以学生为中心的教育:一种最残酷的理念

瑞贝卡·瓦尼克(Rebekah Wanic)和尼娜·鲍威尔(Nina Powell)认为,把学生满意度置于目标之上的善意举措,剥夺了学生获得丰富学习体验的机会,而这恰恰是大学教育的初衷

四月 28, 2022
Girl sitting on large ball in shape of planet with other ball looking planets to illustrate Give students the ed ucation they deserve
Source: Getty (edited)

点击阅读英文原文


以学生为中心的学习旨在促进一个更具包容性的环境,并使课堂民主化。这是一个宽泛的理念,但其基本原则是相信教育应该包含学生和教育者之间的伙伴关系。此外,它提倡教育应该因材施教,课程设计和结构都应该基于每个学生的个性化学习偏好。

这种方法越来越被誉为高等教育的黄金标准,并且表面上看来是善意的。它体现了这样一种理念:应该让尽量多的人获得教育,它是社会流动和通往理想职业的途径。我们对这种观点没有异议。如果考虑到授课中提供个性化教育的约束(如班级规模),以学生为中心的学习确实有一些价值。当学生的目标与为学生的长期成长、发展、思维和公民教育提供最好的机会这一教育目标一致时,其价值更甚。但这些条件在当今市场化的大众高等教育中较难得到满足。

许多人会认为,科技和在线学习为个性化问题提供了解决方案,让学生能够利用异步内容或根据既往错误进行调整的动态测试来自我调整进度。然而,这样的希望往往被学生们实际上如何利用这些内容的混乱现实所掩盖。至于教育目标的问题,高校实际上已经放弃告诉学生什么才对他们好了。在以学生为中心的学习模式转变的推动下,学生满意度被广泛认为是教育成功的重要指标。但这对大学生是一种伤害,因为学生满意度和真正的教育目标没有必然的联系。

以教学评估为例。学生们对考试感到很有压力,所以我们被告知要减少考试的次数。学生也不喜欢阅读,所以我们被要求布置更简单、更短的阅读。学生们很难集中注意力,所以我们被告知要把课程分成小块,并在其间穿插一些活动。学生喜欢媒体内容,并乐于使用YouTube和社交媒体,因此我们被告知要加入更多视频,使课程材料和评估更具创造性和互动性。有些学生不喜欢在课堂上发言,所以我们被告知要确保有各种各样的方式让学生不必实际发言就能参与。

这种善意的教育举措——加上分数膨胀、灵活的截止日期、暖心的反馈语言——剥夺了学生获得大学建立之初所谋求的那种教育体验的机会。这些举措欺骗学生,只满足他们眼前的需求和感受,而忽视了他们羽化的潜力、推断的能力,以及在毕业时成为比入学时更好的人这一基本需求。以学生为中心的思维模式导致了课程的低能化,并不断给教育者施加激励学生的压力,而不是给学生施加压力,让他们对自己的成功和失败负起责任。这是因为它似乎在很大程度上没有对大学教育的目的提出原则性的质疑。

Two people falling off flat planet to illustrate you can't have it all
Source: 
Getty (edited)

其结果是,以学生为中心的教育使本科生处于一种不断忙碌的状态,但同时也不断担心这些低风险努力的价值。学生完成越来越多简单直接的任务——表格、研究项目、小测试等等,但没有机会思考他们在做什么或学什么。他们缺乏动力也就不足为奇了:他们缺乏一种肯定自己生活的自豪感,这种自豪感来自于取得真正有意义的成就,建立在努力工作的基础上。此外,如果对他们的成果没有批判性的反馈,学生们就不会得到改进所需的必要指导。从这个意义上说,迎合学生只会让他们停滞不前。

具有变革意义的教育经历应该是大学教育的重点。学生应该得到挑战的机会,这样他们才能培养必要的精神力量和性格,以迎接在毕业后的更高层次的生活中不可避免的各种挑战。这样的力量也将是他们有潜力超越所处的个人和社会环境,追求自己想要的生活。

如果我们认为,降低课程对智力和情感的要求就等于让教育变得容易接受,那是一个残酷的假设。我们实际上是在说,大学生缺乏必要的能力,无法承受对智力和情感要求很高的教育。学生应该被认真对待,被视为有能力的人——无论是提升自我的能力,还是找到应对一时的不开心的能力。

