Understanding student-centered learning in higher education:

Students’ and teachers’ perceptions, challenges, and cognitive gaps Student-centered learning
(SCL) is often understood differently by people, and the differences are even more salient in
higher education, where there are some very strong advocates and vocal critics. Theoretical
research on SCL in higher education often highlights five key aspects but these have not been
empirically scrutinized. Qualitative research with students and faculty from a large private
university in the Philippines shows that there are particular facets of SCL that faculty and
students eagerly subscribe to, particularly in terms of class engagement, skills building, and
having motivated students. However, they fail to readily question how assessments and power
relations between teachers and students are part of SCL. It suggests that SCL is viewed and
reduced to effective classroom practices that have little to do with more foundational aspects of
the teacher-student relationship and manifold possibilities for learning.

Introduction
With the rise of cognitive and learning sciences in recent years, there has been increasing interest
in determining how best to teach students and promote their learning (Sawyer, 2005). As
information becomes more readily available, competition more prominent and technology more
pervasive, learning itself becomes more important in order to participate in the present
knowledge economy. But the economy also becomes more complex since it is no longer just
about the accumulation of knowledge and information. Many education theorists and researchers
have tried to explore the best ways students learn, retain ideas, improve skills, and create
innovative projects, with the goal of improving engagement and instruction (Slavich &
Zimbardo, 2012). Student-centered learning (SCL) offers an umbrella term to describe efforts for
students to become actively engaged in their learning and for teachers to design and facilitate the
learning process (Hoidn, 2017). Often, SCL is understood in terms of classroom practices that
involve students experiencing, collaborating, testing, creating, and directing their own learning
(O’Neill & McMahon, 2005). There have been many variations, definitions and terms that relate
to SCL, and these have at times led to confusion. For example, active learning involves students
reading, writing, discussing, analyzing, evaluating, and creating to exercise higher-order thinking
skills (Ott, Carpenter, Hamilton, & LaCourse, 2018). On the other hand, collaborative learning
involves students working with their peers: students do not only participate in content and
knowledge-building but also learn skills in cooperation and communication (Ralston, Tretter, &
Kendall-Brown, 2017; Zheng, Yang, Cheng, & Huang, 2014). Experiential learning involves
students engaging in or reflecting on their personal experiences in order to abstract knowledge
and gain skills. This model usually involves four phases of concrete experience, reflection,
abstract conceptualization, and active experimentation (Konak, Clark, & Nasereddin, 2014;
Pugh, 2014). Problem-based learning involves instructors posing complex issues and problems
on groups of students, and helping them brainstorm, formulate, and structure their ideas. In the
process, students learn concepts and principles that are much broader than the specific problems
posed (Brassler & Dettmers, 2017; Gijbels, Dochy, Bossche, & Segers, 2005). These different
terms are closely related to student-centered learning, which emphasizes the centrality of the
students’ role in terms of practice, curriculum, and content (Lee & Hannafin, 2016). Given these
different terms, different people may also have different ideas about what truly constitutes SCL.
Although there are varying ways of understanding SCL, it is often contrasted with teacher-
centered learning (TCL) since the former is a constructivist approach that assumes that
construction of knowledge is shared with students actively involved. In contrast, the latter is an
approach where teachers share knowledge to their students who are thought of as passive
receivers of information (Kain, 2003). Some simplistically think of it as SCL involving active
learning techniques and collaborative pedagogical activities, and TCL including unidirectional
lectures and tests. However, SCL is not so much just about classroom practices since what it
provides is a perspective for the teacher-student-content relationship and environment. Seen in
this way, being student-centered does not mean forgoing lectures since different learning
outcomes will need their own appropriate pedagogical modes—at times necessarily inclusive of
lectures and didactic forms of teaching (Mascolo, 2009). Nonetheless, at the core of SCL is a
perspective of the teachers’ design of active and deep learning, and the students’ autonomy and
responsibility for learning (Arman, 2018; O’Neill & McMahon, 2005). In higher education, the
concept of SCL is more thoroughly problematized because of SCL’s misconceptions and
assumptions, teachers’ pedagogical preferences, and the practical feasibility of transitioning to a
SCL environment. First, some faculty question whether this pedagogical practice truly enhances
students’ sense of involvement given that it also assumes that learners are motivated and engaged
(Harju & Åkerblom, 2017). Relatedly, there are difficulties implementing SCL in ‘high power
distance’ societies where hierarchical relationships are more salient, like in Asia (Hong, 2011).
