The Learner-Centered Framework:
A Research-Validated Rational for
Defining Healthy Educational Environments

Barbara L. McCombs, Ph.D.
University of Denver Research Institute
Talking Paper for Education Committee Hearing
February 27, 2002 - Sacramento, CA

Our nation's schools are in the midst of an era of standards-based educational reform. This reform brings new federal and state accountability systems. Reformers want to assess student achievement of educational standards, generally by means of state-level tests that are aligned with standards and national performance expectations. While the goal of the reform and accountability measures is to ensure that all students achieve at high levels, particularly in the areas of literacy and mathematics, the net effect in many states has been negative. Many of our nation's teachers are demoralized by the often punitive way in which accountability systems have been implemented, and far too many students are disengaging (mentally if not physically) from the increasingly rote and superficial curriculum and constant testing.

Interestingly, my work with the American Psychological Association (APA) over the past decade has pointed to missing elements in current reform efforts. These findings also help define what must be in place if we are to have effective educational systems. Truly effective educational systems will naturally lead to high student achievement of standards, positive student development, and learning environments that are engaging and rewarding for students and teachers alike. This work with the APA has revolved around a document entitled, "The Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: A Framework for School Reform and Redesign (APA, 1997). This document has defined a new kind of learner-centered educational system for all learners. Research-validated principles are delineated as a foundation for understanding learners and learning, and the kind of classroom and school environments that maximize motivation, and achievement.

What Does Learner-Centered Mean?
The term learner-centered carries a variety of meanings for both the educational community and to the public. From a research-validated view, however, the term has very specific meanings. The meanings become clear in an examination of what learner-centered is and what learner-centered is not.

What Learner-Centered Is
· It is a balanced focus on two inter-related components: (1) the latest scientific understanding of learners - this includes knowledge of their learning needs, the cultural and other background influences on learning, and developmental and other individual differences; and (2) the dynamics of learning - these include psychological, physiological, biochemical, and social processes that produce enduring shifts in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and performances.

· It is a holistic approach to learners and learning that includes: (a) attention to each learner's intellectual, motivational, emotional, social, and physical characteristics and needs; and (b) recognition that instructional effectiveness is attributable to a combination of teacher qualities and program/strategy characteristics.

· It is a framework that puts the learner in the center of instructional decision-making by recognizing the importance of individual learners and their needs and characteristics. This means that schools and classrooms are caring learning communities where learners and teachers know and trust each other.

· It is an integrative and dynamic approach to education that provides support for creative thinking, problem solving, and other higher order thinking and learning processes. Learners are supported in creating and producing knowledge as well as in conserving existing knowledge.

· It is shared teacher and student responsibility for the learning of rigorous and challenging content and standards. This is accomplished through (a) a balance of teacher and student choice and control; (b) integrated and thematic curricula and assessments that are perceived as personally relevant and meaningful to learners; and (c) teacher and student partnerships in learning that broadly focus on positive student development and new learning cultures and communities.

What Learner-Centered Is Not
· It is not tied to specific programs, methods, or strategies such as cooperative learning, problem-based learning, or other specific instructional approaches.

· It is not applicable to only school-age students but, rather, can be applied to learners of any age, cradle to grave, and including teachers as learners.

· It is not focused on non-rigorous and non-academic approaches such as previous child-centered approaches that overly focused on affective issues rather than on high standards of learning and performance.

· It is not a "do your own thing" educational model like those that were popular in the 1970's, such as models that advocated very open classrooms and unstructured classroom learning experiences.

How Were the Learner-Centered Psychological Principles Developed?
The American Psychological Association's (APA) Task Force on Psychology in Education convened an impressive array of many of our nation's most respected researchers in psychology and education in 1991. Their task was to summarize more than 100 years of published and substantiated research (in technical terms, a meta-analysis) about learning, motivation, and development. The result was a document, published by the APA in early 1993, entitled Learner-Centered Psychological Principles: Guidelines for School Redesign and Reform. The Task Force saw this product as a living document that would be revised and reissued in pace with discoveries about learning, motivation, development, and individual differences affecting optimal learning for all.

