Back in the 1990s, when I was still a teenager, I remember clearly that we had a great deal of esteem and respect for the teachers who demonstrated a vast knowledge of the subject they taught. That was only natural. They were our main source of knowledge, and we depended almost exclusively on them to learn. Therefore, it was only natural that there was a reason we valued the knowledge they demonstrated so highly. After all, knowledge of the subject was the greatest treasure we sought to gain from them.

That wasn’t all, of course. A sense of humor, engaging and inspiring public speaking skills, organization, an attractive blackboard, and clear explanations rounded out the class’s overall satisfaction. In that context, the class became an enchanted theater of learning. The blackboard was the stage. And we, the students, sat in the classroom-theater, marveling at the teachers’ display of knowledge and skill.

When I became a high school physics teacher in the 1990s, that was the teaching model I needed to learn how to put into practice: studying hard and engaging the class. However, in this context—where we teachers concentrate all that is interesting and useful to learn onto ourselves—we become hostages to a pedagogy centered on us, the teachers. That is, a pedagogy that demands almost exclusively a set of knowledge and skills from us, while students remain passive in class. 

In this teaching approach, teachers are responsible—almost exclusively—for what students should be doing: explaining, planning, designing, and constructing arguments. That doesn’t make much sense. It’s as if a personal trainer, instead of simply guiding you on what to do at the gym, did all the exercises for you while you just watched. In teacher-centered classes, learning objectives are limited to what can be learned individually, and typically, the learning that matters boils down to the course syllabus. 

Regardless of class time, I do not believe that teacher-centered classes can offer the richness of learning that student-centered pedagogies are capable of providing. The latter completely transform the dynamics of learning, as the expectations of who should do, explain, and debate are, to a large extent, shifted from the teacher to the students. This pedagogy does not intend to downplay the importance of the teacher’s words and example, but it recognizes that this alone is not enough.

Student-centered teaching approaches allow for broader and more complex learning objectives. The main characteristic of these approaches is that students can learn in groups by talking, debating, arguing, and sharing with their peers and the teacher how they understand the material being studied.

Perhaps the greatest challenge in using this pedagogy is developing instructional materials that allow students to learn more independently of the teacher. This material will serve as whatJerome Brunercalled“scaffolding”—a term that refers to temporary support provided to students, without which they would not be able to achieve their learning objectives. Teachers should not expect students to be able, on their own, to exchange ideas with one another and construct knowledge collectively without the necessaryscaffolding.

But for students to work on their own, we need to consider instructional materials such as short texts that students can read in a few minutes and that serve as a basis for discussion. Videos, images, podcasts, charts, and diagrams are also materials commonly used asscaffolding. And once students have had the chance to discuss the material, it is again important for the teacher to engage with the students once more to assess their progress, contribute to the discussion, and plan new independent activities.

Another major challenge in implementing such a pedagogical approach is creating a culture of support so that teachers have the time to develop these materials, use them, and receive feedback from colleagues to critically reflect on their teaching practices and, in turn, decide what they can do to improve their work. Without such support, the challenge becomes colossal, and it is not uncommon for people to give up on such a daunting task. Therefore, schools that wish to create a pedagogical culture like this need to provide a support plan for teachers, rather than expecting this transformation to occur spontaneously and in isolation.

The responsibility for bringing about this transformation falls primarily onschool principals. Research shows that school principals are the key players with the greatest impact on academic success. They must take on a leadership role to inspire, motivate, and provide continuing professional development for teachers, as well as foster a school environment (ethos) of collaboration and cooperation so that the school can grow as a single, cohesive entity. To be great leaders, principals need to be critical friends to their teachers.

A student-centered approach to teaching requires that teachers receive ongoing training and support to develop their classroom management skills.I really like what Paulo Freire said: wedon’t need authoritarian teachers, but teachers who have authority. And this authority is also earned by demonstrating that the teacher knows how to create a healthy and stimulating classroom environment.

Once again, it is up to school administrators to transform the school into a safe learning environment, free from bullying, where students can share their thoughts with their peers and teachers, confident that they will be supported and will not suffer any kind of humiliation. This is because building a school culture centered on mutual respect—one that deeply values learning and does not tolerate students being afraid to express themselves—will never be achieved unless the entire school is aware of the goals and techniques necessary to reach this objective. And it is up to school leaders to provide the material and human resources needed to make this happen.