Yasmin and colleagues (2019) find that students’ cultural expectations of teachers as experts and
the submission to elders are of paramount importance. Second, lecturing is still the most
employed means of transmission of knowledge in higher education despite critiques like student
absenteeism and lack of engagement (Schmidt, Wagener, Smeets, Keemink, & van der Molen,
2015). Most professors still prefer this mode of instruction for a variety of reasons, including the
necessity of covering content, having large classes, introducing new information, and helping
students with difficult readings (Mazer & Hess, 2017). Lastly, both students and teachers talk
about the positive benefits of SCL but wanted the balance between teacher-directed and student-
centered approaches since students are anxious of pedagogical approaches that lack structures
and supports, and resources may not be present for SCL’s effective implementation (Lea,
Stephenson, & Troy, 2003).
Although opposition exists for SCL, it also has a number of champions. Gloria Brown Wright
(2011) and Maryellen Weimer (2013) have both written about key aspects of SCL in higher
education, and they outline five crucial aspects or “key changes to practice.” First, there must be
a balance of power with its being shared by both professor and student in terms of activities,
decision-making, and assigned roles. Second, the function of content is to contribute to the
learning process and acquisition of skills rather than just memorization of concepts. Third, the
role of the teacher shifts from being the sole knowledge source to being a guide, designer, and
facilitator of learning. Fourth, there is the assumption that the responsibility for learning rests on
independent and self-motivated students. Lastly, the purpose of evaluation is not only to generate
grades but also to be a means for students to learn, practice skills, and be given feedback.
Although good in theory, these five aspects of SCL in higher education need to be mapped out to
how teachers and students actually view SCL. The present research asks how higher education
faculty and students perceive and understand what is meant by student-centered learning. It
clarifies which of the five aspects people easily subscribe to and where the gaps are in the
definition of SCL. On the one hand, the research empirically tests out the five aspects Wright and
Weimer propose as shifts for SCL; it clarifies how people understand SCL and the activities
included in this approach. On the other hand, the research also shows opportunities for deeper
engagement and understanding of the SCL concept. One of the arguments in this research is that
SCL has often been reduced to a set of practices that engage students in class activities but its
potential as a perspective or worldview has not been fully realized. Thus, the present need is to
understand the current perceptions of SCL in order to see and rectify the lapses in people’s
understanding.

Data collection and analysis

Data for this research came from Sierra University, a large private Catholic university in Manila,
Philippines with more than 8000 undergraduate students. It provides professional education in
the natural and social sciences, arts, engineering, and management, and is most known for its
liberal arts education, which most students take through core courses in languages, philosophy,
theology, and social sciences. Majority of the students from the university are from more
privileged backgrounds, given the higher cost of tuition. Nonetheless, slightly more than 20
percent of the students are on some form of scholarship, which makes the population mixed. The
university’s name was also changed to protect its privacy.
To understand how faculty and students understand student-centered learning, the research team
interviewed 93 people: 52 undergraduate students and 41 faculty members. Given the many
departments and degree concentrations, the team tried to get as diverse a sample as possible. This
was done through purposive sampling of students and faculty from different departments in the
colleges of humanities, social and natural sciences, engineering, and management. In terms of
gender, there was parity for the composition of the undergraduates with 27 females and 25 males
interviewed. For the faculty, there were 16 females and 25 males interviewed.
The students and professors were invited to individual semi-structured interviews
and the questions focused on how they understand student-centered learning, innovative
and traditional practices in universities, challenges to implementation, and best ways for
learning concepts and skills. Although there were the five themes from Wright’s (2011)
journal article, we abstained from mentioning this so as not to influence people’s answers
on their views of SCL. After having the audio-recorded interviews, the individual
members of the research team transcribed their own interviews to obtain accurate
transcriptions. These transcriptions were then collated by the principal investigator and
discussed by the team to find common themes.
