{"id":1237,"date":"2019-10-25T14:43:04","date_gmt":"2019-10-25T05:43:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/?page_id=1237"},"modified":"2020-09-11T10:28:21","modified_gmt":"2020-09-11T01:28:21","slug":"nazari","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/kuis.kandagaigo.ac.jp\/relayjournal\/issues\/sep19\/nazari\/","title":{"rendered":"Learner-Centered Pedagogy: A Double-Edged Sword?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mostafa Nazari, Department of Foreign Languages, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nazari, M. (2019). Learner-centered pedagogy: A double-edged sword?. Relay Journal, 2<\/em>(2), 359-373.\u00a0https:\/\/doi.org\/10.37237\/relay\/020210<\/p>\n

[Download paginated PDF version<\/a>]<\/p>\n

*This page reflects the original version of this document. Please see PDF for most recent and updated version.<\/span><\/p>\n

Abstract<\/p>\n

Managing state school lessons and private language school classes has been a persistent concern for Iranian learners. This study reports on implementing learner-centered pedagogy as a potential resource to deal with managing this dilemma. Data from the learners\u2019 diaries and teacher reflective journals were generated to explore their perceptions about this innovation. The findings indicated that the learners referred to the positive impacts of the course on meeting their ongoing needs and wants, especially assisting them with managing both state school lessons and those of the language class. The learners also raised a number of challenges, particularly problems with curriculum coverage. Additionally, the teacher experienced restructurings in his perceptions about LCP in that he developed more adaptability to LCP, mediated by classroom occurrences and his personal-experiential enhanced awareness. The study suggests that innovative pedagogies can be leveraged to deal with contextual problems effectively, yet they should be anchored in the exigencies of the teaching context in order to safeguard the advantages against the possible discrepancies.<\/p>\n

Keywords<\/em>: learner-centered pedagogy, perceptions, learner autonomy, EFL context<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In learner-centered pedagogy (LCP), the possibility of educational improvement will be most likely when the educational system regards learners\u2019 active role and needs as a primary concern (Doyle, 2008). The crux of LCP is transformation of stakeholders\u2019 roles, which can reverberate through the instructional decisions made in the course of instruction. Contrary to teacher-fronted views, in LCP learners can take an active-responsible role in the learning process and develop a can-do attitude toward learning by transforming their roles from passive recipients to communicators-negotiators (Nunan, 2015). Particularly, for language learning to be seen as a communicative interaction, it is important that all the participants be involved in the learning process, especially by foregrounding the significance of learners\u2019 needs, experiences, and interests (Nunan, 2015) in the backbone of syllabus design. Along with the transformation of learners\u2019 role, teachers also need to adopt facilitation, counselling, and negotiation roles in the teaching process (Nunan, 2015; Tudor, 1993).<\/p>\n

Relatively antithetical to the conceptualizations of learner role existing several decades ago \u2013 passive knowledge receivers, the important participative role of learners in the process of language learning gradually gained prominence. Nunan (1995, p. 55) described the central role of learners as, \u201cIn the \ufb01nal analysis\u2026it is the learner who must remain at the centre of the processes, for no matter how much energy and effort we expend, it is the learner who has to do the learning.\u201d Research has also indicated that pedagogies grounded in LCP promote class participation and higher order abilities in learners, enhance motivation and better learner behavior in the class (DiClementi & Handelsman, 2009), establish better rapport in teacher-learner relationship (Richmond, Slattery, Morgan, Mitchell, & Becknell, 2016), and increase learner gains and satisfaction with the pedagogy (Ongeri, 2009), among others. Inherent in the benefits associated with LCP seems to be the idea of socially constructing knowledge and the importance of meaning negotiation among the participants rather than someone else doing the thinking and acting on one\u2019s part.<\/p>\n

