I have been reading the article by
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.

The words ‘student-centred’ learning (SCL) conjure up different meanings depending on who is defining the term. This article provides a discussion of SCL and reports on two research studies which investigated students’ perceptions of SCL.


The authors use Cannon and Newble’s (2000) definition as the beginning point of their discussion: ‘Essentially SCL has student responsibility and activity at its heart, in contrast to a strong emphasis on teacher control and coverage of academic content...’ (p321).

This sets the central premise for the discussion around certain central beliefs: there is a reliance on active learning, an emphasis on deep understanding, the student is responsible for his/her learning. A mutually respective interdependence between teacher and student occurs as a result , and a reflexive approach to teaching and learning, again by teacher and learner, occurs where ’grabbing the moment’ of learning instead of putting a discussion point aside until ‘later’ (when it will probably be ‘forgotten’anyway) happens. The frmer approach to teaching and learning endorses a constructivist epistemology: the learning is totally connected to the context, better reflecting real world situations. The understanding that results is unique to each student , through his/her lens, and can be grounded in the reality of the situation. This type of learning reflects far more accurately the application of the learning in professional life.

Where the didactic approach is taken, there is often a gulf between the theoretical content that is delivered and the student having the understanding to be able to apply that theory to the reality of practice. In my own teaching I endeavour to use SCL but reading this article endorses my thoughts about constraints, a huge one of which is time. I think of the planning that I have done in some instances and everything has turned to custard, due to my not being cognisant of some aspects that are necessary for effective SCL to occur. On the other hand, on the occasions where a point has been raised by a student and we have developed it and enabled constructive discussion, the students continue to talk and are far more able to apply the critical elements in practice.

The two studies reported in this paper, one qualitative, one quantitative, investigated students’ perceptions of SCL. The former utilised focus groups where students were able to describe SCL, many using a learning/teaching continuum concept. One (mature) student commented “I don’t think the system is geared up for (SCL) at all because I feel factory farmed. I am an educational bulimic. They make me binge and purge all of this knowledge without time to absorb or digest it ..................” As I read those words I could relate to the analogy completely. The mantra of covering content as all important continues in many faculties,  and  in order to address all that the curriculum states must be covered, lectures become a method of delivering what must be 'learned'.

Thinking about assessment as connected to the above thoughts, where does summative assessment provide the opportunity for learning - if students know that they will be tested on certain aspects of the content ( and that is often the question asked - what is going to be in the exam?) that is the focus for learning - for regurgitation. The result is, most likely, a passing grade but what learning actually took place? What learning will be evident for application in the world of the professional?
This is doing my head in - so many links to so many papers that open  more doors to (hopefully) greater understanding but more confusion. Not confusion, rather questions which lead to further challenges