Cited by 56Innovative Teaching MethodsEducational Environments and Student OutcomesEvaluation of Teaching Practices

When teacher-centered instructors are assigned to student-centered classrooms

Open access
Lasry, Nathaniel, Charles, Elizabeth, Whittaker, Chris·2014·Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research

Abstract

Technology-rich student-centered classrooms such as SCALE-UP and TEAL are designed to actively engage students.We examine what happens when the design of the classroom (conventional or teachercentered versus student-centered classroom spaces) is consistent or inconsistent with the teacher's epistemic beliefs about learning and teaching (traditional or teacher-centered versus student-centered pedagogies).We compare two types of pedagogical approaches and two types of classroom settings through a quasiexperimental 2 × 2 factorial design.We collected data from 214 students registered in eight sections of an introductory calculus-based mechanics course given at a Canadian publicly funded two-year college.All students were given the Force Concept Inventory at the beginning and at the end of the 15-week-long course.We then focused on six teachers assigned to teach in the student-centered classroom spaces.We used qualitative observations and the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI), a self-reported questionnaire, to determine the teachers' epistemic beliefs (teacher-centered or student-centered) and how these beliefs affected their use of the space and their students' conceptual learning.We report four main findings.First, the student-centered classroom spaces are most effective when used with student-centered pedagogies.Second, student-centered classrooms are ineffective when used with teacher-centered pedagogies and may have negative effects for students with low prior knowledge.Third, we find a strong correlation between six instructors' self-reported epistemic beliefs of student centeredness and their classes' average normalized gain (r ¼ 0.91; p ¼ 0.012).Last, we find that some instructors are more willing to adopt student-centered teaching practices after using student-centered classroom spaces.These data suggest that student-centered classrooms are effective only when instructors' epistemic framework of teaching and learning is consistent with a student-centered pedagogy.However, the use of the studentcentered classrooms may change instructors' epistemic frameworks over time.Further research should focus on how to better support teachers with shifting epistemic frameworks as well as helping students with lower prior knowledge in student-centered classroom spaces.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevstper.10.010116

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. C. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  2. R. R. Hake, Interactive-engagement versus traditional meth- ods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses, Am. J. Phys. 66, 64 (1998). · DOI · Paper page
  3. C. Wieman and K. Perkins, Transforming physics educa- tion, Phys. Today 58, No. 11, 36 (2005). · DOI
  4. Y. J. Dori and J. Belcher, How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students' understand- ing of electromagnetism concepts?, J. Learn. Sci. 14, 243 (2005). · DOI
  5. Y. J. Dori, J. Belcher, M. Bessette, M. Danziger, A. McKinney, and E. Hult, Technology for active learning, Mater. Today 6, 44 (2003). · DOI
  6. S. Allaire, T. Laferrière, J. Gaudreault-Perron, and C. Hamel, Le développement professionnel des enseignants en contexte de mise en réseau de classes de petites écoles rurales: Au-delà de l'alphabétisation technologique, J. Distance Educ. Rev. Educ. Distance 23, 25 (2009).
  7. J. Roschelle and S. D. Teasley, in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, edited by C. O'Malley (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1995), pp. 69-97.
  8. J. Roschelle, Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change, J. Learn. Sci. 2, 235 (1992). · DOI
  9. M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, Computer support for knowledge-building communities, J. Learn. Sci. 3, 265 (1994). · DOI
  10. L. Lipponen, in Proceedings of the Conference on Com- puter Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, 2002 (unpublished).
  11. W.-M. Roth and A. Roychoudhury, The concept map as a tool for the collaborative construction of knowledge: A microanalysis of high school physics students, J. Res. Sci. Teach. 30, 503 (1993). · DOI
  12. G. Stahl, Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006).
  13. K. Trigwell and M. Prosser, Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 16, 409 (2004). · DOI
  14. K. Trigwell, M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse, Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning, Higher Educ. 37, 57 (1999). · DOI
  15. M. F. Pajares, Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct, Rev. Educ. Res. 62, 307 (1992). · DOI · Paper page
  16. R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno, Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning, Educ. Psychol. 38, 43 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  17. L. McDermott and E. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999). · DOI
  18. N. Lasry, S. Rosenfield, H. Dedic, A. Dahan, and O. Reshef, The puzzling reliability of the Force Concept Inventory, Am. J. Phys. 79, 909 (2011). · DOI
  19. L. Bao, Theoretical comparisons of average normalized gain calculations, Am. J. Phys. 74, 917 (2006). · DOI
  20. L. E. Greeson, College classroom interaction as a function of teacher-and student-centered instruction, Teach. Teach. Educ. 4, 305 (1988). · DOI
  21. D. Kember and L. Gow, Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning, J. Higher Educ. 65, 58 (1994). · DOI
  22. M. Prosser and K. Trigwell, Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to teaching inventory, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 76, 405 (2006). · DOI
  23. K. Trigwell, M. Prosser, and P. Ginns, Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised approaches to teaching inventory, Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 24, 349 (2005). · DOI
  24. J. Biggs, D. Kember, and D. Leung, The revised Two- Factor Study Process Questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 71, 133 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
  25. D. Kim and R. Branch, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion (AERA), New Orleans, LA, 2002 (unpublished).
  26. D. Sawada, M. D. Piburn, E. Judson, J. Turley, K. Falconer, R. Benford, and I. Bloom, Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teach- ing observation protocol, School Sci. Math. 102, 245 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  27. D. C. Brooks, Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning, Br. J. Educ. Technol. 42, 719 (2011). · DOI
  28. N. Lasry, Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a differ- ence?, Phys. Teach. 46, 242 (2008). · DOI
  29. N. Lasry, Clickers work well, so do flashcards: Two rights don't make a wrong, Phys. Teach. 47, L2 (2009). · DOI
  30. E. Mazur and N. Lasry, in Proceedings of the 2009 AAPT Winter Meeting, Chicago (unpublished).
  31. F. Paas, A. Renkl, and J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments, Educ. Psychol. 38, 1 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
  32. M. Sharples, Shared orchestration within and beyond the classroom, Comput. Educ. 69, 504 (2013). · DOI
  33. Y. C. Kek, doctoral dissertation, University of Adelaide, 2006 (unpublished).

Authors
Lasry, N., Charles, E., & Whittaker, C.
Affiliations
  • John Abbott College (CA)
  • Dawson College (CA)
Venue
Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research
Published
2014-05-21
Volume
10
Issue
1
ISSN
1554-9178 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2319488859
Cited by
56
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2
FWCI
25.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Concordia University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Environments and Student Outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Evaluation of Teaching Practices
Keywords
student-centered learning environment, teacher-centered instruction, epistemological beliefs, scale-up, teal, classroom design, introductory mechanics, Force Concept Inventory, conceptual learning, prior knowledge, community colleges, physics education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review