以学生为中心的教育的伪装本质上也是不诚实的。它告诉学生,他们有独特的技能和天赋,而这些技能和天赋经常被夸大成“赋予”了他们的个性。然而,除非你花钱请家教,否则在线教育是几个人,甚至上百人一同进行的。此外,在高等教育大众化的时代,师生比正在下降,而不是上升。一个教育者不可能根据每个学生的需要和偏好来调整课程或者评估。

他们也不应该这么做。认为每个学生都应该被视为独特的,并为其提供个性化的待遇,将无法推动他们形成一种更健康的心态,将自我与环境联系起来。具体来说,如果大学教育的一部分是让学生为大学毕业后的生活做准备,他们必须开始认识到,他们的独特之处都处于同一个环境中,这要求他们自我调整来适应环境,而不是让环境适应自己。

我们不应该告诉学生,他们所面临的问题将被周遭的人解决,这些人会意识到并迎合他们的需求。这样做剥夺了个人的主动性,并导致一种权力感——而这种权力感普遍会招致雇主、合伙人、家人、朋友或同事的反感。我们应该通过促进自我效能和自我调节来鼓励学生,而不是培养一种因期望导致被动性和受负面影响的社会生活方式。

此外,推动以学生为中心的教育的人希望在课堂上将学生和老师平等看待。这样,在决定课程内容时,学生的个人愿望应与教育者的专业知识得到同等的重视。虽然这一理念旨在通过消除所有特权的声音来促进包容性,但这种误导性的民主化再次伤害了学生。学生需要重视和尊重积累的知识,而传授这些知识不会导致在课堂上滥用权力。生活中总会有权力分配不平等的情况,但这并不一定意味着发生了不公正的事情。然而,现在许多教育工作者遇到的学生,在观点受到争论或者论文被修改时,会感到被侮辱、被冒犯或受到威胁。

同样,将“既往经验”作为处理信息的正确视角意味着,在课堂话语中,主观观点与事实会得到与既定理论一样、甚至更大的重视。推动学生超越自己狭隘的观点被视为对他们的批判,而不是旨在促进批判性评价的智力练习。

我们并不是说学生不应该有机会去质疑他们正在学习的东西,或不同意老师的意见。事实上,我们鼓励这样做。但当学生们敞开心胸去了解他们的观点可能是错误的,而其他有多年经验的人可能比作为新手的他们知道得更多,这才是最有益的。

认真对待学生就是不要迎合他们的自我,或者更糟糕的是,为了得到他们的认可或害怕他们的抱怨而虚伪地奉承他们。认真对待他们意味着他们有能力接受关于自己的局限性的真实反馈,并努力看到他们的改善。

他们必须被教导如何适当而有效地就争议话题进行辩论,如何与他们不同意的人交流,如何克服自己的观点被挑战所带来的不适。参与到社会中有时需要个人向更大的群体性目标妥协,并认识到自己的独特地位可能并不总是会得到他人的支持。问题是,学生对自己的独特性和价值的假设没有受到挑战,他们将无法在需要这种认识的环境中做出适当的反应。

当教育工作者不再能帮助学生培养对公民身份的理解和对专业知识的尊重时,我们都是输家。当建筑师的教授被告知不能纠正学生的错误,有谁愿意住在这样的人设计的高层建筑里?如果一个医生认为最好的医学院是为学生提供最轻的课业负担的学院,有谁会想从这个人那里得到医疗护理?

越来越多的企业都在承受着这样的新员工:他们不想做入门级的工作,觉得任何负面反馈都是侮辱,不尊重辛勤工作需要的层次结构,也不尊重有长年工作经验的人的知识。同样,管理培训越来越成为一种培养管理员工自尊技能的训练,而不是通过挑战培养员工。这些情况之所以存在,是因为大学没能做好自己的工作,为学生提供高要求的教育,培养自我激励和冒险精神。

如果教育工作者的专业知识和指导不是必需的,学生们应当可以利用现有的各种资源(而不只是读书)自学。与其担心混淆教师和学生之间的权力动态,我们应该承认教育工作者的实践所需要的经验、知识和视角。我们应该让学生在持续自我成长的道路上接受失败,直面个人缺点,重视通过努力克服困难而获得的长期收益。