The Principles document (with a slightly modified title) is now in its second iteration and continues to be widely disseminated to educators and researchers in this country and abroad (APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs, 1997). The 14 principles shown in Table 1 define a research-validated knowledge base about learning and learners that has important implications for school reform and redesign. The principles define what factors influence learning - from cognitive and metacognitive, to motivational and affective, to developmental and social, to other individual differences.
_______________________________
Insert Table 1 and Figure 1 about here
________________________________
The knowledge base represented by these research-validated learner-centered principles leads to an understanding in the field of education that effective interventions for all students must achieve a balanced focus on both learning and learners (see Figure 1). Research-validated principles establish a foundation for clarifying how to create positive learning environments at classroom and school levels throughout the K-20 system that increase the likelihood of more students experiencing success. This goal is critical to achieving increased motivation, learning, and academic achievement for a larger number of students, including those from underrepresented African American, Latino, and Native American groups. Too many of these students are underachieving, dropping out of school, or suffering negative emotions ranging from alienation to life-threatening despair. At the core of these issues, many experts as well as the students themselves say that they feel alienated, disconnected, and in a spiritual crisis. They are questioning who they are, their purpose, and the meaning of life (Brendtro, 1999).

When work on the Principles began, it wasn't clear what we were discovering. As we attempted to summarize research-validated findings, a set of principles emerged that have stood the test of time across a variety of learning contexts and learners. It became clear that these principles applied not only to school age students, but also to all learners, cradle to grave. Furthermore, as early drafts were disseminated for a wide review by researchers and practitioners at all level of the PreK-20 system, another phenomenon emerged. The principles not only had the support of varied groups of researchers, but they also had the support of experienced teachers and other practitioners who have learned from their own practice the validity of the learner-centered principles.

Teachers and other education practitioners recognized important truths represented in the principles - truths about human nature, learning, motivation, and development. Practitioners expressed a sense of validation as they were affirmed in their understanding of learning as a lifelong process that is holistic and natural. They recognized that knowing, believing, and practicing this knowledge base had allowed them to make a difference in the lives and learning of their individual students from all social, ethnic, and racial groups. As a result, and perhaps of most significance, practitioners realized that these time and research-tested principles define a common ground of shared meaning among teachers as learners. This led to enhanced personal relationships among and between teachers as well as with their students.

Of further significance, it became clear that the research-validated knowledge base consisted of higher-order principles that address the individual learning, motivation, and development needs of all human beings. The principles defined learners holistically as people with minds, emotions, and a host of personal, developmental, social, physical, cultural, and other individual differences and needs that must be addressed in educational contexts. The interrelationships among and between the 14 principles and the four domains of factors they address cannot be taken in isolation.

If instructional practices seek to address only single principles or single domains of factors influencing learning for individual learners, they will likely fail. They will fail because they do not holistically address the needs of individual learners. When individual needs are not addressed holistically, it increases the feelings of being personally isolated, excluded, alienated, or other related issues that arise when learners do not feel respected and cared about as unique individuals. A central understanding, then, that emerges from an integrated and holistic look at the Principles is three-fold: (1) for educational systems to serve the needs of all learners, it is essential to focus first on the individual learner; (2) individual learner needs must be considered in light of research-validated knowledge about the learning process; and (3) individuals learn best when their natural interests and talents are flexibly aligned with the knowledge and skills to be learned, leaving room for and honoring diversity.

The Role of Learner-Centered Principles in Education as a Living System
A focus on the learner emerges from those who see schools as living systems. These systems are seen as being in service to learners and as fulfilling the basic function of learning. This function is performed for the primary recipient (the student as learner) as well as the other humans who support learning (teachers, administrators, parents as expert learners). A learner-centered perspective within the living systems concept recognizes that education and schooling must concern themselves with how to provide a maximally supportive learning context that meets the needs of diverse students. This is a context that is created primarily by the teacher, in partnership with individual students and their families. Thus, the teacher's mindset is critical in terms of valuing and understanding the rich array of individual differences and needs that students present.

From this perspective, while curriculum and content are important, they are not the exclusive factors for achieving desired motivation, learning, and achievement. Fundamental to the learning of content is attention to meeting individual learner needs across academic and non-academic areas as determined by both teachers and students. Critical in the learner-centered approach, then, are the perceptions of learners, themselves, of the degree to which their needs are being met. Since both teachers and students are learners and partners in learning, each of their views is necessary in determining effective learning conditions and contexts. This implies that there must be increased attention to the personal domain of educational systems design. The personal domain is concerned with supporting the personal, motivational, and interpersonal human needs in addition to the more commonly addressed technical (e.g., content, standards) and organizational (e.g., management structures) components of school design.

As people in living systems such as education are given more opportunities to be creatively involved in how their work gets done, Wheatley (1999) contends that not only will they set up conditions that facilitate rapid change (new relationships, new insights, greater levels of commitment), but they also will increase their capacity for learning and growth. When individuals are engaged in designing the changes, they design more and better connections and relationships that can help the system change from within. This facilitates more meaningful learning and change on two levels: (1) the availability of new and richer information helps people change personal constructions of meaning and understanding, and (2) the increasing number, variety, and strength of interpersonal connections and relationships moves the system toward better functioning and health.