Such constructivist perspective has clear implications for developing a competency in the learners toward taking control over their own learning and develop autonomy. The idea that learners could\/should be responsible for their own learning necessitates enabling them to take such a role via the multifarious artefacts made available to the learners. Indeed, since \u201cconstructivism gives a more central stage to the learner by focusing less on the knowledge to be transmitted, and more on the process of constructing, reorganising and sharing that knowledge\u201d (Reinders, 2010, p. 40), LCP has always been in the foreground of the pedagogies that aim to equip the learners with abilities to develop a competency to regulate their own learning.<\/p>\n

Rationale<\/strong><\/p>\n

In the context of Iran, many students attend private language schools in summer as state schools are closed and they have more time to learn languages. However, when the state school year starts, there are learners for whom attending language classes is difficult as they grapple with finding adequate time to manage both state school lessons and language school classes. State school teachers usually set plenty of homework across various subjects that culminates in dilemmas for the students in regard to handling both school assignments and language classes. In order to deal with this problem, some language schools, including the one this study has been conducted in, decrease the number of class sessions per week and extend the length of the educational semester to create a balance between school requirements and those of language classes. However, on the one hand students lament that attending language classes may jeopardize their state school effectiveness, and on the other hand they do not want to lag in behind learning English and want to improve themselves.<\/p>\n

In a similar vein, policy-makers of language centers have the persistent concern that as soon as the school year starts, a number of learners may not attend the classes, and they seek solutions to help learners continue in the learning process. One possible way to cope with this problem could be to allow learners to have a voice in how language classes are to be run. Such a situation in which learners can act participatively is likely to assure them of the importance of their views, given that for successful learning to happen learners are the stakeholders who play the dominant role (Nunan, 2015). This study was motivated by the practitioner-researcher\u2019s awareness of the learners\u2019 concerns over the described contextual problem and his personal philosophies (Golombek, 1998) about the potential of LCP to deal with the problem. Therefore, the contextual problem surrounding the learners\u2019 double misgivings about managing school assignments and those of language class necessitated action taking. The question specifically addressed in the study was: What is the potential of a learner-centered pedagogy in dealing with the contextual problem of creating a balance between state and language school requirements (and its associated influences) from the learners\u2019 and the teacher\u2019s perspective?<\/p>\n

Participants and the teaching context<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The participants of the present study were the practitioner-researcher and 30 female EFL learners (their age ranging from 13 to 16 years) attending English class twice a week. The learners were of an intermediate proficiency level (three different classes). The context of the present study was a city in the northwest of Iran. The language school offers general English classes at various levels from elementary to advanced. The materials used in the school are those designed in inner circle countries and the school required the teachers to teach three main textbooks, accompanied by two workbooks. Although the administrators did not impose rigid regulations on teachers to adhere to a certain methodology, they required exhaustive coverage of the curriculum by the teachers, particularly for examination purposes. Decisions regarding material selection, class setting time, and policy-related issues were usually done top-down in the language school. This was another reason for implementing LCP \u2013 though being well-established in the literature of language learning \u2013 as an educational innovation to deal with the contextual problem to see whether changing the direction brings about any effective outcomes. The state school year in Iran starts from September, prior to which schools are closed and students pass their summer vacation, thus having more time to spend on language learning. In summer, the courses are followed extensively (three 1.5-hour sessions per week and shorter semester duration), but during the state school year, the period during which this study was conducted, the classes are held twice a week, each session lasting 75 minutes.<\/p>\n

Description of the innovation<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

This study aimed to explore the learners\u2019 perceptions of LCP over a three-month period. The data reported in this study includes learner diaries and teacher reflective journals. In the present study, the principles of learner-centered pedagogy as delineated by Nunan (2015) were implemented. The principles broadly include i) providing opportunities for learners to reflect on their learning process, <\/em>ii) giving learners opportunities to contribute to content, learning procedures, and assessment, <\/em>and iii) incorporating learner training into the curriculum<\/em>. Nunan (2015, pp. 25-26) describes the principles as follows, respectively: i) in experiential learning, the learners\u2019 immediate experiences form the point of departure for the learning process. They act and then reflect on their learning, and through the act of reflecting, their learning is transformed; ii) the teacher can plan in advance opportunities to make choices and decisions, or they can arise spontaneously in the course of a lesson. The choices and decisions can be made at different levels not just what and how to learn, but also what to work with; iii) there are two ways of interpreting the concept of learner-centeredness. On the one hand, the concept relates to the involvement of learners in making decisions and choices about content and procedures. On the other hand, it relates to learners taking an active role through doing.<\/p>\n