The team used abductive reasoning when coding the data. When doing this type
of data analysis, expected themes are coded from what is generally known from the
research literature and these are juxtaposed with unexpected themes that came from the interview
data (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). In this present research, the five aspects of SCL in higher
education was used as the expected themes while the unanticipated data were coded as new
themes that arose. Not all five aspects were equally highlighted in the interviews and there were
a number of new ideas that deviated or challenged the five aspects originally presented in
Weimer’s (2013) book. The flow diagram on Figure 1 shows how the present coding from the
interviews differed from Weimer’s original themes. Aside from the university name being
changed, the participants’ names were not mentioned to protect their privacy. This research was
approved by the university’s institutional review board.

Results
From the interviews with students and faculty of Sierra University, four general themes are
highlighted on their understanding of student-centered learning: (1) pedagogical engagement, (2)
relevance and skills-building, (3) student motivation and participation, and (4) practical
challenges for implementation. Although most of the themes are shared by both students and
instructors, subtle differences show between the two groups’ understanding of engagement,
relevant skills, and motivation.

Pedagogical engagement
When asked about their preliminary thoughts on what they consider part of student-centered
learning (SCL), most students and faculty refer to activities inside and outside classrooms that
try to engage students’ learning. They also clarify the place of lectures, technology, and output in
student-centered university environments.

Class activities
Most students’ ideas center on pedagogical practices that are interactive and engaging; these
include discussions, case studies, field lectures, debates, and class activities. Students talk about
how they need to feel involved in the process of learning and challenged by the activities the
instructor designs. In response to this desire for engagement, faculty members often think of SCL
in terms of interactive activities. A psychology faculty member thinks that a lot of students prefer
this because of how it caters to them individually, and so other instructors vary their teaching
styles with a panoply of activities including “lecture input, student activities and feedback,
individual seatwork, and groupwork.” Other faculty members also think that such variety in
activities is helpful for students who are easily bored and can have shortened attention spans.
An instructor of a management innovations class mentioned that she uses experiential learning
techniques, which is particularly useful for her classes on creativity. She said a student “needs to
experiment, to get himself or herself out there, to experience and express his or her ideas and
feelings.” Students also acknowledge the importance of experiential learning, and one even said
that this happens “when the teacher gives the students activities that will force them to
experiment, solve problems, and engage.” SCL does not mean, however, that students just want
experiential activities since they acknowledge differences between subjects. They see and
appreciate how professors in the humanities and social sciences encourage teacher-student
interactions through discourse and oral participation; those in the natural sciences prefer
laboratory work and experiments; while those in management emphasize more group work and
collaborative activities. These differences are important since teachers should also not feel that
SCL is just about class participation or experiential activities.

Lectures
Both students and faculty differentiate SCL from the traditional teacher-centered model. One
humanities junior stated, “The ‘teacher teaches, students sit down and listen’ type of class is very
old, boring and ineffective.” With faculty, a theme that comes across was their move from a
more teacher-centered lecture-based instruction to one where they slowly engage and discuss
with their students. A sociology professor said that he used to be very by-the-book but that it
changed when he asked himself, “Why would students come to class if what I’m giving them is
exactly what they can get without me?” Thus, this led to more interactive discussions with his
class. Although students and faculty differentiate between the teacher-centered and student-
centered models, a good number of them talk about the need to balance lectures and student
activities. An international relations sophomore said that the university and its faculty “should
discern which classes are appropriate for… an innovative style because not all classes can be
applicable.” This is further nuanced by one psychology student who mentioned how “traditional
education allows students to be more efficient at reciting and memorizing, however, it limits
their capability to be creative,” which is why it must be mixed in with ways of engaging
students.
