Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 469–473

World Conference on Educational Sciences 2009

The effect of student centered instructional approaches on student

success
Yucel GELISLI∗
Department of Educational Sciences, Gazi University, Ankara 06500, Turkey

Received October 08, 2008; revised December 18, 2008; accepted January 04, 2009

Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine the effect of student centered training approaches on student success. Experimental design
with pretest and last test group were used in the study. The working group of the study consisted of experiment and test groups
with 60 people chosen out of third grade students of Gazi University, Faculty of Technical Education, the Program of Furniture
Decoration Teaching and Machining Teaching. It was found at the end of the study that the success was significantly higher n the
group where student centered methods were applied compared to the teacher centered group.
© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Keywords: Student centered learning; student centered instruction; teacher centered learning; student centered education.

1. Introduction

One of the basic problems we encounter today is traditional attitudes and methods depending on an educational
sense of rote learning. Such teaching attractive methods activating students by taking them in the centre should be
preferred instead of usual teacher centered educational methods and techniques. In a way student should be made to
learn how to learn through these methods (ùenol, Bal & Yıldırım, 2007).
Knowledgeable person in the past used to be the one knowing everything or storing knowledge produced by
others in his mind. That’s why, training in earlier centuries was regarded as transferring the knowledge stored,
cultural values and vital skills into new generations. Today, knowledgeable person is; the one aware of knowledge,
knowing the ways how to reach it, learning the knowledge he reached by putting a meaning on it, the one being able
to produce new knowledge out of the knowledge he reached and using it in problem solving.

∗
Tel: +0903122126460/324; fax:+ 0903122123640;
E-mail address: gelisli@gazi.edu.tr

1877-0428/$–see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2009.01.085
470 Yucel GELISLI / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 469–473

Student centered approach aims at training child according to its own nature, not depending on what adults want;
in this way claiming that child will be more creative and freer (Gür, 2006). Student centered learning is the
arrangement of learning lives with an emphasis on their interests, knowledge and needs. It aims at making students
attain the skill to explore his learning features and learn how to learn in this process (Saban, 2004).
Interest in student-centered learning has been long-standing among educators in primary, secondary and higher
education. Research, policy and practice claiming to take a student centered approach have continued to grow (Lea,
Stephenson, and Troy, 2003).
The findings obtained through educational researches make the change in the processes of educational systems
and learning – teaching necessary. A process of change has been carried on at educational programs within the lights
of new intelligence from 2003 onwards in Turkey. Course books have also changed parallel with the changes in the
programs. A student centered educational understanding being aware of the ways to reach knowledge, learning how
to learn and depending on ever development of students has been highlighted in stead of processes putting teacher
into the center.
Contrary to teacher centered traditional learning methods where students are passive listeners, this model argues
that student should be in a position to be active in learning. It defends that student do not take the knowledge
reaching him as it is and that pre – knowledge of individual, his features and also learning environment are of great
importance (Nakibo÷lu, 2001).
Student centered learning is an approach taking the interests, skills and needs into consideration, letting students
be free in the process of learning, presenting them various opportunities, making student learn in his own pace
(Sparrow and Sparrow, Swan, 2000). According to this approach, learning pace among students and the difference
between the styles are taken into consideration when lives of students are planned. The experience of student, the
content, structuring knowledge is of importance in the student centered learning environments. It is also important to
form samples, exploring, searching, and problem based learning in the student centered learning environments
(Çubukçu, 2007). Teachers carefully develop a structured learning environment where students are given support
and guidance to attain skills in self-evaluation and independence in their learning (Klenowski, 1995).
Due to active participation of students into learning process, a more permanent and sensible learning is realized.
Therefore, we introduced a student-centered learning (SCL) approach to encourage students to take more
responsibility for their own learning in the course (Scott, Buchanan and Haigh, 1997). It is thought that this course
will improve their thinking skills, consequently creative thinking.
According to learning theories where student is active, all students naturally have self esteem and the sense of
energetic, self arranging social and being aware, and the fact that students live in these feelings is their most basic
need (Korkmaz, 20007).
One should not think that teacher has no role in learning with student centered learning in reality, which is
regarded as a slogan today. On the contrary, in the course of learning through student centered learning both
students and teachers are active (Ercan, 2004).
In this context, the aim of the study was; to determine the effect of student centered learning approaches on
academic success of students. Within this purpose the following questions were sought answers:
1. Is there a significant difference between the pre and last test scores of the test group where student centered
teaching approaches were applied and the control group where teacher centered teaching approaches were applied?
2. Is there a significant difference between the last test scores of the test group where student centered teaching
approaches were applied and the control group where teacher centered teaching approaches were applied?

