Category: Caring Teacher

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Educators often become pre-occupied with discipline, authority, power, and order. They do this by separating the child from the requirements of the school, whether they are behavioral, academic, or social-emotional. The systems approach has taught us that the only effective way to deal with and constructively resolve any conflict is by examining the conflicting issue from a variety of perspectives. In other words, the people involved in a conflict resolution situation should take into consideration all that affects (directly or indirectly) the inception, sustenance, and possible termination of the conflicting matter.

For example, if a child skips school, before he is exposed to the rules and regulations of the school, and come under the scrutiny of academic committees, and therefore become subjected to the school policies that might eventually lead to some sort of punishment (you might call it positive reinforcement, positive punishment, etc., but the fact of the matter is, the child feels hurt at the end of the procedure), someone needs to ask the crucial question: “What are some of the factors leading toward this particular behavioral pattern in the child?” – What? Who? Why? How? When? – exhaust all possible answers for these questions… and during this process, one invariably realizes that the child has little to do with his behavioral pattern. There are bigger things, or issues that need to be addressed, and the child needs help not only to deal with the behavior of ‘missing school’… but perhaps with greater things like NOT having someone to take care of his emotional needs at home, NOT having a well-planned support system for learning in his classes, etc.

Our usual practice is to deal with behavioral problems – exclusive of the child’s emotional and social experiences! I am yet to see schools that use more preventive measures when it comes to behavioral issues. It makes sense and it is not difficult to employ preventive measures… unfortunately, most schools are still following the – “have rules – catch those who don’t abide by the rules (so much of energy, time, and resources are spent on ‘catching’ – merit systems, tracking slips, contracts, etc. – added to the already existing heavy paper work that everyone carries at school) – punish to correct the behavior” mentality.

Why can’t we have schools that will focus solely on harnessing, nurturing, and celebrating children’s emotional and social experiences – provide them with the environment to feel, think, and act positive and good, all the time. Impossible you say? Not really, check out a school in the province of Lopburi, Thailand called the Satya Sai School. You will be surprised how by taking care of and solely focusing on positive emotions – the school has moved away from the traditional – “rules – catch – punish – correct” mentality to behavior management.

Children are humans… when they feel that they are treated like one – they want to behave well! When we treat them like prisoners – and always stand on our guard to catch them doing bad things – of course they will help us by fulfilling our own expectations of their behavior! High time we changed![/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Simply, educational reforms have failed over and over again, around the world because of one reason: The individuals affected by the reform efforts did not understand the MEANING & RELEVANCE of the reform. They might adopt and embrace the reform itself – but if they do not comprehend the essence and the accompanying implication of the reform, the efforts fail.

Most reform efforts start off with an idea – sort of a theory set in place to solve an educational issue needing immediate attention and resolution. Thus, any reform starts off with an idea that is tested for its practicality – idea and action go side by side in the initial stage of a reform. However, as time passes, the initial combination of idea and action is substituted with the singular idea. This is reinforced and perpetuated by the virtue of schools institutionalizing the idea and safeguarding its purity – they become rigid in their perception toward the idea and move away from their initial focus of school improvement.

Most teacher training programs lack one important component in their course – a sense of meaning and relevance for the theories and ideas being taught and learned. Thus, a fresh graduate might know that a school reform is inevitable… however, the same individual does not know how to make it work – they don’t realize that for an educational reform to be accepted and worked at by everyone at school, the first thing to do is to create a sense of meaning and relevance toward the change. This could be accomplished by passionately advocating the idea and supporting it with the necessary actions that support, uphold, and expand the idea.

So next time you want to talk about reform for your own school, answer this question first: Why do you think you need the reform in the first place? Next ask yourself – “Am I willing to use both ideas and actions to make the reform a possibility?” Lastly, ask youself – “Do the statement of meaning/relevance match the ideas and actions set in motion to improve the school?”[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]The first step in improving our schools is to make sure everyone shares a common understanding and language. Efforts to transform schools cannot succeed without a shared understanding of the enormous importance of a long-term investment in education and of the reality that there are no quick fixes.

Students, teachers, and communities – these are the ones who stand to be most affected by and bear the most responsibility for improving schools. Education is built on interactions among people who must alter their habits and attitudes to achieve lasting change.

Vision, inspiration, and information – the three elements that facilitates significant change!

