The primary roots of the student-centred view of teaching lie in the huma-nistic approach. According to Rogers (1983, 283-290) the aim of educa-tion is “a fully funceduca-tioning person” and self-direceduca-tion is a one feature of a fully functioning person. Knowles (1985, 18) highlights the importance of the learner’s initiative, responsibility and engagement in learning, the learner’s self-conception as an independent and self-directed person, and the learner’s ability at self-assessment. Knowles also emphasizes the importance of reciprocal action and the teacher’s role as a supporter.
The construction of knowledge by the students supported by the learning environment constitutes the core of the student-centred view of teaching.
The conception of knowledge construction is based on the constructivist and pragmatist approaches. These approaches, which are supported by many scholars in the field of learning, represent the relativistic view of knowledge, emphasizing both individual and social processes in know-ledge construction, as well as the meaning of individual interpretation and the context of use of knowledge. From the thinking underlying constructiv-ism and pragmatconstructiv-ism, Jääskelä (2005, 2009) extracted the following four theses on a student-centred view of teaching:
Learning is the active construction of knowledge.
Learning is based on the individual’s previous knowledge and expe-riences and is active in nature. This is the basic assumption of constructiv-ism. Earlier, Piaget (1988) highlighted the role of cognitive processes in learning. According to Piaget, knowledge construction takes place when the learner adjusts his/her own knowledge structure to the current context.
This knowledge construction occurs through accommodation or assimila-tion. Subsequently, several researchers (e.g. Vosniadou 1994, Rauste von Wright 1994; Tynjälä 1999; Hakkarainen, Lonka, & Lipponen 2004, 84-99) have emphasized the process of conceptual change in learning. In
51 the same way, the pragmatic philosophy stresses the dynamic nature of knowledge and having a personal relationship to knowledge as starting points for a deeper understanding (Kelly 1986). In academic studies, theo-retical and conceptual learning, as well as the active production of know-ledge, are important. Instead of merely repeating knowknow-ledge, it is under-standing, applying, comparing, analyzing, synthesizing and abstracting knowledge that leads to active learning. University teachers need to pay attention both to students’ possibilities for handling knowledge and to the strengths of adult students as knowledge constructors. The learning of adult students is based on their existing practical knowledge and expe-riences. They want to understand and conceptualize practical phenome-na. In addition, they often have a readiness to enter into a relativistic rela-tionship to knowledge.
Knowledge is constructed in social interaction, in which a shared understanding prevails.
In learning the importance of group and social interaction has been widely emphasized (e.g. Vygotsky 1978; Palinscar 1998; Dillenbourg 1999; Little-ton & Häkkinen 1999; Cockrell & al. 2000; Mercer 2000; Marttunen & Lau-rinen 2004; Hassanien 2007; Mäkitalo & Siegl 2008). According to both the socio-cultural approach and the pragmatist philosophy, social interac-tion is seen as a necessary part of an individual’s deep learning (Vy-gotsky) and of becoming existent and understood in a human community (Mead 1934). In university pedagogy, many computer supported learning designs have been used to connect students and to promote learning together. Many group designs have also been used face to face. Howev-er, studying with groups does not automatically enhance one’s learning.
More important is to construct the space (climate, common language) for sharing different conceptions and experiences of phenomena and a dialo-gue aiming at shared understanding.
Knowledge construction is directed by action, goals and context.
Functional psychology and pragmatism, both of which have impacted on constructivism, emphasize the importance of the individuals’ goal-oriented
52 action and their active relationship with the environment. (Mead 1934;
Rauste von Wright 1994, 116.) Our actions are understandable when we understand our aims. On the other hand, action and experiences lead us to revising and even to changing our aims. In line with this view, Aaltola (1998, 45-46) states that knowledge construction is also directed by the individual’s goals and context of action. Learning has to be seen as an individual process due to the diverse experiences, and learning contexts and aims of students. Some researchers have pointed to the importance of the learning situation or the context of learning (e.g. Lave 1991; Collin &
Tynjälä 2003). Others have found a connection between the learning envi-ronment and study orientation or motivation (e.g. Järvelä & al. 2008; Helle
& al. 2007). In university pedagogy, the key question is how can we as teachers support students in achieving their individual study aims and in constructing meaningful paths towards academic expertise?
A research orientation and reflection are the central ways to attain a deeper understanding the world.
Both constructivism and pragmatism emphasize the hypothetical, experi-mental and dynamic nature of knowledge. Knowledge is constructed by the constitution and testing hypotheses and is a result of individual action.
(Dewey 1933, 107-115; James 1913, 31-57). Learning can be seen as a problem-solving process starting from individual questioning and expe-riences. Many adult learning theorists (Kolb, Knowles, Revans, Schön etc.) have modeled and conceptualized the nature and the sources of adult learning. Malinen (2000, 134-138) states, after having analyzed these theories, that learning is a process of re-construction in personal experiential knowing; learning starts when the familiar is disrupted for the individual. Dewey (1951, 26-30) stressed the role of active thinking, ex-planation of and reflection on one’s own conceptions and action as a ne-cessary part of learning. This view has been supported by several later researchers (e.g. Mezirov 1990; Ploetzner & al. 1999). According to them, a student’s prior experiences and knowledge are the basic elements of learning. In addition, students should be activated to formulate individual questions that motivate them to gather knowledge, to explain and to
53 gue, and to reflect on their own thinking and learning. Inquiry learning, developed by Hakkarainen, Lonka & Lipponen (2004, 295-316), is one approach in which teaching practices have shifted towards creating a knowledge construction-oriented, explorative and innovative community.