2. Method

In this research, experimental design with “pretest – post test control group” was used. There were students in the
test group (N=30) and control group (N=30) which was determined out of the groups randomly. The working group
of the study consisted of experiment and test groups with 60 people chosen out of third grade students of Gazi
University, Faculty of Technical Education, the Program of Furniture Decoration Teaching and Machining
Teaching.
 Yucel GELISLI / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 469–473 471

2.1. Test subjects

The study was conducted over with 60 third grade students of Gazi University, Faculty of Technical Education,
the Program of Furniture Decoration Teaching and Machining Teaching in the second semester of the educational
year of 2007 – 2008. Groups were equaled considering success score averages and pretest results.

2.2. Preparing the tool of data collection

Data were gathered by achievement test developed by the researcher. This test is consisting of 25 items. The
content validity of test was determined depending on expert opinions. While computing the reliability of the test,
KR – 20 (Kuder – Richardson) formula was used.
The achievement test was applied to a group of 100 students in third grade having taken the course of Classroom
Management and succeeded. The difficulty indices mean of the test was 0.72 and KR – 20 reliability coefficient was
0.88.

2.3. Experimental process

The department of Furniture Decoration Teaching students taking the course of Classroom Management at the
Faculty of Technical Education of Gazi University was chosen as the experiment group in the second semester of
2007 – 2008 educational year and courses were supported through group activities making students active,
individual presentations, discussions etc. , teaching methods and PowerPoint presentations. As for Machining
Teaching Program comprising the control group, courses were carried out through teacher presentations. In the first
week when courses started, students were applied 25 item pretest and the application was practiced over both groups
throughout one year with an application of post test at the end of the term.

2.4. Analysis of the data

The data obtained as a result of the practice was analyzed through SPSS package program. Pre and post test
scoring means of the groups and standard deviations were calculated and the differences between the groups
following pre and post experimental process were tested at the level of 0.05 significant through the method of t test
for both dependent and independent groups.

3. Findings And Comment

The data obtained out of the research and related data analysis results were form as tables.

3.1. Findings concerning the equality of the groups before application

Table 1. “t” test results concerning the comparison of general pre test scores of the groups

Groups n Mean SD t p
Student Centered Learning
30 12.17 2.44
(Experiment Group)
.798 .428
Teacher Centered Learning
30 11.61 2.95
(Control Group)
P>0.05
According to Table 1, there was a significant difference between pre test scores of both experiment and control
groups. So, it is likely to say that students had no significance related to the issues determined within the content of
472 Yucel GELISLI / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 469–473

the course of Classroom Management in terms of introduction behaviors. It is also possible to say that introduction
behaviors of both groups were at the same level at the beginning of the study.

3.2. Findings Concerning First Sub Problems of the Research

In the first sub problem of the research, it was questioned whether there was a significant difference between the
experiment group where student centered approaches were applied and the pretest – last test scores of the control
group where teacher centered approaches were applied.

Table 2. “t” test results concerning the comparison of pretest – last test scores of the experiment and control groups

Groups Success Test n Mean SD t p

Student Centered Learning
Pretest Post test 30 -3.13 3.69 4.647 0,000∗∗∗
(Experiment Group)
Teacher Centered Learning
Pretest Post test 30 -1.64 3.68 1.487 0,019∗∗
(Control Group)
∗∗
P<.05, ∗∗∗ P<0.001
It is clear from Table 2 that there is a significant different between pretest and post test scores of both the
experiment and control groups. Depending on this result, it is likely to say that there became an increase at the
successes of the groups after they were given training.

3.3. Findings Concerning Second Sub Problems of the Research

In the second sub problem of the research, it was questioned whether there was a significant difference between
the experiment group where student centered approaches were applied and post test scores of the control group
where teacher centered approaches were applied.

Table 3. “t” test results concerning the last test scores of the students in both the experiment and control groups

Groups n Mean SD Sd t p
Student Centered Learning
30 15.30 2.60
(Experiment Group)
28 2.800 0,007*∗
Teacher Centered Learning
30 13.26 3.07
(Control Group
∗∗
P<0.05

As is clear in Table 2, the scoring means of the student in the experiment group where student centered
approaches were applied was X=15.30 the scoring means of the student in the control group where teacher centered
approaches were applied was X=13.26. This difference (success) between the experiment and control groups was
significant at the level of ∝=0.05 [t=2.800; p<0.05]. Therefore, it is likely to say that there is a significant increase at
the success of the student in the experiment group where student centered approaches were applied compared to the
control group where teacher centered approaches were applied.

