Lukiv's Educational Stew, Ingredient 2 of 5:
Student-Centered Approach: Is There Another way?

Dan Lukiv
M.Ed., English and Creative Writing
McNaughton Centre, Quesnel, BC, Canada
E-mail: lukivdan@shaw.ca

As a teacher, do you teach mathematics, language arts, or some other subject, or do you teach students? That might seem like an odd question. But doesn't the oddity really lie in our ignoring the students we teach in favor of what we are trying to teach them?

A teacher of the odd sort fails to see the needs of the students (Olsen, 2000, p. 6). As one teacher laments, "I was so busy teaching that I didn't have time for the kids." What a sad statement! (p. 6). How unfortunate for the teacher to focus on the external, the displays, books, and curriculum guides as their means of teaching. Relationships are ignored. "You start to plan your lessons sometimes not really thinking about who you are delivering it to, but just thinking about the delivery of the lesson. (p. 7).

The oddless teacher knows the student is no receptacle, and avoids the formalistic system of instruction. This system loves the full pitcher-empty cup method of teaching (Barman & Sutherland, 1995, p. 412). The child is the empty cup, the curriculum the water, and the teacher the one that pours--often through the lecture method (Patrick, 2000, p. 3).

The following anonymous story that regularly skips about the land of e-mails, whether true or not, describes a good lesson for teachers of the odd sort:

A Teacher's Story [Anonymous, n.d., e-mail]

There is a story of many years ago of an elementary teacher.

Her name was Mrs. Thompson.

And as she stood in front of her 5th grade class on the very first day of school, she told the children a lie. Like most teachers, she looked at her students and said that she loved them all the same. But that was impossible, because there in the front row, slumped in his seat, was a little boy named Teddy.

Mrs. Thompson had watched Teddy the year before and noticed that he didn't play well with the other children, that his clothes were messy and that he constantly needed a bath. And Teddy could be unpleasant. It got to the point where Mrs. Thompson would actually take delight in marking his papers with a broad red pen, making bold X's and then putting a big "F" at the top of his papers.

At the school where Mrs. Thompson taught, she was required to review each child's past records and she put Teddy's off until last. However, when she reviewed his file, she was in for a surprise.

Teddy's first grade teacher wrote, "Teddy is a bright child with a ready laugh. He does his work neatly and has good manners...he is a joy to be around."

His second grade teacher wrote, "Teddy is an excellent student, well-liked by his classmates, but he is troubled because his mother has a terminal illness and life at home must be a struggle."

His third grade teacher wrote, "His mother's death has been hard on him. He tries to do his best but his father doesn't show much interest and his home life will soon affect him if some steps aren't taken."

Teddy's fourth grade teacher wrote, "Teddy is withdrawn and doesn't show much interest in school. He doesn't have many friends and sometimes sleeps in class." By now, Mrs. Thompson realized the problem and she was ashamed of herself. She felt even worse when many students brought her Christmas presents, wrapped in beautiful ribbons and bright paper. Teddy's Present was clumsily wrapped in the heavy, brown paper that he got from a grocery bag. Mrs. Thompson took pains to open it in the middle of the other presents. Some of the children started to laugh when she found a rhinestone bracelet with some of the stones missing and a bottle that was one quarter full of perfume. She stifled the children's laughter when she exclaimed how pretty the bracelet was, putting it on, and dabbing some of the perfume on her wrist.

Teddy stayed after school that day just long enough to say, "Mrs. Thompson, today you smelled just like my Mom used to." After the children left she cried for at least an hour. On that very day, she quit teaching reading, and writing, and arithmetic. Instead, she began to teach children.

Mrs. Thompson paid particular attention to Teddy. As she worked with him, his mind seemed to come alive. The more she encouraged him, the faster he responded. By the end of the year, Teddy had become one of the smartest children in the class and, despite her lie that she would love all the children the same, Teddy had become one of her "teacher's pets." A year later, she found a note under her door, from Teddy, telling her that she was still the best teacher he'd ever had in his whole life.

Six years went by before she got another note from Teddy. He then wrote that he had finished high school, second in his class, and she was still the best teacher he ever had in his whole life.

Four years after that, she got another letter, saying that while things had been tough at times, he'd stayed in school, had stuck with it, and would soon graduate from college with the highest of honors. He assured Mrs. Thompson that she was still the best and favorite teacher he'd ever had in his whole life. Then four more years passed and yet another letter came. This time he explained that after he'd gotten his bachelor's degree, he'd decided to go a little further. The letter explained that she was still the best and favorite teacher he'd ever had. But now his name was a little longer. The letter was signed,

Theodore F. Stollard, M.D.

The story doesn't end there.

You see, there was yet another letter that spring.

Teddy said he'd met this girl and was going to be married. He explained that his father had died a couple of years ago and he was wondering if Mrs. Thompson might agree to sit in the place at the wedding that was usually reserved for the mother of the groom.

Of course, Mrs. Thompson, did. And guess what? She wore that bracelet, the one with several rhinestones missing. And she made sure she was wearing the perfume that Teddy remembered his mother wearing on their last Christmas together.

They hugged each other, and Teddy whispered in Mrs. Thompson's ear, "Thank you, Mrs. Thompson, for believing in me. Thank you so much for making me feel important and showing me that I could make a difference."

Mrs. Thompson, with tears in her eyes, whispered back. She said, "Teddy, you have it all wrong. You were the one who taught me that I could make a difference. I didn't know how to teach until I met you."