同样重要的是要认识到,向以学生为中心的教育的转变,在一定程度上不是由促进包容性的愿望本身推动的,而是为了掩盖仅仅让学生完成大学学习这一愿望。毕业(而非教育)是无数“按学位付费”的高校所谋求的客户成果。这些高校为之竞争的学生们追求大学教育的动机仅仅是一种观念:大学教育哪怕对初级工作都是必需的,更别说在晋升中的重要性了。这种由雇主和大学共同倡导的观念,使学生们把高等教育看作一件苦差事,认为这是通往其他职业道路上的一块绊脚石或一个待办事项。他们不愿意投入必要的工作,而是想要通向认可的捷径。

当学生的行为和目标与作为变革性教育基础的学习所必需的东西发生冲突时,向教育者而非学生寻求指导就显得尤为重要。即使学生有正确的教育目标,期望他们知道如何设计和构建课程、教学大纲和评估,说好听些也是目光短浅的。在最坏的情况下,这是残忍的。除了对学科的深入了解,大多数大学教育者还拥有多年开发有效教育的教学技术和经验。期望学生对自己的教育经历应该如何构成有更多或更准确的认知,这一打算是不合适的。

当我们采用以学生为中心的教育理念时,不管我们的本意有多好,都是在欺骗学生。我们不但没有成功地赋予他们能力,反而未能使他们具备应对大学毕业后生活中必然降临的挑战的技能。当我们看到这些后果但选择袖手旁观时,就是在延续这种残酷。

相反,我们应该尊重学生的潜力,让他们获得严谨的大学经历所能提供的转变。只有这样,我们才能声称是在以学生为中心:通过为学生提供他们应得的教育。

瑞贝卡·瓦尼克和尼娜·鲍威尔都是新加坡国立大学(National University of Singapore)心理学系高级讲师,鲍威尔博士也是该系负责本科学习的副主任。

本文由陆子惠为泰晤士高等教育翻译。

后记

Print headline: Give students the education they deserve

请先注册再继续

为何要注册?

  • 注册是免费的,而且十分便捷
  • 注册成功后,您每月可免费阅读3篇文章
  • 订阅我们的邮件
注册
Please 登录 or 注册 to read this article.

相关文章

Reader's comments (27)