4. Conclusion

Depending on the findings of the study, there became an increase at the success of active participation of the
students into learning, teaching processes. As a consequence of the study, it was observed that there became an
increase after training applications given to both groups, however, the success of experiment group where student
 Yucel GELISLI / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 1 (2009) 469–473 473

centered approaches were applied was significantly higher than that of the control group. We could recommend the
following as to this conclusion:
1. Learning, teaching strategy, methods and techniques putting the student into the center should be paid more
attention in the processes of learning and teaching.
2. Learning environments should be rearranged depending on student centered applications and the needs of
students.
3. Teachers should be given in – service training over student centered applications.

References

Çubukçu, Z.,(2007). Ö÷renci Merkezli Ö÷renmede Kablosuz Internet Kullanımı,[Student Centered Wireless Internet Use] XVI. National
Congress of Educational Sciences, Gaziosmanpasa University, Faculty of Education, Tokat, 5-7 September, 2007.
Ercan, O.,(2004). Bir Ö÷renme Süreci Olarak Aktif Ö÷renme[ Active Learning as a learning Processes ]Journal of Bilim ve Aklın Aydınlı÷ında
E÷itim, 54,55. Retrieved, December 10, 2008. from, http://yayim.meb.gov.tr /dergiler/sayi54-55/ercan.htm.
Gür, B.S. (2006). Ö÷renci-Merkezli E÷itimin Çıkmazları[Dilemmas of Student Centered Learning], Eski Yeni, 3, 34-45.
Klenowski, V.,(1995). Student Self-Evaluatıon Processes In Student-Centred Teachıng And Learnıng Contexts Of Australıa And England,
Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice; Vol. 2, 2, 145-163
Korkmaz, ø.,(2007). Ö÷renci Merkezli Ders Uygulamalarına øliúkin Ö÷renci Görüúleri[Students Opinions about the Student Centered Course
Practice], III Congress of Social Sciences Education (18-20 June 2007 Cukurova University, Adana).
Lea,S., Stephenson, D., Troy,J.,(2003) 2003 Higher Education Students’ Attitudes to Student-Centred Learning: Beyond ‘Educational Bulimia’?
Studies in Higher Education Vol: 28, 3, 321-334.
Nakibo÷lu,C.,(2001). “Maddenin Yapısı” Ünitesinin øúbirlikli Ö÷renme Yöntemi Kullanılarak Kimya Ö÷retmen Adaylarına Ö÷retilmesinin
Ö÷renci Baúarısına Etkisi[The Effect of Teaching the Unit of “the Structure of Material” to Pre-service Chemistry Teachers with the Method
of Cooperative Learning on Student Success ] G.Ü. Faculy of Gazi Education Journal, Vol:21, 3, 131-143.
ùenol, H., Bal, ù., Yıldırım, H.ø.,(2007). ølkö÷retim 6. Sınıf Fen Bilgisi Dersinde Duyu Organları Konusunun øúlenmesinde øúbirlikli Ö÷renme
Yönteminin Ö÷renci Baúarısı Ve Tutum Üzerinde Etkisi[The Effect of Teaching the Unit of “Organs of Sense” at the Course of Science at
6th Grade of Primary Schools with the Method of Cooperative Learning on Student Success and Attitudes], Kastamonu Journal of
Education, Vol:15, 1, 211-220.
Saban, A.,(2004) Ögrenme Ögretme Süreci Yeni Teoriler ve Yaklaúımlar[The Process of Learning Teaching, New Theories and Approaches],
Ankara: Nobel Publications..
Scott, J, Buchanan, J and Haigh, N.(1997) Reflections on Student-Centered Learning in a Large Class Setting, British Journal of Educational
Technology Vol, 28, 1, 19–30.
Sparrow, L., Sparrow, H. and Swan, P. (2000). Student centered learning: Is it possible? In A. Herrmann and M. M. Kulski (Eds), Flexible
Futures in Tertiary Teaching. Proceedings of the 9th Annual Teaching Learning Forum, 2-4 February 2000. Perth: Curtin University of
Technology. Retrieved, December 10, 2008. from http://lsn.curtin.edu.au/tlf/tlf2000/sparrow.html.