Interventions<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In line with the principles encapsulated above, the practitioner-researcher designed interventions that were geared to the purpose of the study. It should be mentioned that while the interventions were pre-designed by the practitioner-researcher, they changed over the course due to the nature of the conceptual underpinnings of the study.<\/p>\n

Diary writing<\/strong>. In order to explore the learners\u2019 views of class activities and take appropriate actions, the learners were asked to write one diary entry per week. The learners were required to write about the classes critically to explore the feedback they would provide on activities and how to run the subsequent sessions (Gunn, 2005). The learners were also asked to provide their responses to questions about the positive and negative aspects of the class and their prospective views on class activities.<\/p>\n

Phone calls<\/strong>. Since most of Iranian learners do not have exposure to English outside the class, especially the learners in this study, the practitioner-researcher managed to tackle this problem by calling the learners twice per week both to take speaking beyond the classroom and to ask for their complementary comments on class activities. A frequently asked question in the phone calls was whether they had problems in any skill or sub-skill and in the problematic cases relevant strategies were provided.<\/p>\n

EOT<\/strong>. Another intervention of this study, which was always queried in the phone calls, was introducing English Only Time (EOT). Following Nunan (2015), the practitioner-researcher suggested one hour per day in which a systematic plan regarding how to approach each (sub)skill was introduced to the learners. The EOT aimed to help the learners create a balance between their school-related subjects and everyday studying of English for the language school in a systematic manner.<\/p>\n

The learners were involved in syllabus, methodology, and assessment decision-making during the course (Nunan, 2015; Tudor, 1993). Regarding syllabus, the learners\u2019 preferences for materials assigned by policy-makers determined the content of the lessons. That is, the selection of textbook (there were five textbooks) to cover on what day, as well as sequencing the activities, were negotiated and implemented mostly based on the learners\u2019 preferences. Also, learner-collected extracurricular materials were also covered as this was requested by the learners. Moreover, at the end of each class, the learners determined the activities to be covered in the next session. Regarding methodology, the learners gradually taught grammar and vocabulary sections of the materials \u2013 as the learners showed interest in doing so \u2013 followed by the practitioner-researcher providing related complementary points (the role as a knower, as put by Tudor, 1993). Assessment of the learners\u2019 progress was mainly done based on what days the learners had fewer school assignments. Over the course, the learners informed the practitioner-researcher about the days they had more time to spend on language class and based on this, written or oral assessment was done.<\/p>\n

Before the start of the course, the practitioner-researcher wrote down some concerns about implementing LCP due to its innovativeness, as presented below. He relied on journal writing technique to document the reflections on the ongoing practices (Richards & Farrell, 2005) during the course. In this regard, he adhered to the questions put forward by Richards and Lockhart (1994) to reflect on practices weekly. Various questions guided the journal writing which mainly revolved around class activities as well as the learners\u2019 feedback provided in their diaries and during the class. After the course, the practitioner-researcher reflected on the before-the-course concerns and the whole process. The reflections were recorded digitally.<\/p>\n

Data analysis<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

To analyze the diaries and journal entries, the guidelines suggested by Cohen, Manion, and Morrison (2007) for content analyzing qualitative data were followed. The researcher also conducted a code-recode strategy (Ary, Jacobs, Sorensen, & Walker, 2014) in which the data were initially analyzed to search for the emerging codes, followed by further comparison-refinement of the codes, and then the related themes were identified.<\/p>\n

