Quinones 1
Layla Quinones
ELN120.5382
April 30, 2009
Research Term Paper
Child-Centered Teaching versus Curriculum-Centered Teaching
The educational philosophy of teachers greatly impacts an educator’s teaching style and
therefore greatly impacts student learning. The philosophy of an educator affects the way they
prepare for their classes in terms of what they prepare, and essentially, it aids in the formation of
his/her teaching methodologies. Two specific types of teaching philosophies are child-centered
teaching and curriculum-based teaching. Generally, child-based teaching focuses on the ability
of a child to understand a concept in depth, whereas curriculum-based teaching focuses on a
child’s ability to meet general standards set by outside sources. Although both philosophies have
their flaws, child-centered learning is essentially a more effective approach to teaching students
in a public school system.
Child-centered teaching methods are primarily influenced by the philosophy of
constructivism. According to constructivist pioneer Jean Piaget, already existing knowledge in a
child’s mind creates the foundation where new learning is accomplished (Piaget, 1969). Other
philosophers also agree that “construction learners connect new information with existing ideas
to form meaningful knowledge that has a measure of internal coherence [that can be] integrated
across topics and can itself act as a tool for further constructions (Confrey, 1990; Noddings,
1990). John Dewey, another famous contributor to constructivism in education, “routinely used
common experiences of childhood as starting points for drawing his students into the more
sophisticated forms of knowledge represented in disciplines” (Widschitl, 2002). Essentially, this
method of teaching “[honors] students’ attempts to think for themselves while remaining faithful
to accepted disciplinary ideas; developing deeper knowledge of subject matter” and utilizing
Quinones 2
“collaborative work in the classroom” (2002). This essentially allows students to learn on their
own according to their individual learning abilities and interests while they build on knowledge
that is preexisting in their brains. In addition, the benefits to this type of teaching style are that
students are able to “adapt flexibly to new work demands, identify as well as solve problems, and
create complex products in collaboration with others” (2002).
The role of the teacher in the case of a child-centered classroom is to facilitate the growth
of knowledge by employing the interests and diverse needs of students as a medium for
meaningful instruction. According to Mark Widschitl, teachers in a child-centered classroom that
utilizes the theory of constructivism extract ideas and experiences that are related to topics while
creating situations that help them expand their current knowledge. Teachers also provide
students with the tools that they need to explore areas of learning in order to increase their
understanding of a certain concept. They also commonly make their thinking processes clear to
their students in order to provide a model of how they should be processing information through
writing, conversation and drawings. In addition, an educator also makes available to students the
information that students need to apply to other aspects of learning in order to derive their own
conclusions. Therefore, students can construct their own knowledge while developing
exceptional problem solving skills (2002). Essentially, the role of an instructor in a childcentered classroom is to facilitate the learning that is occurring while allowing students to
ultimately build on the knowledge they already have from their past experiences. This allows the
students to make relationships between different bodies of knowledge and fabricate a central and
in-depth understanding of topics in relation to one another. This is achieved through a specific
method the instructor uses to push students’ thinking along, while giving them suggestions that
guide them in the right direction.
Quinones 3
Teachers who use a child-centered teaching method also assess students in a very
unique way, although they still have to comply with various assessment tests through-out the
school year. They assess students primarily by asking questions that empower them to apply
their knowledge in order to find a solution (Widschitl, 2002). Teachers might do this by
assigning homework, conducting peer reviews, requiring students to keep journals and
incorporating other artistic methods. They also assess students in a progressive way where they
measure what the students have learned through the course of the lesson compared to what they
knew before the lesson. In addition, child-centered teachers also assess children according to
how well they have done in comparison to their peers rather than based on standards met. For
example, a child-centered teacher may engage her students using the Socratic method of
questioning in order to asses how much the student knows as well as, how well the students can
explain how they arrive at their conclusions. Essentially, constructivist educators have a clearly
defined plan for students and a clear understanding of how the students would be able to meet
these goals. However, these goals are ultimately formed with the students so that they have a
flexible and general rubric to follow that will help them stay on task and progress in the right
direction. However, these goals are usually designed within the boundaries of general standards
implemented by their superiors.
Constructivist teachers also have to plan for their classes a bit differently from teachers
who utilize traditional teaching methodologies. According to D.K. Cohen, “teachers who take
this path must work harder, concentrate more, and embrace larger pedagogical responsibilities
than if they only assigned text book chapters and seatwork” (1988, p.255). These educators must
contain a prior awareness of ideas that the children might bring to the lesson as well as clearly
defined goals for students while utilizing teaching strategies that challenge and develop their
Quinones 4
initial ideas (Widschitl, 2002). Educators also must identify a definite way in which students can
expand their ideas by giving them opportunities where they can use the information that they
have constructed. In addition, the teacher must also keep a well-organized classroom atmosphere
which encourages children to actively participate in constructing their knowledge and using it in
the right way so as to prevent any misleading inferences or conflicts between students (Fox,
2003).