Taken from ‘Learn and Live’ (The George Lucas Educational Foundation) – 1997  [/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]While many teachers have taken the initiative to become creative in their efforts to impart knowledge in an engaging manner, the overall scenario of teaching and learning at school doesn’t look encouraging. This is true in all types of schools. Surprisingly enough, having the best facilities, latest technological gadgets, and abundant monetary resources aren’t the best indicators of teacher creativeness. By and large, schools are still filled with teachers who haven’t become intrinsically motivated to make learning fun and meaningful for learners. Why is this so? In my observations in the course of speaking to international school teachers in the metropolitan city of Bangkok, I have discovered that the major hurdle to teacher creativity is the task of teaching itself. Unlike other professionals who constantly spend extensive amount of time and effort for personal and professional growth, teachers have somehow neglected these needs. They have become overly obsessed with performing their duties as ‘teachers’ that they have forgotten that they are professionals too. A professional or an expert remains so by continual learning and extensive research in a particular area of interest. However, teachers have somehow developed a laborer’s mentality. They teach, teach, and teach… (I personally like to say, “They toil, toil, and toil…”) – They become too pre-occupied with their ‘job’ that they lose focus of the big picture of who they are and what they are supposed to accomplish as professional educators. Teaching isn’t the only thing a teacher does. Ask any teacher who is labeled as being creative and engaging what is his/her secret of being so effective – the answer would obviously be that he/she constantly learns – spends time in personal and professional development related activities and programs. These do not have to be expensive, time consuming, and elaborate events in the calendar – in fact, I personally grow personally and professionally at the comfort of my table, laptop, and a cup of something… Yes! One can download and listen to brilliant audio books, seminars, and inspiring materials for teacher development via internet for free! It doesn’t matter how teachers choose to do it, as long as they continue to have the passion to learn and grow as individuals. So, in order for teachers to be creative and engaging, they have to move away from the ‘laborer’ mentality and claim their rights to walk, talk, think, do, and work like a true ‘professional’ – one who would learn, learn, and learn – because a learning teacher is a thinking teacher… and a thinking teacher is a creative designer of engaging and meaningful learning experiences![/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Providing Meaningful Education

 

The past…

The school system, as we know and have it today, was originally established to fulfill the needs of the industrial revolution. People were trained and equipped to take up middle class job positions in various commercially-oriented settings. Specialization of skills and knowledge was important and people were trained to be functionally good in one or more areas of work as required and dictated by the job market. This explains why the system is characterized as being highly rigid. This also explains why the system did not emphasize the enhancement of creative potential of individuals.

In other words, schools themselves were like ‘factories’ that ‘produced’ workers who possess a set of knowledge and skills required for a specific job. Because of this, the tremendous opportunities one could have had to explore and discover the marvelous ways in which his/her brain naturally learns (acquire), connects, analyzes, extends, refines, and applies knowledge is completely compromised. While the school system did fulfill its purpose, it did so at the cost of wrecking the potentiality of millions of people who didn’t think beyond having a job that pays them to maintain their middle class lifestyle.

The schools of the industrial age didn’t bother to tell and/or show students why they were to learn what they were to learn. This frustrated many, including teachers. Students were frustrated because they couldn’t make sense of the act of trying to learn something that had no obvious connection with what they already knew, practical living, and what would benefit them in the future. Teachers on the other hand, faced and dealt with many disciplinary problems (of students) that stemmed from a sheer lack of motivation and interest in seemingly meaningless lessons.

Different Kind of Education…

Meaningful education, on the other hand, does more than merely preparing people for work. It helps people to assimilate knowledge into their personal schema by making the learning experiences and materials relevant and useful. It enhances creativity naturally by encouraging students to connect with lessons at personal and interpersonal level.

Research on Connectedness…

A three-year longitudinal research called The Queensland School Reform Longitudinal Study (QSRLS) was conducted by researchers from the School of Education, The University of Queensland, Australia, from 1998 to 2000. The research required extensive observation and study of classroom practices. The researchers made detailed observations and statistical analyses of 975 classroom lessons offered in 24 schools over three years. The study investigated possible relationships between school-based management practices and enhanced student outcomes, both academic and social.

Among many other significant findings from this study, one is worthy of our immediate attention and response. It was found that connectedness was the least experienced pedagogical phenomenon in these 24 schools, across subjects, teachers, teaching styles, and learning preferences. Connectedness obtained the least score when compared to its counterpart-pedagogical-dimensions (elements of productive pedagogy), namely; intellectual quality, supportive classroom environment, and recognition of difference.