What a great article, it encapsulates the reasons for increasing frustration amongst staff and the ongoing issues with graduate quality. I am so glad that someone has written this coherently because sometimes I think that I feel the same way just because I am a grumpy staff member near retirement. It is refreshing to see that this is not completely the case!
An absolutely excellent article, expressing in eloquent and indisputable terms, what I and others have been saying for years. Sadly I think university bosses are unlikely to respond appropriately.
This is the best analysis I have read of this pernicious HR-inspired nonsense. The problem is: the idea of student-centred learning sounds so good and so worthy, that arguing against it makes it seem like you are some old bore wanting to go back to the bad old days. This article convincingly makes the case against student-centred learning that most of us has thought about, but haven't really articulated properly. Thank you!
I agree, an excellent article which shines a light upon the latest fad in higher education. It devalues the professionalism and extremely long education and training of academics to assume that students can meaningfully co-produce their education, if it is to genuinely be higher education. No other profession would do that and confidence in that profession would be seriously undermined if they tried. Professionals may offer choice – this treatment may be more effective but has greater side-effect risks, that treatment has a lower success rate but fewer side-effects… That is not the same as saying to the patient ‘what do you think is your medical diagnosis, how do you think I should treat you?’. An exaggeration, I know, but it is very frustrating that current HE fads are often driven by senior administrators who would be outraged at the equivalent devaluation of their jobs.
The problem started when we replaced grants with fees, in the name of rep;lacing a narrow meritocratic participation with a much wider bought'n'taught one. That gestated another issue, employers could then begin to replace on-job training (at their cost) with degrees (at employee cost). Why, for example, do we need degrees in Nursing? Many entry level jobs now demand a degree when they never did 30 years ago. Obviously if you have just incurred a 5 figure debt to get that degree you do want what you paid for. Sadly for students it's the 'Indian Well' issue - one farmer installs an electric pump and can get water much deeper when all his neighbours are in drought, but then everyone gets a pump and nobody is any better off, in fact they are all worse off as now no farmer can get water without the cost of a pump. A degree used to confer an advantage nbut now almost everyone has one it doesn;t, but not having one makes it a lot harder. About time the Govt encouraged employers to reinstate on job vocational training, and degrees were only relevant for more research-oriented posts again.
I agree completely with this well-argued and excellent piece!
This is a great article and relates directly to how I feel regarding teaching in HE. Certainly accommodating students to some extent is good practice, but the fact is that students should have to work for their degree and we should not be dumbing down content or assessments. Unfortunately some students will fail, but if assessments are provided based on the work expected to be undertaken in relation to reading and understanding, then the students should do well. I recently had a group of students who were so needy, I was concerned, not only about them, but also for my own health. Not a good situation and I am hoping that this is not a trend but a one cohort issue.
hear! hear! about time this was put forward in such a well-reasoned and clear manner.
Lots of massive assumptions and lack of rigour in using of educational terminology (I'm sorry but student-centred learning is NOT what you imply in this article, please read the literature). I am sympathetic with the argument that 'student experience should not be the sole driver of our teaching choices', but I fail to agree with the rest, and critically, so does the evidence and the vast literature out there. I am a fan of reducing exams in a programme (possibly not completely), but not because they are rigorous, rather because they are not aligned with authentic practice. I am a fan of improving how we word feedback, but not because we have to sugar coat it, rather because expert-centric feedback means little to a learner. And so on... Yes, we have to discontinue the "students as clients" mentality that the sector has installed. But it's not by going back to a lecture-obsessed, teacher-centric style that we will achieve this. To give an analogy: the current status of liberal democracies needs addressing quickly, but not by going back to absolute monarchies...
Great article, whether the practices being discussed are called student-centered learning, or something else. The main point is that students should be exposed to authoritative teaching that provides a certain amount of support but also demands that they take responsibility for themselves and learn to meet standards rather than expecting standards to be adjusted to make their academic lives easier. What is going on in higher education these days is akin to permissive parenting, which predictably unsatisfactory results. [See Bernstein, D.A. (2021). Teaching styles and troublesome students. Canadian Psychology, 62 (4), 367-376. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000279]
Sorry Gabriel, but I agree with this article and have been through several sessions of being taught how to teach in a student centred context . I look at the course design standards being pushed on us by the experts in student centred learning and the above article pretty much summarises what is recommended. And this student centred learning is usually trotted out by someone who thinks that the alternative that people are following is the 'sage on the stage' model or that we do not understand the 'digital native' (as if we do not have children). In reality I have yet to meet an academic who was not student centred in their approach, but it is the tools and approaches that are being pushed as 'student centred learning' that this article has correctly targeted. Student course evaluations determine promotion and in some cases jobs in the real world of a university. University administrators, in response to government pressures hassle us about 'retention rates' ie if we have failed them what are we doing wrong? Government funding only pays out fully when a student successfully completes, not on failed students. This leads to an