On the other hand, curriculum-centered teaching methods stand in sharp contrast to childcentered teaching methods. This teaching method primarily focuses on educating students
according to standards set by outside sources. Despite the various learning styles of students,
these standards apply to every student. In 2001, President George W. Bush implemented a
federal education plan called the No Child Left Behind Act that enforced universal standards for
all students. The goal of this and most curriculum-based teaching methods is primarily to
guarantee that all children get a quality education so that they are able to excel in an
academically and technologically competitive world. Curriculum-based methods also aim at
closing the achievement gap among students so that all students are able to have generally the
same type of knowledge when continuing their education or entering the workforce (Ogawa,
2003). In addition, “curriculum standards provide teachers with a common sequence of targets at
which aim instruction…by specifying which knowledge and skills students must demonstrate
[and therefore], imply the instructional practices that teachers should employ” (2003).
Essentially, standards make clear what the teachers should be teaching during each lesson and
what students should be able to do by the end of instruction.
Many teachers who teach with a curriculum or standard-based teaching method also are
restricted in many ways in terms of their roles as educators. According to L.M. McNiel, “when
Quinones 5
held accountable for ensuring that students attain standards, teachers often respond by restricting
themselves to instructional practices that secure the minimum levels of performance required by
the standards” (1986). This means that the content in which teachers are required to teach is
narrowed by the standards set and therefore, greatly impact student learning. In addition,
“curriculum standards are expected to influence the instructional practice of teachers” however,
“undermines the effectiveness of instructional practices that secure only minimum levels of
performance on a narrow range of educational outcomes (Ogawa, 2003). In addition, the
standard-based curriculum ignored many of the instructional methods that educators normally
practice. The standards might set clear guidelines of what to teach, but little has been done in
training teachers how to teach those standards (2003). In essence, the material that students
would be learning in a standard-based classroom will satisfy the knowledge needed to do well on
an assessment test however, not necessarily effective in the formation of knowledge that will be
useful in the future.
The ways in which standards-based teachers asses their students is through assessment
tests set by the state or the national government. Thus “teachers prepare students to meet
standards that would appear in each benchmark test as well as in the year-end criterionreferenced test” (Ogawa, 2003). In this way, teachers and administrators would receive periodic
feedback on student performance and therefore, teacher effectiveness. In addition,
“organizational characteristics, such as school norms for accountability, influence how
curriculum standards are implemented” therefore, affecting the ways in which the teachers teach
and students learn (2003). In part, accountability and assessment tests are the cause of teachers
eliminating content areas, such as art and science, because they have to devote too much time
and more attention to core disciplines and topics outlined by the standards (2003).
Quinones 6
From this point of view, child-centered teaching methods are much more effective than
curriculum-based teaching methods. On educator expressed her views pertaining to curriculumbased teaching: “I don’t think it helps to put teachers in a box. I can’t teach as effectively if I am
handed a script or a canned program” (2003). Here, this educator expresses the restrictions that
standard-based teaching poses in terms of instructional methods. Teachers are require to “teach
to the test” rather than according to the learning styles or interests of their students. The required
time that is supposed to be devoted to teaching according to the standards also prevents teachers
from using effective teaching methods such as using manipulatives, or other activities that aid in
conceptual learning (2003). In contrast, child-centered learning allows the students to develop
skills as they build on knowledge that is already present in their minds. The assessment of these
students does not only rely on high-stakes testing, rather it relies on what the students can
communicate to the teacher about what they have learned. In this way, poor test takers are not
effected substantially in a negative way when measured against standards that do not fit their
learning styles. Lastly, through child-centered learning, students are able to think for themselves
rather than have information fed to them. Students are therefore able to develop intellectually
with an in-depth understanding of concepts rather than learning what is going to be on a test.
Although child-centered teaching methods generally have to comply with standartds that
are set for respective regions, many teachers prefer child-centered teaching methods over
standard-based teaching methods. Through this type of teaching, children are able to grow
dynamically by keeping fresh the in-depth knowledge that they constructed from what they
already knew. This also allows them to form relationships between various topics and concepts.
In addition, the problem solving, social and communication skills that are developed from childcentered learning will also aid students tremendously when entering an institution of higher
Quinones 7
education or in obtaining a job. Unfortunately, those who have been taught on a curriculumbased method usually have minimal knowledge about a subject that applies only to an
assessment test. This is, in part, due to the fact that they generally “spoon feed” children
information instead of allowing them to actively discover the information for themselves. This
will only hurt students in the future because they would not contain the dynamic knowledge
needed for a full understanding of a particular subject area.
Quinones 8
References
Cohen, D.K., & Ball, D.L. (1990). “Policy and practice: An overview. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis.
Confrey, J. & Noddings, N. (1990). “What Constructivism Implies for Teaching.” Constructivist
Views on the Teaching of Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics.
Fox, R. (2001). “Constructivism Examined.” Oxford Review of Education. Taylor & Francis,
Ltd.
McNeil, L.M. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and school knowledge. New
York. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Ogawa, R. & Sandholtz, J.H. (2003). “The Substantive and Symbolic Consequences of a
District’s Standards-Based Curriculum.” American Educational Research Journal.
American Educational Research Association.
Piaget, J. (1969). Science of Education and Psychology of the Child. Harlow, Longman.
Smith, F. (1975). Comprehension and Learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Windchitl, M. (2002). “Framing Constructivism in Practice as the Negotiation of Dilemmas: An
Analysis of the Conceptual, Pedagogical, Cultural, and Political Challenges Facing
Teachers.” Review of Educational Research. American Educational Research
Association.