The Implication…

There is a great and immediate need to pay more attention to connecting student work (learning materials) to their biographies (personal mental structures and schema) and the world outside the classroom (present and future life-demands), using innovative, productive, constructive, and creative teaching approaches.

How can it be done…?

The following teaching practices could be utilized to ensure that students engage with real, practical or hypothetical problems which connect to the world beyond the classroom, which are not restricted by subject boundaries and which are linked to their prior knowledge:

1. Knowledge Integration: Does the lesson integrate a range of subject areas?

Integrated school knowledge is identifiable when either: a) explicit attempts are made to connect two or more sets of subject area knowledge, or b) when no subject area boundaries are readily seen.

Topics or problems which either require knowledge from multiple areas, or which have no clear subject areas basis in the first place are indicators of curricula which integrate school subject knowledge.

Non-integrated school knowledge is typically segregated or divided in such a way that specific sets of knowledge and skills are (relatively) unique and discrete to each specified school subject area. Segregated knowledge is identified by clear boundaries between subject areas. Connections between knowledge in different segregated subject areas are less and less clear the stronger the dividing knowledge boundary. In the extreme, such boundaries prevent any interrelation of different subject areas.

2. Background Knowledge: Are links with students’ background knowledge made explicit?

High-connection lessons provide students with opportunities to make connections between their linguistic, cultural, world knowledge and experience and the topics, skills and competencies at hand. Background knowledge may include community knowledge, local knowledge, personal experience, media and popular culture sources.

Low-connection lessons introduce new content, skills and competencies without any direct or explicit opportunities to explore what prior knowledge students have of the topic, and without any attempts to provide relevant or key background knowledge that might enhance students’ comprehension and understanding of the ‘new’ material being offered.

3. Connectedness to the World: Is the lesson, activity, or task connected to competencies or concerns beyond the classroom?

Connectedness describes the extent to which the lesson has value and meaning beyond the instructional context, making a connection to the larger social context within which students live.

Two areas in which student work can exhibit some degree of connectedness are: a real-world public problem; i.e., students confront an actual contemporary issue or problem, such as applying statistical analysis in preparing a report to the City Council on the homeless; Students’ personal experiences; i.e., the lesson focuses directly or builds upon students’ actual experiences or situations. A high level of connectedness can be achieved when the lesson entails one or both of these.

In a low-connectedness lesson with little or no value beyond the classroom, activities are deemed important for success only in school (now or later), but for no other aspects of life. Student work has no impact on others and serves only to certify their level of competence or compliance with the norms and routines of formal schooling.

4. Problem-based Curriculum: Is there a focus on identifying and solving intellectual and/or real-world problems?

A problem-based curriculum is identified by lessons in which students are presented with a specific practical, real, or hypothetical problem (or set of problems) to solve.

Problems are defined as having no specified correct solution, requiring knowledge construction on the part of the students, and requiring sustained attention beyond a single lesson.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]I have heard people in the field (schools all around) telling this over and over again, “The graduates that you guys produce cannot survive in the actual school system. There is something wrong in the training and education that they are getting.”

Although my immediate reaction as a teacher-trainer is to become defensive about the training that we provide, I am more inclined to reflect on the statement and investigate where we have gone wrong.

One of the problems that I see to be common in teacher-training programs is that we tend to be more theoretical about something so practical like teaching. Instead of providing a practically-oriented education and training, we are more concerned about textbook materials and require student-teachers to memorize principles, theories, and contents. We rarely use and demonstrate the usage of various instructional strategies that we so fervently teach. We don’t model appropriate classroom management techniques. We fail when it comes to conflict resolution with our student-teachers.

When teaching practices are not demonstrated in our own classes, whatever student-teachers learn as a theoretical body of knowledge remains just that – passive knowledge. A student once wrote in her journal as a reflection about one of my classes, “Thank you for using various instructional strategies in the class. It’s one thing to learn about these in our methods classes. It’s another thing altogether when we observe our teacher teaching using these methods. By observing these strategies in action, we get more confidence about using the same when we do our internship.”

Going back to the schools – many fresh graduates possess the capability to operate at a functional level even at entry point. However, when they do try using some of the new things that they learned in the college, their older colleagues quickly discourage them. Most teachers who are already teaching for years, feel comfortable with their own methods. They don’t really care about changing. They don’t care whether their approaches are outdated or are in conflict with research in the areas of cognitive and educational psychology. They just love doing what they are used to doing, regardless of knowing that all that they are doing might not be the best things for children and their learning.