From a broad systems view, a growing body of educators, researchers, and policymakers believe that the current educational, judicial, and social systems aren't working (e.g., Nissen, 1999). They see them as unconnected and based on old models of human learning, growth, and development. Further, current systems are based on principles applicable to non-living, mechanical systems and do not match the uncertainty and complexity of living human systems. Clearly, it is time to explore a new educational model that includes concepts from living systems research. It is time to support a cycle of positive youth development and learning. The current educational system is a particularly viable place to begin given concerns about increasing high achievement for all students in general and for under-represented minority students in particular.

Increasingly, educators concerned with positive student development are calling for democratic schooling and instructional methods that build on each student's backgrounds, experiences of reality, and perspectives - practices that address the personal domain. For practices such as these to become realities, however, teachers must be willing to know their students and to share power. Schaps and Lewis (1999) report in reflections on building caring school communities that it is essential to have a dual emphasis. The focus must be on (a) a sense of community and academic learning as well as (b) student and teacher thinking and voice in shaping classroom lessons and decisions.

Research on Achieving a Balanced Focus on Learning and Learners
In creating a new vision for education, research by Gardner (1995) and Renzulli (Renzulli, Reis, Hebert, and Diaz, 1995) highlights the importance of broadening the narrow view embedded in current educational systems. It is time to look beyond the traditional view of abilities and educational achievement. Gardner's research informs us that every learner has multiple intelligences and talents - any of which may be present and/or develop during the life span. Renzulli's research reminds us that our focus for increasing the number of students of any low performing group is to recognize and value individual interests. When learners of any age are allowed to pursue their natural interests, intrinsic motivation follows, and levels of achievement in these areas of highest interest are beyond what we might predetermine to be possible.

The multiple intelligences theory of Gardner (1995) captures the essence of designing such environments. This theory is exemplified in school practices such as approaching the curriculum in a variety of ways and from a variety of perspectives, using assessment strategies that help students display their new understandings in a variety of ways, and personalizing approaches to education that give each student the maximum opportunity to master those materials. Similarly, I (McCombs & Whisler, 1997) have argued for school models that see all children as gifted and that use students' interests and goals as the sorting system into enrichment clusters. They do not use abilities, grade levels, or other tracking and sorting categories that often negatively impact potential as perceived by both students and teachers.

Developing student potential is underscored by Renzulli et al. (1995) who discuss "the plight of high-ability students in urban schools." This research confirms that all urban youth, and high ability students in particular, benefit from an educational system that values and supports their gifts and diversity - that is, addresses the personal domain. Renzulli's Schoolwide Enrichment Model allows students to pursue curricula matched to their interests. Research with this model has demonstrated that we need to broaden our limited stereotype of human potential (defined by achievement and intelligence test scores). When students are allowed to govern their own learning process by following their interests, they benefit from a motivation and achievement perspective. They see their environments as rich, challenging, personally relevant, accepting, and supportive. The key is to relate to every student as being gifted in a unique way and to design learning experiences and environments that enhance the potential of each student.

The Promoting Achievement in School through Sport (PASS) program is an excellent example of how the learner-centered principles can be embedded in models that holistically address positive student development. Through embedding key concepts from positive sports culture (e.g., concentration, balance, self-discipline, respect for surroundings, personal presence and leadership, responsibility, empathy and respect for others, acting individually and as an integral part of a group) into academic content, students from elementary through secondary grades become more actively engaged in learning. They also learn important interpersonal and personal skills - all of which are showing up in higher motivation and achievement in school (McCombs & Lauer, 1998).

Why Do We Need Learner-Centered Approaches in Education?
Schools no longer have the luxury of ignoring the holistic personal needs of students. The rising wave of youth violence, both in the community and in school settings, has generated increased attention to issues facing today's school-age children. Associated rises in youth suicide, alcohol and drug abuse, school disciplinary problems, school dropout, and delinquent behaviors are of additional concern. School system and community responses run the gamut. There are fear-based attempts to rid schools through expulsion and suspension of all students who even appear to be troublemakers. Other more positive approaches build on strengths and assets of even the most troubled youth.