Thus, SCL does not mean taking away the faculty’s important role as expert who
can and must lecture. When asked about the possibility that faculty’s role is simply to
facilitate the acquisition of knowledge, they said that it is not just about facilitating but
sharing from their expertise and breadth of knowledge. More than just teaching, they hope
to inspire students to have a sense of the profession or their scholarship, and this can
oftentimes only be done through lectures coming from one’s personal experience. A
history professor understands his role as providing students a sense of what historians do:
“My role is more to give the students a sense of how I do my work.” Through lectures,
experts are able to share about their passion, process, and perseverance in the profession.
Technology. Aside from the interactive engagement that happens in the classes,
some brought up the concept of technology being an element of SCL. Although students
talked about the need to use technology to maximize online and face-to-face interactions,
some did not find this to be sufficiently considered SCL. Interestingly, some students
even considered the use of slide presentations as traditional.
In contrast, there were a number of teachers who emphasized how they practice
SCL through the use of technology. One theology instructor mentioned how he facilitated
distance learning, scheduling of activities, and provision of outside-class work through
the use of a learning management system. Other faculty members also talked about their
use of slide presentations as helpful for SCL.
However, there were at least two professors who opined otherwise. A statistics
professor said, “When you write down the formulas and then the solutions, I still feel that
it makes a better impact rather than when you flash, you just flash everything in one
slide.” In this way, he thinks that greater learning happens as students go through the
motion of writing. Similarly, a communications professor talked about how not using
technology can sometimes be more innovative since students are so connected already
that it is so novel when they are disconnected from their computers.
Output. It is interesting that only a handful of students and faculty mentioned the
role of outputs and assessments in the SCL environments. Only one student hinted at the
use of assessments for learning when a general studies major said that she would prefer
to receive constructive criticism for the assignments they are given. Most students still
think that exams and quizzes are only their grades at the end of the semester.
For the university instructors, only two talked about the output of students. One
was a visual arts instructor who asks her students to show how they applied their acquired
skills on a creative output while the other was a philosophy professor who talked about
requiring students to create outlines and have final oral exams. In both cases, nothing was
mentioned about the role of assessments as tools for deeper learning; assessments are still
often seen as a reflection of what was learned from the course.
Relevance and skills-building
Aside from the manner of instruction, students and faculty also think of SCL in terms of
the content, relevance, and skills being fostered in the courses. Students look not only for
learning new knowledge but having skills that are relevant to their future work or have
real-world applications. On the other hand, faculty members are keen on teaching students
professional, critical thinking, and life skills that span more than just the future economic
opportunities for the students.
In terms of content, students are interested in content that provide them with skills
relevant to current and future contexts. Two environmental science seniors talked about
how “laboratory and fieldwork personally helps [them] visualize these theories and truly
understand and know them.” Similar sentiments were raised by management students
who talk about the importance of real-world applications. At least five management
students actually said that they found subjects taught by professionals extremely
insightful because of their grounded knowledge. In addition to contextualized lessons, a
management economics sophomore mentioned the need for these lessons to be updated
and contextualized.
Inasmuch as students appreciate relevant content taught by professionals, it does
not automatically mean that a professional teacher is more effective. For example, an
engineering student mentioned that some of his teachers are practicing engineers and
researchers, and experience difficulties in effective instruction and knowledge sharing.
Thus, relevant content knowledge must also be combined with the experts’ pedagogical
skills.
For the teachers’ perspective, there is a lot more variety in terms of how they
conceive of relevant skills that can be taught through their content. Some professors echo
what the students say and they speak about the need for the content to prepare them for
life outside. Most instructors from the management and engineering colleges talk about
university as preparatory for professions, which is why classes rely on case studies and
practical activities. One management professor even noticed that “students often have a
mindset that if it’s not relevant to their context then it’s not worth knowing.” Thus,
content is often understood as a means for building relevant skills.
However, there are also professors who think of “relevant skills” much more
broadly in terms of using course knowledge to cultivate abilities not just for the students’
professional lives but also their personal lives. One mathematics professors said,
An ideal college class imparts knowledge and skills relevant to the student's
holistic development. This spans the gamut of specific course content (i.e.,
evaluating limits of a function), integrated values and attitudes (i.e., critical
thinking and creativity in problem-solving), and cultivating the ability to
recognize applications of both to various areas of life (i.e., professionally,
personally).