Because it is difficult to work in an environment that discourages non-conformity, these fresh graduates quickly become tuned to the traditional, ineffective practices of their older colleagues. So, instead of experimenting with new ideas and teaching practices, they shut down their creative energy and do what everyone else does.

Hence, the cause of the problem is two-pronged. On one hand, lecturers training these teachers are to be blamed for the sad condition. On the other hand, school cultures that are not conducive and progressive (closed to new innovation and creative ideas and practices) also play a role in bringing out mediocre performance in the fresh graduates who go into the profession of teaching.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Learning is an active process in which the learner uses sensory input and constructs meaning out of it. The more traditional formulation of this idea involves the terminology of the active learner (Dewey’s term) stressing that the learner needs to do something; that learning is not the passive acceptance of knowledge which exists “out there” but that learning involves the learners engaging with the world.

1. People learn to learn as they learn: learning consists both of constructing meaning and constructing systems of meaning. For example, if we learn the chronology of dates of a series of historical events, we are simultaneously learning the meaning of a chronology. Each meaning we construct makes us better able to give meaning to other sensations which can fit a similar pattern.
2. The crucial action of constructing meaning is mental: it happens in the mind. Physical actions, hands-on experience may be necessary for learning, especially for children, but it is not sufficient; we need to provide activities which engage the mind as well as the hands (Dewey called this reflective activity.)
3. Learning involves language: the language we use influences learning. On the empirical level. Researchers have noted that people talk to themselves as they learn. On a more general level, there is a collection of arguments, presented most forcefully by Vigotsky, that language and learning are inextricably intertwined (need to honor native language).
4. Learning is a social activity: our learning is intimately associated with our connection with other human beings, our teachers, our peers, our family as well as casual acquaintances, including the people before us or next to us. We are more likely to be successful in our efforts to educate if we recognize this principle rather than try to avoid it. Much of traditional education, as Dewey pointed out, is directed towards isolating the learner from all social interaction, and towards seeing education as a one-on-one relationship between the learner and the objective material to be learned. In contrast, progressive education (to continue to use Dewey’s formulation) recognizes the social aspect of learning and uses conversation, interaction with others, and the application of knowledge as an integral aspect of learning.
5. Learning is contextual: we do not learn isolated facts and theories in some abstract otherworldly land of the mind separate from the rest of our lives: we learn in relationship to what else we know, what we believe, our prejudices and our fears. On reflection, it becomes clear that this point is actually a result of the idea that learning is active and social. We cannot divorce our learning from our lives.
6. One needs knowledge to learn: it is not possible to assimilate new knowledge without having some structure developed from previous knowledge to build on. The more we know, the more we can learn. Therefore any effort to teach must be connected to the state of the learner, must provide a path into the subject for the learner based on that learner’s previous knowledge.
7. It takes time to learn: learning is not instantaneous. For significant learning we need to revisit ideas, ponder them, try them out, play with them and use them. This cannot happen in the 5-10 minutes. If you reflect on anything you have learned, you soon realize that it is the product of repeated exposure and thought. Even, or especially, moments of profound insight, can be traced back to longer periods of preparation.
8. Motivation is a key component in learning. Not only is it the case that motivation helps learning, it is essential for learning. This idea of motivation as described here is broadly conceived to include an understanding of ways in which the knowledge can be used. Unless we know “the reasons why”, we may not be very involved in using the knowledge that may be instilled in us, even by the most severe and direct teaching.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

An angry teacher is a scary teacher. Ask anyone and he will say the same. We all have had our share of being victimized by angry teachers who refuse to keep a check on their emotion. They comfortably take it all out on students, without concern and care about the aftermath of their insensitive, intense, negative, destructive outbursts of anger. The scars left by angry teachers are permanent, psychological, and subconsciously harmful.

Although teachers are humans who undergo a variety of life stresses, frustrations, and private conflicts, getting angry and showing this anger in a destructive way to students is by no means a justifiable act. It is important to acknowledge and experience anger, but there are ways to dealing with it in a more constructive manner. The following steps would help teachers to handle and deal with their anger with caution:

1. Acknowledge that you are angry – becoming aware of angry moments or anger in general.
2. Deliberately make a way to cool down – time-out (“I will come back in 5 minutes,” or “We will start the lesson in 5 minutes.”); deliberately behaving positively despite the anger will eventually help you to become positive and more controlled.
3. Verbalize the anger – expressing anger is different from displacing it on someone helpless or less authoritative than yourself. Verbalization of anger helps you to channel the intense energy that accompanies the anger into something more positive. Verbalizing also helps you not to focus too long on the anger itself. Rather, as you begin talking about the feeling of anger, it might become clear to you that it’s not worth to dwell on the particularly negative approach to dealing with the issue at hand.

