Functions and responsibilities in the Theory of the Functional Centrality of the Educational Act
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63969/26sn0x94Keywords:
functional centrality, pedagogical judgement, prior knowledge, autonomy, educational equityAbstract
Introduction: The expression “the student at the centre” reflects a legitimate concern for students’ education, but becomes ambiguous when it conflates educational purposes, participation, and responsibility for teaching. This article aims to formulate and substantiate the Theory of the Functional Centrality of the Educational Act (TCFAE, its Spanish acronym), while delimiting its scope to schooling. Methodology: Conceptual analysis was supported by a critical, selective literature review on pedagogical relationships, prior knowledge, guided instruction, and autonomy. Normative premises, definitions, and empirical claims were distinguished, taking account of the level of access to each source. Results: The conceptual construction articulates three distinct, interdependent centralities: the student’s teleological centrality, the teacher’s pedagogical-intentional centrality, and the epistemological-cultural centrality of knowledge in relation to the world. Fourteen principles clarify responsibilities and guide decisions about diagnosis, access to knowledge, adjustment of support, and situated autonomy. Two hypothetical situations and six testable propositions are developed. Conclusions: The proposed contribution is to clarify functions that are often conflated, without claiming to have invented their antecedents. Tensions concerning authority, cultural selection, and institutional conditions remain. TCFAE is a proposal under development: evidence concerning some of its components does not demonstrate its effectiveness, and its usefulness requires specific research.
Downloads
References
Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9454-7
Biesta, G. (2015). What is education for? On good education, teacher judgement, and educational professionalism. European Journal of Education, 50(1), 75–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12109
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5
Bremner, N., Sakata, N., & Cameron, L. (2022). The outcomes of learner-centred pedagogy: A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Development, 94, Artículo 102649. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2022.102649
Bryce, T. G. K., & Blown, E. J. (2024). Ausubel’s meaningful learning re-visited. Current Psychology, 43(5), 4579–4598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04440-4
Chi, M. T. H., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Dewey, J. (1966). The child and the curriculum. University of Chicago Press. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/29259/29259-h/29259-h.htm (Trabajo original publicado en 1902).
Freire, P. (2002). Pedagogia da autonomia: Saberes necessários à prática educativa (25.ª ed.). Paz e Terra. https://nepegeo.paginas.ufsc.br/files/2018/11/Pedagogia-da-Autonomia-Paulo-Freire.pdf (Trabajo original publicado en 1996).
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368
Houssaye, J. (2014). Le triangle pédagogique: Les différentes facettes de la pédagogie. ESF éditeur. https://esf-scienceshumaines.fr/contenus-complementaires?id_attachment=306
Ibáñez Bernal, C. (2007). Un análisis crítico del modelo del triángulo pedagógico: Una propuesta alternativa. Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, 12(32), 435–456. https://ojs.rmie.mx/index.php/rmie/article/view/1174
Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Lazonder, A. W., & Harmsen, R. (2016). Meta-analysis of inquiry-based learning: Effects of guidance. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 681–718. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627366
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534
Panadero, E. (2017). A review of self-regulated learning: Six models and four directions for research. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Artículo 422. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00422
Patall, E. A., Yates, N., Lee, J., Chen, M., Bhat, B. H., Lee, K., Beretvas, S. N., Lin, S., Man Yang, S., Jacobson, N. G., Harris, E., & Hanson, D. J. (2024). A meta-analysis of teachers’ provision of structure in the classroom and students’ academic competence beliefs, engagement, and achievement. Educational Psychologist, 59(1), 42–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2023.2274104
Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657
Schneider, M., & Simonsmeier, B. A. (2025). How does prior knowledge affect learning? A review of 16 mechanisms and a framework for future research. Learning and Individual Differences, 122, Artículo 102744. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2025.102744
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004
Simonsmeier, B. A., Flaig, M., Deiglmayr, A., Schalk, L., & Schneider, M. (2022). Domain-specific prior knowledge and learning: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychologist, 57(1), 31–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1939700
Sinha, T., & Kapur, M. (2021). When problem solving followed by instruction works: Evidence for productive failure. Review of Educational Research, 91(5), 761–798. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211019105
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6
Wisniewski, B., Zierer, K., & Hattie, J. (2020). The power of feedback revisited: A meta-analysis of educational feedback research. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Artículo 3087. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.03087
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1976.tb00381.x
Young, M. (2013). Overcoming the crisis in curriculum theory: A knowledge-based approach. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(2), 101–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.764505
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Jonathan Vicente Heredia A. (Autor/a)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Los artículos publicados en la revista se distribuyen bajo la licencia Creative Commons Atribución 4.0 Internacional (CC BY 4.0). Esta licencia permite a terceros descargar, copiar, distribuir, adaptar y reutilizar una obra, incluso con fines comerciales, siempre que se otorgue el crédito adecuado al autor original.