It is not unique for university faculty to see their role as both supportive of their students’
professional growth and formative of their personal maturity. Although not all are
comfortable with this “mentor” role, some professors said that circumstances sometimes
force them to assume these roles.
This idea is also supported by some students who thought of relevant skills as
inclusive of a whole range of skills like critical and integrative thinking. In one sociology
course, a student talked about her teacher who emphasized critical thinking and that
students “aren’t taking up a higher education just for the sake of landing a high-paying
job.” Another student also mentioned how the university is not just about getting skills
for work but also having a sense of how everything integrated into a larger picture. Thus,
content is used for students to have a much wider and more critical view of their lives.
Student motivation and participation
Another theme emerging from the interviews involved how motivation and participation
are important drivers for SCL. Both students and faculty say that much of SCL rests on
the assumption that students are involved, motivated, and actually participate in class.
First, the responsibility falls on the students to prepare for their classes. Most
students actually view the importance of their preparation, with one saying, “Students
cannot expect teachers to be good at what they’re doing if the students themselves are not
cooperating in class.” A biology major adds that there is the expectation for both students
and teachers to both be prepared in classes. However, students often feel that participating
in class is a difficult feat and this will be discussed in the next subsection.
Second, motivation is not so much about individual people but more about the
class’ collective engagement. One female student mentioned, “I observed that if my
classmates are engaged, I’m more likely to be… engaged as well.” The opposite seems
to also be true, especially as one economics student told a story about how in a class there
were only very few interested students, and that he—even if he was interested—was
dissuaded from participating for fear of being labelled overly engaged. Thus, this concept
of responsibility for learning can actually be affected by other students’ performance.
In both scenarios, the focus is on the engagement that happens in the classroom.
Since class engagement seems to be a challenge, instructors try various means to create
spaces for students to engage. There are those who would pose a question for small group
or pair discussions, rather than posing the question to the whole class for a person to
answer. Even if motivation is dependent on the students, some faculty still make efforts
to get students motivated. One difficulty experienced in this regard is when students feel
forced to join particular classes. A political science professor talks about this when
students are required to join general education classes and do not have any interest in the
course. In this way, faculty even take it upon themselves to “sell” the course by
motivating the students to learn more about its content and showing how the course is
actually relevant to them.
Practical challenges for implementation
Students and faculty members’ understanding of SCL aligns in certain aspects like
engagement through pedagogy, relevance through professional and personal skills-
building, and increasing student motivation and participation. Some nuances were also
shown in terms of the function of lectures, technology, and output in SCL environments.
However, they also acknowledge certain practical challenges with SCL, particularly in
terms of time and engagement.
A number of faculty mentioned that the crucial challenge with SCL is that it takes
a lot of time to both prepare and have student-centered discussions. In terms of
preparation, some faculty think that more innovative student-centered classes entail them
doing a lot more work, particularly with activities, case studies, and examples that go
beyond the textbook. In terms of discussions, there is a similar concern of being unable
to finish content because of SCL. An anthropology professor, who has been with the
university for more than 30 years, said it is challenging to get everyone to talk in a large
class and it takes time to get everyone’s ideas heard. Because of this, some suggest to
have smaller classes but they also acknowledge how this will have cost implications.
Another example for this time challenge was a biology professor who had SCL
practices and interactive lessons at the start of the semester but quickly transitioned to
lectures towards the second half because of all the course content that needed to be
covered. Thus, the time element for both preparation and execution is a central concern
for the use of SCL.
On the other side, students also see challenges with full implementation of SCL.
Most recognize how much effort faculty make to create engaging SCL environments but
majority of students are not accustomed to speaking up in class either because of fear of
being judged or because of their own introversion. It is also interesting that some students
are actually resistant to more interactive pedagogies, with one saying, “I hate it when
profs want us to do something like group works or presentations and stuff. I’m more
comfortable when I’m just sitting down, listening, or taking notes.”