The students of PSYC384 (first semester, 2007) presented the following suggestions to prevent anger in the classroom:

1. Prepare well for lessons – there is no substitute to preventing problems in the classroom by having a good lesson planned for the students – activities, stimulating questions, open-ended tasks, inquiry, etc.; there are two types of preparation: one type of preparation deals with the day-to-day getting ready for the class to teach lessons. Another type of preparation deals with an on-going watchfulness of a teacher – for example, I read all sorts of books, magazines, internet materials; watch documentaries, movies, etc., all in the hope to gather ideas for my future lessons or for whenever they are needed. As a teacher, I am constantly thinking about making lessons interesting. This is known as an on-going preparation.
2. Continual learning – being flexible, resourceful, inventive and re-inventive; making lessons interesting is crucial to prevent disruption in behavior among students. When boredom sets in, students use their energies in things that do not help them benefit from the learning experiences provided in the classroom.
3. Have a positive attitude at all times – take it easy; remember that not every lesson will be fantastic (gauge students’ emotion and your emotion and mental conditions – be realistic).
4. Focus on positive rather than negative.
5. Develop high level of teacher efficacy (the belief that everything that you do, say, feel, etc. in the classroom affect students in significant, permanent ways); hold high, realistic, positive expectation for all.
6. Regulate emotion – acting happy will help you become happy; postpone action/decisions when in anger; give yourself a time-out.
7. Communicate the anger to your students in a constructive, harmless way (be honest, but tactful).
8. Remember that it’s okay to be a human! – so, express your anger within the right framework.

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]I just came back from my first class for today…and you know what? I re-lived and re-assured myself of the importance and power of engaging teaching methods. The portion today was on ‘expertise’ (cognitive psychology class)…but instead of lecturing and presenting (in less than 5 minutes) all the characteristics of an ‘expert’…we spend 1 hour and 20 minutes doing it…hehehe. This is what we did.

I asked each student to write down an area (knowledge or skill) he/she is expert in. Then, I asked them to describe (in at least 5 sentences) their expertise. Then, I asked them to find a pair and share their expertise (and whatever they have written about their expertise). After that, I asked both to put their ‘heads together’ and identify a characteristic of an expert … seen emerging from the commonality of whatever they have shared with each other.

Then, I ask each pair to share their answers (to the whole class). Each students talks about the other person’s (partner’s) expertise. This gave each one of them to feel proud about themselves today!!! I saw smiles…many blushed…and many others were laughing away…when their expertise was shared with the whole class. Isn’t this what we call teaching for emotional intelligence? Then, I asked the pairs to share the one characteristic of an expert. We identified 12 characteristics altogether…where did all these come from? from the textbook? NO…they all come from EACH AND EVERY STUDENT who came to learn…and they took responsibility for their learning. I felt so good…coz I saw engagement throughout the class period. We had fun…at some of our friends’ expertise :p 

Of course, I also presented them with points from the textbook…but doing what I did…I related to my students that THEY TOO CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE EXISTING BODY OF KNOWLEDGE…if only they are asked and encouraged to do so. They are smart…and that’s a fact!

E.g. students’ expertise that made us laugh:

1. expert in making soup – this student is seen everywhere picking up whatever leaves she can get to cook soup…hahaha (she’s a ‘karen’ person)

2. expert in sleeping and eating – can sleep wherever and whenever; can eat 7 meals a day and still feel hungry

3. expert in physical activities (a short/chubby girl) – I teased her and asked if it is aggressive activities she is talking about (wrestling?)…!!!

[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

Of all the educational objectives a teacher would desire to accomplish, one remains to be the most vital, yet challenging. It is the objective to engage students in critical and creative thinking in the process of learning. This is a particularly difficult objective to fulfill in an oriental setting, where students come from a collectivist socio-cultural background. Despite learning and utilizing a variety of innovative teaching methods that encourage and require critical and creative thinking, teachers find that students from the collectivist cultural orientation do little or nothing to push their creative-imaginative prowess to invent and produce new knowledge.