argument that if students are not enjoying your class and are not passing then you are doing it wrong - you are not student centred in your approach. Hence student centred learning becomes synonymous with students being happy and successful, and the tools to help achieve this are largely the ones set out in the article. For example, online learning design standards to retain the interest and participation of students suggest not having more than a page of written material to reduce the need to scroll, use semi-conversational tone, and any video clips (which are encouraged) should be no longer than 10 minutes. Kahoots tests and self-checking tests are encouraged, but exams not so. I am in favour of exams because in my field you are expected to know certain information without needing to look it up and be able to apply knowledge to problem solve in tight, high-pressure timeframes without assistance - my exams are open book and mimic what is often required on the job, but do only comprise 40% of the course grade. To be fair, even 20 years ago we were being told to not write our comments in red ink as that would put students off, green or black was preferred, and that oral feedback must start with a complement (this is now also common practice at conferences). In the workforce, employers complain that graduates (not specifically ours) are unable to take notes because they are so used to having information given to them in a fashion that suits them (as a computer file or powerpoint or because they assume that 'someone' will have taken a recording or drawn the diagram- and this will be available to anyone who did not attend), that new graduates lack the ability to concentrate for long periods at a time (ie longer than an hour), and that they they stress out when their work is rewritten or rejected.
Before ditching the dirty water maybe we should look if we're not by any chance ditching the baby with it too. Is THIS really student-centred education, or a false interpretation of what it originally and fundamentally means? I totally agree with the damaging attitudes outlined above, but that is not my understanding of student-centred education. The authors propose we should think again what higher education is supposed to be about. I propose we should think again about how we define student-centred education before demolishing it. Maybe we're demolishing the wrong thing.
My point precisely!
A wonderful exposition of what many of us have thought, but have been unable to put into words nearly as effectively. Could not agree more.
My thought is what I always stated to new groups of students which was 'if there is no chance of failure there is no achievement or value in success'. Being a student centered educator, along with like minded colleagues, well before the term and concept was introduced let alone dominant, failure was not a common outcome since our demanding but supportive approach to education did indeed bring out the best in our students. So, if student centered means supportive, I am all for it. If it means pandering to individual wants and preferences, then it does everyone a disservice. As to the article, I think it makes many important points and, taking student centered to have the meaning attached to it by the authors, it makes an inarguable case against the concept and the practices associated with applying that meaning. For me though, providing a demanding education is student centered as it comes from caring about the individual student and their development. We cannot help and facilitate students' expanded behavioral and life choices by pandering.
A long overdue article. Students are there to be taught and to learn and not to direct what is taught or how it is taught. We do them an injustice by asking their opinion when they look to us, the academics, for guidance as well as learning.
Wanic and Powell highlight many of our current frustrations as professors. Rarely in my 25 years of teaching have I heard a student tell me: "I need a B+, I want a B+" as if I could deliver a mark on command. This term I had one of those, so the article hits a chord. I have to remind myself, that I only had one student out of the 100 I teach, which I know, is not as many as most of those who are leaving comments teach. I have the luxury to take students where they are when they arrive in my classes. They are all evaluated the same way, but I can propose more challenging assignments (topics) for those who are ready. I retain from the piece that we need to challenge our students. We should not treat them as fragile beings who can not take constructive criticisms. I do take the time to identify when they do something properly (faint praise they authors might say), I do it not to create the "sandwich effect" (good, bad, good comment) but because sometimes they don't even know they have instinctively done something well. I want them to think about the mechanisms of writing an essay. The article has succeeded in making me want to read their research. What type of experiments have they conducted to arrive at their conclusions? My question is not meant to dispute their findings. That I will be able to judge only after I read their work. It is possible that they can substantiate their claims. It is not because I do not have the same experience at my university that it does not exist somewhere else. And if other universities have dumbed down their curriculum with their own understanding of student-centred learning, we have to take note not to duplicate! Thank you for an excellent thought provoking piece.
Long overdue. No doubt it will be met with outrage and stereotyping of what 'traditional' educational was. That's really the point though -- can we agree to discuss what might be effective practice in HE beyond the allegiance to simple ideologies?
Although Gabriel makes a reasonable point, Hamish certainly has a University similar to mine that is pushing the agenda in the article. This may suggest that the pandering that is advocated isn't even an accurate representation of student-centred learning. Whether the interpretation is correct or not, the fact stands that this article and the comments illustrate that this is is going on it at least some universities, mine included. This combined with turning Higher Education into a business has resulted in preposterously low standards (in some, not all cases). I was relieved to see the article and to know that I'm not alone in thinking it is wrong to treat students as customers.
