When teacher-centered instructors are assigned to student-centered classrooms
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The impact of the pedagogy is weakest for students with high prior knowledge.
“Lasry et al. (2014) also found that the “impact of the pedagogy is weakest for students with high prior knowledge” (p.p. 010116-5), suggesting that a solid base of prior knowledge might allow college students to succeed regardless of the pedagogical or physical design of the classroom.”
From Differences of Mean Scores on the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) for Classical Christian Schools Compared to Non-Classical Christian Schools (2019) · cites this paper as Lasry et al. (2014)
On normalized gains and ANCOVA adjusted mean post test scores, data suggest that pedagogy has a significant effect while the classroom architecture by itself does not.
“When discussing results, Lasry et al. (2014) found that both on “normalized gains and ANCOVA adjusted mean” (p.010116-2) post test scores, respectively, data “suggest that pedagogy has a significant effect while the classroom architecture by itself does not” (p.010116-2).”
From Differences of Mean Scores on the Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) for Classical Christian Schools Compared to Non-Classical Christian Schools (2019) · cites this paper as Lasry et al. (2014)
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
Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning
Sweller, J. (1988) · Cognitive Science · doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90023-7 · Cited by 11,048 · see citing works
Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design
Sweller, J. (1994) · Learning and Instruction · doi:10.1016/0959-4752(94)90003-5 · Cited by 3,801 · see citing works
Hestenes, D., Wells, M., & Swackhamer, G. (1992) · The Physics Teacher · doi:10.1119/1.2343497 · Cited by 3,235 · see citing works
The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning
(2005) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511816819 · Cited by 1,595 · see citing works
Cognitive load theory, educational research, and instructional design: some food for thought
de Jong, T. (2010) · Instructional Science · doi:10.1007/s11251-009-9110-0 · Cited by 1,180 · see citing works
Design for classroom orchestration
Dillenbourg, P. (2013) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.013 · Cited by 386 · see citing works
Classroom Orchestration: Synthesis
Roschelle, J., Dimitriadis, Y., & Hoppe, U. (2013) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.04.010 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 33
- C. Crouch and E. Mazur, Peer Instruction: Ten years of experience and results, Am. J. Phys. 69, 970 (2001). · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- C. Wieman and K. Perkins, Transforming physics educa- tion, Phys. Today 58, No. 11, 36 (2005). · DOI
- 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
- Y. J. Dori, J. Belcher, M. Bessette, M. Danziger, A. McKinney, and E. Hult, Technology for active learning, Mater. Today 6, 44 (2003). · DOI
- 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).
- J. Roschelle and S. D. Teasley, in Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, edited by C. O'Malley (Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1995), pp. 69-97.
- J. Roschelle, Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change, J. Learn. Sci. 2, 235 (1992). · DOI
- M. Scardamalia and C. Bereiter, Computer support for knowledge-building communities, J. Learn. Sci. 3, 265 (1994). · DOI
- L. Lipponen, in Proceedings of the Conference on Com- puter Support for Collaborative Learning: Foundations for a CSCL Community, 2002 (unpublished).
- 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
- G. Stahl, Group Cognition: Computer Support for Building Collaborative Knowledge (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2006).
- K. Trigwell and M. Prosser, Development and use of the approaches to teaching inventory, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 16, 409 (2004). · DOI
- K. Trigwell, M. Prosser, and F. Waterhouse, Relations between teachers' approaches to teaching and students' approaches to learning, Higher Educ. 37, 57 (1999). · DOI
- M. F. Pajares, Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct, Rev. Educ. Res. 62, 307 (1992). · DOI · Paper page
- R. E. Mayer and R. Moreno, Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning, Educ. Psychol. 38, 43 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
- L. McDermott and E. Redish, Resource letter: PER-1: Physics education research, Am. J. Phys. 67, 755 (1999). · DOI
- 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
- L. Bao, Theoretical comparisons of average normalized gain calculations, Am. J. Phys. 74, 917 (2006). · DOI
- L. E. Greeson, College classroom interaction as a function of teacher-and student-centered instruction, Teach. Teach. Educ. 4, 305 (1988). · DOI
- D. Kember and L. Gow, Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of student learning, J. Higher Educ. 65, 58 (1994). · DOI
- M. Prosser and K. Trigwell, Confirmatory factor analysis of the approaches to teaching inventory, Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 76, 405 (2006). · DOI
- K. Trigwell, M. Prosser, and P. Ginns, Phenomenographic pedagogy and a revised approaches to teaching inventory, Higher Educ. Res. Dev. 24, 349 (2005). · DOI
- 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
- D. Kim and R. Branch, in Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Associa- tion (AERA), New Orleans, LA, 2002 (unpublished).
- 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
- D. C. Brooks, Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning, Br. J. Educ. Technol. 42, 719 (2011). · DOI
- N. Lasry, Clickers or flashcards: Is there really a differ- ence?, Phys. Teach. 46, 242 (2008). · DOI
- N. Lasry, Clickers work well, so do flashcards: Two rights don't make a wrong, Phys. Teach. 47, L2 (2009). · DOI
- E. Mazur and N. Lasry, in Proceedings of the 2009 AAPT Winter Meeting, Chicago (unpublished).
- F. Paas, A. Renkl, and J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments, Educ. Psychol. 38, 1 (2003). · DOI · Paper page
- M. Sharples, Shared orchestration within and beyond the classroom, Comput. Educ. 69, 504 (2013). · DOI
- Y. C. Kek, doctoral dissertation, University of Adelaide, 2006 (unpublished).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Vaughan, C. A. (2019) · Journal of Research on Christian Education · doi:10.1080/10656219.2019.1704326 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Lasry, N., Charles, E., & Whittaker, C.
- Affiliations
- John Abbott College (CA)
- Dawson College (CA)
- ORCID
- Charles, Elizabeth
- Venue
- Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research
- Publisher
- American Physical Society (APS)
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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