Thus, there is an irony that some students prefer having interactive classes while
others prefer just sitting down and taking notes. This poses a challenge for teachers to
know how to obtain an optimal balance between these two extremes. On the one hand,
professors talk about the shortened attention span of their students and the need to engage
them with more than just lectures. On the other hand, some students voiced out that they
are not familiar, comfortable, and equipped to fully participate in SCL, which does not
automatically mean that they are resistant to it.
Discussion and conclusions
The theoretical literature on student-centered learning (SCL) in higher education focus
on five aspects regarding the role of the teacher, the function of content, the responsibility
for learning, the purpose of evaluations, and the balance of power. The present research
shows which of the five facets are more evident than the others, and how university
students and faculty differentially view SCL. Aside from summarizing insights from
these facets, the discussion adds how SCL views are limited to classroom interaction
without problematizing the very power relations between teachers and students.
First, many in the university view the role of the teacher not so much as a “guide
on the side” but more as facilitator and expert. On the one hand, students and faculty
value classroom engagement, learning activities, and applications, often with the students
doing a lot of the work. On the other hand, many also emphasized the delicate balance
between lectures and activities. More than providing efficient use of time, lectures are
also a means for university instructors to effectively share their expertise and provide
students with specialist input, which may not have sprung up when students just do class
activities (Barkley & Major, 2018). Thus, the role of teacher is more than just guides and
coaches but also as experts and designers of knowledge. These additional roles are
particularly salient in university classes where students need more expert knowledge and
input, which they may not have gotten otherwise if left to just work on their own projects.
Second, many professors and students think that the course content and activities
need to give students skills that are applicable for their present and future lives. A
recurring theme from the interviews was the need for the course to be relevant. Students
agree that they are more engaged when the content is relevant and contextualized to them
and their future work. Learning for them is not about memorization but about acquiring
skills and mindsets applicable for future careers.
Although there are still some professors who view content as something to be
covered and mastered—particularly for courses where their graduates have professional
regulatory examinations after—many view their content as providing skills that students
can use in their professional and personal lives. It is an important distinction that
professors think that they too impart skills in critical and integrative thinking, creative
problem-solving, and formative skills essential for the person’s maturity. This is in
addition to whatever professional skills they teach through their courses. Thus, some
professors do not just look at their role as preparing the students professionally but also
personally through maturity of reflection, thought and attitude (Euler & Kühner, 2017).
Third, responsibility for learning is most critically seen in the motivation and
participation of students in their classes and activities. Many students believe that their
learning is dependent on their own engagement but this engagement can oftentimes be
influenced by personal and social constraints, such as introversion and peers’ non-
participation in class. Similarly, there are students who do not want to engage in class
because of the cultural expectation that they only need to listen and take notes. Thus, the
faculty members take it upon themselves to design engaging activities, and so even if the
responsibility for learning falls on the student, the onus for creating structures that
facilitate this responsibility still falls on the teacher. The shift to SCL will not only need
the change of particular faculty in their course teaching but also need a shift in students’
expectations of their role and participation.
Fourth, although most faculty and students see the merit of student-centered
environments, they also recognize how time and student engagement pose important
constraints. On the one hand, faculty talk about the time it takes to finish lessons and
concepts when using SCL while on the other hand, not all students readily participate in
SCL classes. If teachers or institutions hope to transition to SCL environments, they must
create functional alternatives that address the time and engagement “issues” (Trinidad,
2018).
Fifth, there were two SCL aspects that were not as readily apparent for both
students and teachers. Only very few mentioned anything about the purpose of
evaluations and most of their ideas still focus on evaluations as a means for students to
receive their deserved grade at the end of the semester. Most see course evaluations as
testing how much students learned, either in terms of knowledge or skills. However, less
is said about how these evaluations are used as pedagogical devices to help students
deepen their learning (Wright, 2011). Teachers did not mention any attempt at using
evaluations to “teach” skills or content in the same way as no student mentioned how they
learn from their assessments in class. Another SCL aspect that does not seem to be in
people’s consciousness is the way they view the balance of power. Many of the decisions
are still made by the professor, and both students and faculty seem not to mind this type
of arrangement. Most still believe that this differential power is necessary and is not at
odds with the idea of learner-centeredness. Of course, this can partly be explained by the
hierarchical culture in Philippine or Asian society (Lynch, 2004), but could this be a
missed opportunity? A similar case is shown in the challenges of having student-centered
environments in Vietnam because of the high power distance (i.e. more pronounced social
hierarchies) and the Confucian values of conformity and receptivity (Thanh, 2010).
