Brenda Hall of ESL School wrote on the nature of "Student-Centred Learning":

student-centred learning is about helping students to discover their own learning styles, to understand their motivation and to acquire effective study skills that will be valuable throughout their lives. To put this approach into practice, teachers need to help students set achievable goals; encourage students to assess themselves and their peers; help them to work co-operatively in groups and ensure that they know how to exploit all the available resources for learning.

Learning is thus more a form of personal development than a linear progression that the teacher achieves by rewards and sanctions. Errors are seen as a constructive part of the learning process and need not be a source of embarrassment.

The main principles of student-centred learning are:

• The learner has full responsibility for her/his learning
• Involvement and participation are necessary for learning
• The relationship between learners is more equal, promoting growth, development
• The teacher becomes a facilitator and resource person
• The learner experiences confluence in his education
• The learner sees himself/herself differently as a result of the learning experience.

When I first read this post, I mostly agreed. And I still agree with the main thrust of learners becoming autonomous, learning as development, and errors being constructive. Yet, as I continued to read it, certain points didn't match my own experience. So, I offer another perspective.

When I began school more than a few years ago, I never "discovered [my] own learning styles." I still don't know what my learning style is. And it doesn't seem to have slowed me down as far as learning is concerned. When I think about the activities in which I engaged: studying various "book" subjects, taking Wood Shop, playing baritone horn in the band, and being on the wrestling team in high school, if there is such a thing as a learning style (at least in a way that it significantly affects learning), it seems obvious that the modality of the activity decides what "style" of learning should be employed.

On understanding one's motivation, I'm not sure what that means. Most young people know why they go to school: Everyone says they must. Most college students know, too: It's for a better job. And the motivation for non-required learning is simply that they're interested in the activity. For instance, I like to play chess. How would understanding my motivation for chess help me learn more? The only way I can think of understanding motivation as helping is to know about motivational constructs, such as Deci and Ryan's self-determination theory. Knowing that motivation is influenced by three needs--that is autonomy, competence, and social relatedness--would help me understand my motivation at a particular moment and allow me to influence it if I needed to. But that doesn't seem to be what is being said here.

On acquiring effective study skills, definitely. But I'm not sure what is meant here. The most important factor in learning is effective time on task (see "Forget IQ. Just Work Hard!"). One particular study skill that makes time more effective is repetition: reviewing the same material in bite-sized chunks over a period of time rather than spending an equivalent amount of time at one sitting. For example, reviewing notes for 15 minutes after a class, then again the same notes 15 minutes before the next class, and all of one's notes for 1-2 hours on the weekend. I did it, and it worked. Before I had had to cram for exams, but once I started the bite-sized reviewing approach, I stopped cramming and got a good night's sleep, because I found that I knew the material.

But most of these study skills can be picked up in a few lessons. Why is there such an emphasis on them? Are they never taught? Or, are they taught and students don't apply them? Actually, I was never taught any study skills until I went to a seminar offered by the university's Learning Center. The only one that stuck was that of repetition, and I'm glad it did. But now that I'm working, I don't have the time to employ any study skills (outside of removing distractions) because I have very little time to reflect, assess, and so on. That's why I began blogging, to force myself to reflect on my work. Perhaps blogging is a study skill.

For me, a crucial element is time. On my last five posts, I linked to items I found interesting but added little or nothing of my own to them. I wanted to take time with them, consider learning theories connecting to the main points, then practical learning applications, and so make a thoughtful contribution on how these posts might inform learning and classroom pedagogy. But right now I'm just pressed for time. I need to finish a paper, finish analyzing some data, prepare for coaching on technology for this coming semester, revamp my courses, and a thousand other tasks.

Some of my students, like me, are also pressed for time, especially the students in my night class. These students usually work full time and have families and children. Coming to class after work, then going home and spending some time with their children, perhaps fixing dinner and checking their children's homework, leaves little time for their own studies. If there were no pressure, such as grades, they wouldn't study, or at least much less. Not that they wouldn't want to. But when squeezed for time, they, like all of us, prioritize according to what will benefit them the most or cost them the least. Sometimes, their lack of time leads them to prioritize in ways that undermine their taking full responsibility for their learning, and thus the teacher-student relationship may need to move more toward "director" than "facilitator."

The students' environment, both in the class and outside must be considered in how much a teacher can facilitate vs. direct. There are no "best practices" that apply at all times in all places with all students. And Brenda seems to say the same thing:

Teachers wishing to ensure a student-centred approach must know their students and their backgrounds in order to help them develop appropriately. Clearly there are cultural and personal issues to be addressed, as student-centred learning will be different for each group.

Hmm. Interesting comment that "student-centred learning will be different for each group" not each student. Was that a slip or an implied theoretical position? Although student-centered learning is usually placed in opposition to teacher-centered learning, perhaps both foci are off. Perhaps learning should be activity-centered. More on that later.