A new approach is obviously needed. Attention is warranted to educational models that reconnect youth and adults, to models that are person-centered while also providing challenging learning experiences that prepare students to be knowledge producers, knowledge users, and socially responsible citizens. We need models that address the comprehensive needs of learners, spanning academic and non-academic, personal and social learning needs. Such models understand learning as a holistic process that involves mind, body, emotion, and spirit.

Research has shown that when youth have opportunities to care for others they have an increased sense of social responsibility, higher self-esteem, better school attendance, and decreases in depression. To accomplish lasting effects and build genuinely trusting relationships, strategies for promoting cultures of caring need to be implemented gradually and incrementally by committed individuals. Chaskin and Rauner (1995) emphasize that caring has to be promoted by example. To be successful, the particular caring culture that evolves must be relevant to particular interpersonal, non-academic, and academic needs of its clients, students and teachers alike.

Many of the current generation of school-aged children already feel alienated and disconnected from adults and learning. It is vitally important and timely to develop comprehensive, learner-centered prevention approaches that teach children and youth to avoid negative classroom behaviors, increase personal and social responsibility for school and societal safety, and cultivate empathy. Current research (Harper, 1998; Astor, Meyer, & Behre, 1999) suggests that the best intervention is to foster positive student-teacher involvement. This includes giving students ownership of problems such as disruptive behavior, poor attendance, low motivation, and minimal achievement.

Kenney and Watson (1999) report that, when given the chance, students contribute positively to creating new cultures of fairness and caring. Therefore, in order to address motivation, learning, achievement, and positive functioning, it is critical to have an equal focus on the learner and on learning. Furthermore, the knowledge base about both learners and learning must be considered if new models of learning and schooling are to have maximum positive impact for future learners. The Learner-Centered Psychological Principles provide such a foundation and justification for new educational models that address learners and learning holistically. The research-validated Principles acknowledge the whole person nature of learning vital to educational success.

In conclusion, it is clearly time to move beyond the education system's current narrow focus on achievement testing, accompanied by burdensome accountability measures. We can do better than that. Within the richness of research-validated information and principles we know what really works to enhance learning and reform education. The reform movement must be guided by our best knowledge, practice, and experience. As concerned citizens, teachers, educators, researchers, students and learners all, it is now time to lead the way for meaningful reform - reform that will make a difference in the learning and lives of our nation's children.

References
Astor, R. A., Meyer, B. A., & Behre, W. J. (1999). Unowned places and times: Maps and interviews about violence in high schools. American Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 3-42.

APA Work Group of the Board of Educational Affairs (1997, November). Learner-centered psychological principles: A framework for school reform and redesign (Rev. Ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

APA Task Force on Psychology in Education (1993, January). Learner-centered psychological principles: Guidelines for school redesign and reform. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association and Mid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory.

Brendtro, L. K. (1999, June). Tools for reclaiming at-risk youth. Keynote presentation at the 8th Annual Rocky Mountain Regional Conference in Violence Prevention in Schools and Communities, Denver.

Chaskin, R. J., & Rauner, D. M. (1995). Youth and caring: An introduction. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(9), 667-674.

Gardner, H. (1995). Intelligence: Multiple perspectives. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Harper, D. (1998, May). Generation www.Y: Second annual report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Kanfer, R., & McCombs, B. L. (2000). Motivation: Applying current theory to critical issues in training. In S. Tobias & D. T. Fletcher (Eds.), Handbook of Training. New York: Macmillan.

Kenney, D. J., & Watson, T. S. (1998). Crime in the Schools: Reducing fear and disorder with student problem solving. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum.

Lambert, N. & McCombs, B. L. (Eds.) (1998). How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education. Washington, DC: APA Books.

McCombs, B. L., & Lauer, P. A. (1998). PASS passes the learner-centered test. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory.

McCombs, B. L., & Lauer, P. A. (1997). Development and validation of the Learner-Centered Battery: Self-Assessment tools for teacher reflection and professional development. The Professional Educator, 20(1), 1-21.

McCombs, B. L., & Whisler, J. S. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school: Strategies for increasing student motivation and achievement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nissen, L. B. (1999, June). The power of the strength approach. Keynote presentation at the 8th Annual Rocky Mountain Regional Conference in Violence Prevention in Schools and Communities, Denver.

Renzulli, J. S., Reis, S. M., Hebert, T. P., & Diaz, E. I. (1995). The plight of high-ability students in urban schools. In M. C. Wang & M. C. Reynolds (Eds.), Making a difference for students at risk. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. (Pp. 61-98.)

Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (1999). Perils on an essential journey: Building school community. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 215-218.

Wheatley, M. J. (1999). Leadership and the new science: Discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.