In a sense, these two gaps can be interpreted as students being comfortable with
SCL in the classroom and not needing it to affect the evaluations and the power relations
between teachers and students. From the interviews, there is the narrow view of SCL as
happening inside the classroom but not influencing the very base of power relations and
deeper learning—of the very empowerment of students (Hains & Smith, 2012). Thus,
SCL can oftentimes be reduced to a set of pedagogical strategies and practical techniques
that are effective at engaging students. The base and the assumptions of power relations
are not questioned, scrutinized and problematized. Although societies with low power
distance (i.e. with weaker social hierarchies) can empower students to speak out, high
power distance can prevent students from challenging the concentration of “power” and
responsibility the university faculty holds (Paulus, Bichelmeyer, Malopinsky, Pereira, &
Rastogi, 2005). This present study suggests that this may be the case in the Philippines
and other high power distance societies, and still more research is necessary to see how
students can assert their own “power” in university classes.
It can be argued that student-centered learning is understood as creating engaging
activities, teaching relevant skills, and having motivated students. However, less thought
is given to the philosophy behind it. SCL cannot be reduced to a set of techniques but
should question the way both teachers and students understand their relationship and the
process of learning. This is particularly important in universities where students need both
independent thought and expert guidance, activities that can let them construct knowledge
on their own and specialist input about the complex nuances of what is learned. Learning
and teaching in universities cannot be reduced to good teaching practices; the philosophy
and assumptions must themselves be dissected in order to bring about what can genuinely
be called learning centered on the students.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Arman, M. S. (2018). Student-centered approach to teaching: It takes two to tango. The
Ahfad Journal, 35(2), 64–71.
Barkley, E. F., & Major, C. H. (2018). Interactive Lecturing: A Handbook for College
Faculty. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Brassler, M., & Dettmers, J. (2017). How to Enhance Interdisciplinary Competence—
Interdisciplinary Problem-Based Learning versus Interdisciplinary Project-Based
Learning. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 11(2).
https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1686
Euler, D., & Kühner, P. (2017). Problem-Based Assignments as a Trigger for
Developing Ethical and Reflective Competencies. Interdisciplinary Journal of
Problem-Based Learning, 11(2). (Purdue University Press. Stewart Center
Room 370, 504 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Tel: 800-247-
6553; Fax: 419-281-6883; e-mail: pupress@purdue,edu; Web site:
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/ijpbl/).
Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Bossche, P. V. den, & Segers, M. (2005). Effects of Problem-
Based Learning: A Meta-Analysis From the Angle of Assessment. Review of
Educational Research, 75(1), 27–61.
https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543075001027
Hains, B. J., & Smith, B. (2012). Student-Centered Course Design: Empowering
Students to Become Self-Directed Learners. Journal of Experiential Education,
35(2), 357–374. https://doi.org/10.1177/105382591203500206
Harju, A., & Åkerblom, A. (2017). Colliding collaboration in student-centred learning
in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 42(8), 1532–1544.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1113954
Hoidn, S. (2017). Introduction. In Student-Centered Learning Environments in Higher
Education Classrooms (pp. 1–21). Retrieved from
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/978-1-349-94941-0_1
Hong, T. P. T. (2011). Issues to consider when implementing student-centred learning
practices at Asian higher education institutions. Journal of Higher Education
Policy and Management, 33(5), 519–528.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.605226
Kain, D. J. (2003). Teacher-Centered versus Student-Centered: Balancing Constraint
and Theory in the Composition Classroom. Pedagogy, 3(1), 104–108.