An encounter with ‘quiet’ students

Such was my experience when I started teaching at Mission College, an international college situated in Saraburi, Thailand; in 2003 (Mission College caters to the educational needs of an international student body). Discussions in classes were often dominated by outspoken and courageous students from the west. Asian students hardly talked or contributed their opinions about issues, even when an issue directly related to their lives and future. It was difficult to get them to talk. There were times when I had to wait for two to three minutes before a one-word answer emerged from the lips of an Asian student. It was tiring, frustrating, and to a great extent, scary. Scary because I couldn’t imagine how these students would one day become leaders and yet, govern without being able to think and express their thoughts with confidence. The scenario seemed truly bleak. It still does.

The difference between East and West

Contemporary research in education and psychology propose that students learn the best when they are allowed a great amount of freedom in the process of learning – to choose when, what, why, and how they would learn what they would want to learn. In other words, learning and the highest form of it – thinking – are enhanced when teachers employ student-centered teaching. Student-centered teaching requires that students are made responsible for their own learning. They are their own bosses, deciding, and judging what is good and bad for them. Nothing is imposed. Teachers merely play the role of a supportive mentor or guide.

While this sounds like a fabulous idea, it doesn’t work all that easily. Even in a highly individualized society like the United States, a lot of students refuse to engage in the processes of thinking pertinent for improved learning and academic achievement. For most of us, thinking, just like reading, is an effortful, energy-draining task. We choose to borrow and use the ideas and suggestions of others rather than come up with our own, simply because we want to save time and mental energy.

However, compared to the western society, students from Asia have a more difficult time to open up, think, and express their thoughts. Somehow, student-centered teaching does not suit learners with a collectivist socio-culture background because of differences in societal values.

This is also true of Asian students who study abroad (even at graduate and post-graduate levels), in places like the UK or US. They are often considered ‘good students’ – because they quietly listen to and absorb whatever is handed down to them by the teacher – but by the standards of current development and advancement in education, they are the worst because they have not learned the art and science of thinking, critically, and creatively. In the end, they lose out. They become mere reflectors of other people’s thoughts. They are unable to bring out and nurture their innate abilities to be original, innovative, and inventive. These students return to their home countries to continue in the same old vicious cycle of being ‘copy/cut-pasters’ of ideas and knowledge.

Why doesn’t it work here?

Coming from an Asian family structure myself, this is a phenomenon that is easily understood. The Asian family and school structures require children to listen and obey. No questions are entertained and most decisions, big or small, are made by parents (at home) and teachers (at school). An individual grows up, programmed to conform to a variety of norms, without challenging the same. Thinking and asserting individual opinions are out of place. In fact, these are considered disrespectful. Hence, it is a commonplace for Asian students to submit to authorities, and inaudibly abide by the rules and regulations imposed on them. From very young, Asian students are taught to ‘go with the flow’ and avoid ‘everything that depart from status-quo’. This is also seen at school; in how teaching and learning transpire. Students are not allowed to think. Teachers think for their students and spoon-feed them with whatever knowledge deemed necessary.

Years of being exposed to such an upbringing makes it extremely difficult to break the pattern of brain function, even at neurological level. When asked to think, speak up, and express their thoughts, Asian students freeze and shut down socially first, and then, emotionally, and neurologically too.

The way to go

Trying to implement student-centered teaching in schools with many Asian students would prove to be unwise. If our aim in education is to inculcate patterns of mental processes and behavior that elicit maximum amount of thinking on the part of students, a culturally sensitive approach is required.

My suggestion is for schools to begin with learning-centered teaching and gradually transit into student-centeredness. Directly plunging into students-centered teaching would be catastrophic because Asian students are not used to taking responsibility for their own learning and thinking. They are more comfortable following directions from an authoritative figure. Hence, getting them into a new learning pattern would require a gradual move from being completely passive to becoming completely active and creative.

Learning-centered teaching encompasses methods and approaches that make use of findings in brain research, and how learners learn the best, as humans. In addition to this, learning-centered teaching makes use of cooperative teaching strategies to harness the potential of students in non-threatening environments. When students (particularly Asian students) are allowed to develop critical and creative thinking skills in small groups (less intimidating because they come from a collectivist background), they would eventually develop the confidence required to apply the same learning tools in a wider perspective, even at an individual level.

Student-centered Teaching: The Way to Go![/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]