Really interesting, but also a demonstration of how nuanced language can raise significant challenges. I recognise and agree with a lot of the issues the authors raise, but these are not issues with student centred learning. I think the authors have a flawed working definition of student centred learning and so their meta-analysis is off the mark. One of the big challenges of student centred learning (at least as I understand it) is that it demands students to engage at a much deeper level than traditional didactic approaches. Far from dumbing down, the risk is that it becomes too challenging for students. What I think the authors are criticising is not student centred learning, but student centred learning done badly. If we respond to the burden that student centred learning places on students by acting to reduce that burden too far, then we will be dumbing down. But then we will have removed the student-centredness from the student centred learning.
Brilliant piece! Back to the days of 'tough love' I say. This is how we were taught in law school.
Very persuasive article, and yet. It would be more convincing if Nina and Rebekah offered some empirical evidence to support their views. Else, it is virtually impossible to fight those who remind us of not being student centered.
I agree that it would be nice to see some hard evidence, but my own observations (N = 1) are in full agreement with the authors' arguments. We do a disservice by (over)emphasizing the need to go to college in order to be successful in life. We do a disservice by pushing -implicitly or, quite often, explicitly - STEM over other disciplines. And we do a disservice by depriving students of an environment in which they will learn and develop both discipline- and transferable-skills, rather than simply perform.
I wonder what the authors mean with "emotionally demanding". If it is something along the lines "if you stress them, they will work better", it is simply untrue. I work badly under stress. My response to adrenaline seems to be mostly of the "flight" type, and believe me, you don't want to work with me when this happens, extremely frustrating experience. It was true when I was 20, it remains true now that I'm 30; the difference is that I'm now way better at articulating it, and at reducing the stress level so that I can use my brain properly. I understand that there are people who love being personally challenged and for whom this unleashes additional "brain power". Just, for me it does not. I don't think that one particular type of response to stress is necessary for academic or professional success. How is this love of challenge necessary, for instance, to obtain reliable results in an experiment, present these results, and engage into a constructive discussion over the next steps? Intellectually demanding - oh, yes, please, it's awesome. Emotionally demanding, as in: stamp on my nerves and shout "perform!" - no, thank you, I will go and find another teacher.
I agree wholeheartedly with this article: criticisms about whether the authors are really referring to student-centred teaching are largely irrelevant. I consider these arguments the 'No true Scotsman' fallacy. It is irrelevant whether the authors of this article are referring to what student centred instruction should be about - what is relevant is that these authors are pointing out how and what student centred education has been implemented.
Excellent article. Whether the "student centred learning" definition is agreed or not, my main takeaway generally, in terms of learning or the general student journey through university is the one about students needing to "take ownership of their own successs or failure". This is less and less evident as students do not seem to be engaging with the simplest of housekeeping tasks of university life, such as read your emails fully, all the way through and take the action requested. And when there is a negative consequence from their lack of engagement, there is an expectation that the University should be "flexible" and fix for them the impact generated by their lack of attention and action. This is combined with top down pressure to keep students and parents "satisfied" by hook or by crook, and the drawdown of staff time, effort, and stamina to constantly put in retrograde fixes for issues that were due to the students own lapse is soul crushing.
As other commentators have noted, I feel there are a few conflations here which are confusing what are in fact distinct arguments. Certainly, student-centred education (SCE) in its more cynical forms, i.e., admissions-speak, is something to be strongly resisted, especially when it comes down to offering a 'lite' version of business as usual. When, however, it is a theory of learning, or a critical perspective on the educational status quo, that's quite different, and will be implemented differently. There appears to be some slippage between these two ideas. There are other inconsistencies, for example, the authors say that SCE is impractical in the era of mass university education but then go straight on to say that it denies the full university experience to students - as if this had somehow remained in-tact despite the changes they themselves eluded to. At this point I have to ask what, or when, was this high point of the university experience (and what political conditions did it exist under)? University has always been and will always be a contested idea. It seemed to be quite contested within this article. On the one hand the authors say that education should be a transformative experience that makes the individual student reach beyond the confines of their narrow lives, on the other they imply that it should fit them to take their position within a hierarchical work place environment (personally, I would be quite pleased if my students rejected the sort deference presented here as characteristic of working life). The authors argue, fairly, that it is impossible to tailor the learning experience on large courses. Sure, but it is possible to alter the design of these courses to include elements of problem-oriented or inquiry-led learning models. These are long-standing, well established techniques, with reasonably solid evidence bases, which manage to synthesise lived experience with knowledge rich and discovery learning effectively. On the topic of experience, few student-centred educators would see their role as merely reinforcing the student's existing perspectives. Rather, lived experience offers a point of departure that helps build a certain level of engagement. In short, I strongly agree with the need to resist or at least strenuously defend the class room space from the arbitrary and often reactive edicts of senior management teams and so on, but that shouldn't mean resorting to a defence of a single, and largely apocryphal, model of academic life.