Konak, A., Clark, T. K., & Nasereddin, M. (2014). Using Kolb’s Experiential Learning
Cycle to improve student learning in virtual computer laboratories. Computers &
Education, 72, 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.013
Lea, S. J., Stephenson, D., & Troy, J. (2003). Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to
Student-centred Learning: Beyond “educational bulimia”? Studies in Higher
Education, 28(3), 321–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075070309293
Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in
student-centered learning: own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 64(4), 707–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-
015-9422-5
Lynch, F. (2004). Philippine Society and the Individual: Selected Essays of Frank
Lynch (A. A. Yengoyan & Makil, Eds.). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila
University Press.
Mascolo, M. (2009). Beyond Student-Centered and Teacher-Centered Pedagogy:
Teaching and Learning as Guided Participation. Pedagogy and the Human
Sciences, 1(1), 3–27.
Mazer, J. P., & Hess, J. A. (2017). What is the place of lecture in higher education?
Communication Education, 66(2), 236–237.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2017.1287411
O’Neill, G., & McMahon, T. (2005). Student-centered learning: What does it mean for
students and lecturers? In Emerging issues in the practice of university learning
and teaching. Dublin: All Ireland Society for Higher Education.
Ott, L. E., Carpenter, T. S., Hamilton, D. S., & LaCourse, W. R. (2018). Discovery
Learning: Development of a Unique Active Learning Environment for
Introductory Chemistry. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
18(4), 161–180. (Indiana University. 755 West Michigan Street UL 1180D,
Indianapolis, IN 46202. Tel: 317-274-5647; Fax: 317-278-2360; e-mail:
josotl@iupui.edu; Web site: http://www.iupui.edu/~josotl).
Paulus, T. M., Bichelmeyer, B., Malopinsky, L., Pereira, M., & Rastogi, P. (2005).
Power distance and group dynamics of an international project team: a case
study. Teaching in Higher Education, 10(1), 43–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1356251052000305525
Pugh, G. L. (2014). The Experiential Learning Cycle in Undergraduate Diversity and
Social Justice Education. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 34(3), 302–315.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2014.906531
Ralston, P. A. S., Tretter, T. R., & Kendall-Brown, M. (2017). Implementing
Collaborative Learning across the Engineering Curriculum. Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 17(3), 89–108. (Indiana University. 755
West Michigan Street UL 1180D, Indianapolis, IN 46202. Tel: 317-274-5647;
Fax: 317-278-2360; e-mail: josotl@iupui.edu; Web site:
http://www.iupui.edu/~josotl).
Sawyer, R. K. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt, H. G., Wagener, S. L., Smeets, G. A. C. M., Keemink, L. M., & van der
Molen, H. T. (2015). On the Use and Misuse of Lectures in Higher Education.
Health Professions Education, 1(1), 12–18.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2015.11.010
Slavich, G. M., & Zimbardo, P. G. (2012). Transformational Teaching: Theoretical
Underpinnings, Basic Principles, and Core Methods. Educational Psychology
Review, 24(4), 569–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-012-9199-6
Thanh, P. T. H. (2010). Implementing a Student-Centered Learning Approach at
Vietnamese Higher Education Institutions: Barriers under Layers of Casual
Layered Analysis (CLA). Journal of Future Studies, 15(1), 21–38.
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory Construction in Qualitative Research:
From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3),
167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
Trinidad, J. E. (2018). Structural limitations and functional alternatives reducing
suspensions and preserving racial suspension gaps. Race Ethnicity and
Education, online first, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2018.1538119
Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education. International
Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 92–97.
Yasmin, M., Naseem, F., & Masso, I. C. (2019). Teacher-directed learning to self-
directed learning transition barriers in Pakistan. Studies in Educational
Evaluation, 61, 34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2019.02.003
Zheng, L., Yang, J., Cheng, W., & Huang, R. (2014). Emerging approaches for
supporting easy, engaged and effective collaborative learning. Journal of King
Saud University - Computer and Information Sciences, 26(1), 11–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksuci.2013.10.002