[You're welcome to stop reading for a minute or two.]

Mrs. Thompson learned to individualize her teaching, not of arithmetic, language arts, or other subjects, but of students. Literature about what works in secondary alternate education would shake her hand, affirming the success of student-centered teach ing that addresses students' socio-emotional and academic needs (see, e.g., Chalker, 1996; Fleming & Milburn, 2002; Fleming & Post, 2001; Fleming & Post, 2003; Glasser, 1977; Lukiv, 2001; Lukiv, 2002a; Lukiv, 2002b; Lukiv, 2003; Myll, 1988; Raptis & Flemi ng, 2001; Raptis & Fleming, 2002; Rogers, 1958; Tilsner, 2003; Wilde, 2000; Wilson & Fleming, 2002). Whether the language refers to individualized, client-centered, or student-centered teaching, or to matching "teaching styles to learning styles" (Wilson & Fleming, 2002, p. 11), the teaching outcome refers to a teacher who addresses a student's needs. As Carole, an experienced teacher, commented, " When I have to leave my plan and be flexible because of the kids' needs, that's when I feel like a teacher" (Olsen, 2000, p. 7).

The answer to the title of this essay, The Student-Centered Approach: Is There Another way? then, must be yes. There is the subject-based way, but it's odd. It forgets who the student really is.

The implication for the oddless teacher? Mrs. Thompson answers the question by her actions: She quit teaching reading, and writing, and arithmetic. Instead, she began to teach children. This point of view has many forerunners/supporters: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey, William Glasser. Her new paradigm has actually been around for a long time. Carl Rogers translated it into the client-centered approach. My advice to teachers who don't want to de-evolve into or simply be the odd sort to address the needs of individual learners (Kellough & Kellough, 1999, p. 47 and to develop humanity. Likely, a teacher's humanity and the rest of this essay applied will help him or her from de-evolving into or being the odd sort who teaches stuff but not children.

References

Barman, J., & Sutherland, N. (1995).

Royal Commission retrospective. In J. Barman,N. Sutherland, & J. D. Wilson (Eds.), Children, teachers, & schools: In the history of British Columbia (pp. 411-426). Calgary, AB: Detselig Enterprises.

 

Chalker, C. S. (1996).

Effective alternative education programs: Best practises from planning through evaluating. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.

 

Fleming, T. & Post, Y. (2001, Autumn).

Who drops out and why? Literature review. The Journal of Secondary Alternate Education, 1(1), 10-17.

 

Fleming, T., & Milburn, K. (2002, Winter).

Recapturing school leavers: Literature review. The Journal of Secondary Alternate Education, 1(2), 16-21.

 

Fleming, T., & Post, Y. (2003, Spring).

Drop-out prevention and recover: An inventory of select programs. The Journal of Secondary Alternate Education, 2(3), 32-40.

 

Glasser, W. (1977, April).

A new look at school failure and school success. Phi Delta Kappan, 597-602.

 

Kellough, R. D., & Kellough, N. G. (1999).

Chapter 2: middle school students. Middle school teaching: a guide to methods and resources (pp. 37-60). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merril Books.

 

Lukiv, D. (2001, Autumn).

Motivation from a humanistic point of view. The Journal of Secondary Alternate Education, 1(1), 29-35.

 

Lukiv, D. (2002a, Winter).

Direction for secondary alternate teachers: A content-review of The Journal of Secondary Alternate Education, Volume 1, Number 1 (Autumn 2001). The Journal of Secondary Alternate Education, 1(2), 44-50.

 

Lukiv, D. (2002b, Autumn).

A symposium on Aboriginal education. The Journal of Secondary Alternate Education, 2(1), 14-28.

 

Lukiv, D. (2003, Winter).

A career counselling symposium. Andrew Foran, 2(2), 25-48.

 

Myll, N. C. (1988).

The dropout prevention handbook. West Nyack, NY: Parker.

 

Olsen, M. (2000).

"Room for learning." Retrieved April 16, 2003 from the University of Alberta, Department of Education, Phenomenology Online Web site:
http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/po/articles/template.cfm?ID=304

 

Patrick, J. (2000).

"Grade two: 1952-1953." Unpublished manuscript.

 

Raptis, H., & Fleming, T. (2001, Autumn).

Alternative education models. The Journal of Secondary Alternate Education, 1(1), 3-9.

 

Raptis, H., & Fleming, T. (2002, Winter).

Prescriptions for teaching youth at risk: Literature review. The Journal of Secondary Alternate Education, 1(2), 3-15.

 

Rogers, C. R. (1958, September).

The characteristics of a helping relationship. Personnel and Guidance Journal [page numbers unavailable].

 

Tilsner, S. (2003, Winter).

Why students drop out of school [MEd thesis: Education Department, Gonzaga University, Spokane, WA]. The Journal of Secondary Alternate Education, 2(2), 3-20.

 

Wilde, S. (2000).

"The experience of pedagogical openness." Retrieved April 16, 2003 from the University of Alberta, Department of Education, Phenomenology Online Web site:
http://www.atl.ualberta.ca/po/articles/template.cfm?ID=417

 

Wilson, T., & Fleming, T. (2002, Summer).

Teaching Aboriginal Youth: Literature Review. The Journal of Secondary Alternate Education, 1(4), 3-16.

Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.

Page Viewed:   / Created: 25 August 2003 / Updated: --