biggs and Tang’s theory is not an isolated framework; rather, it is part of a broader intellectual tradition, situated within the context of earlier theoretical developments. Earlier, theorists such as Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, and Asubel laid the foundations of constructivism, positing that learning occurs through active interaction. Piaget (1952) emphasizes that active interaction with the environment along with the development of knowledge through assimilation and accommodation allows learners to gradually build their understanding rather than merely absorbing it. In another approach, Vygotsky's (1978) theory is based on the importance of social interaction in learning, introducing the concept of the Zone of Proximal Development. This concept highlights that students achieve better learning outcomes when guided by a more capable teacher or peer. In other words, he asserts that knowledge is constructed through communication and collaboration. Bruner (1960) develops the Spiral Curriculum theory, which suggest that students achieve better learning outcomes when they discover information themselves, encouraging experimentation and active knowledge construction. On the other hand, the theory developed by Asubel (1968), presents arguments that connects the effectiveness of learning to prior existing knowledge. By criticizing rote learning, it emphasizes meaningful learning, asserting that understanding is constructed through pre-existing cognitive knowledge frameworks. 

Similarly, following the development and expansion of constructivist theory, additional theoretical contributions such as Merrill's instructional design theory or the revision of Bloom's taxonomy continued to refine, adapt and further enrich constructivist approaches in higher education. Merrill (2002) proposes a set of key principles (problem-centered learning, activation, demonstration, application, integration) of learning that emphasize the practical application of knowledge highlighting the importance of learning through real-world contexts. Bloom (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001), on the other hand, outlines a hierarchy of cognitive processes (memory, comprehension, application, analysis, evaluation, creation) emphasizing the importance of foster higher-order thinking through analysis, synthesis, and the generation of new knowledge. In this context, it can be said that many of the constructivist theories on which the theory of constructive alignment is based were already well-established. However, the contribution of Biggs and Tang lies in the fact that they channel the constructivist theory of learning into the design of curricula by focusing on the synchronization of learning objectives, teaching methods and assessment. Most importantly, Biggs and Tang developed this theory specifically for higher education, tailoring it to the unique needs of university-level teaching. They applied their model directly to curriculum design and assessment practices, emphasizing an outcome based approach that aligns with constructivist principles. Their focus on ensuring that learning objectives, teaching methods and assessments are closely synchronized allows for a more cohesive and effective learning experience in the university setting.

References

Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and 

assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Baker, P. (2023, September). The power of student-centered learning: How listening to students can improve Higher Education.

Retrieved from: https://www.everylearnereverywhere.org/blog/the-power-of-student-centered-learning-how-listening-to-students-can-improve-higher-education/

.                                                                   

Biggs, J.,& Tang, C (2011). Teaching for quality learning in higher education (4th ed.). 

McGraw-Hill Education.

Brada, R. (2008). Didaktika kibernetike: Teoria dhe praktika e mësimit bashkëkohor. 

Universiteti AAB.

Bruner, J. S. (1960). The Process of education. Harvard University Press.

Maslow, A. H. (2013). A theory of human motivation (Original work published 1943). Martino 

Fine Books.

Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational Technology Research and 

Development, 50 (3), 4-59.

Piaget, J. (1952). The origin of the intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). International 

Universities Press. (Original work published 1936)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. 

Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.