Findings<\/strong><\/p>\n

Learner perceptions<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In order to explore the learners\u2019 perceptions of the pedagogy over the course, their diaries were obtained and analyzed. It must be mentioned that considering the bulk of diaries collected, diaries that had solely described classroom occurrences were excluded and the ones which provided critical ideas were analyzed. Collectively, the analysis of the diaries indicated that the learners referred to both positive and challenging aspects as presented in Table 1.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n
Table 1.<\/p>\n

Categories of the Learners\u2019 Perceptions of the Pedagogy over the Course<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n

Positive aspects<\/td>\nChallenges<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Phone calls (learner and parent satisfaction)<\/p>\n

School assignment (aiding with creating balance between the assignments)<\/p>\n

Heeding learner voice (learners as negotiators and participators)<\/td>\n

Curriculum (multiplicity of the voices)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Discussions (lack of coherence in the mode of running the discussions)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

 <\/p>\n

Table 1 indicates that the learners experienced both positive and negative effects during the course. This finding is not per se novel as it is likely to be at the heart of any innovation. However, the kind of positive effects indicates the interconnection among the interventions implemented in the course, mediated by the theoretical perspective supporting the pedagogy. The learners made frequent reference to their own and their parents\u2019 satisfaction with the phone calls as they assumed that this could render the educational context successful in moving toward closing the gap between English speaking in the class and outside the class as well as their learning condition, replicating a more real-life experience for the learners:<\/p>\n

I am very happy with my teacher calling me. I wait for my teacher\u2019s call and when the phone rings I step toward it voraciously to talk in English and about my ideas of the class, my progress, my problems, etc. I know that I should practice in order not to be let down in front of my teacher when we talk. My father is also very happy with the calls and he appreciates my teacher for it. To be honest, he wanted to send me to another language school, despite my want, but now he is convinced that this school is good.<\/p>\n

An interesting theme of the diaries pertained to a mixture of EOT and considering learners\u2019 voice in terms of assisting them with creating a balance between school assignments and those of the language class. That is, the learners stated that as they had been actively engaged in decision-making during the course, they were freer in designing and ordering the activities, choosing to be assessed when they were not busy with school exams and quizzes, and being involved in teaching, which contributed to having more time to spend on school lessons. The utility of this agenda, reportedly, was augmented by the EOT introduced to the learners in that their functioning improved by following a systematic plan of how to study:<\/p>\n

The class is so good and enjoyable because in this semester, despite I have school too, I can do my English homework too and it\u2019s an important point because I didn\u2019t agree with coming to English class and I thought it can be dangerous for my school lessons.<\/p>\n

It is interesting that we do everything and decide on different things and I see that we still have time for studying physics, math, and chemistry. I was first afraid of school lessons and not being able to meet language teacher\u2019s requirements \u2013 you know I did not want to disrespect him, to be honest \u2013 but I think that the problem has been not having order in studying because in my EOT I read, listen to music, and write my diaries, etc.<\/p>\n

Along with the positive points, the learners pointed to the challenges of the course. The major concern of the learners was related to textbook coverage. The leaners lamented that although it had been productive to move the instruction forward on the basis of learners\u2019 voices, the class had become too learner-centered in that the teacher paid excessive attention to learners\u2019 wants, bringing about problems with regard to covering the due curriculum. The major source of the learners\u2019 reasoning was related to not being able to finish the textbooks for the final exam. Furthermore, the learners stated that there had been agitations regarding the mode of running the discussions in that while some of the learners agreed with group discussions, others favored a whole-class mode. These two dilemmatic situations seem to highlight that the teacher had dominantly relied on learners\u2019 decisions, which had turned into a conundrum for him in the long run in terms of striking a balance among the activities:<\/p>\n

It is good that our teacher pays attention to our opinions but we should pay more attention to our main book because I don\u2019t want to cover many lessons in two sessions before the final exam.<\/p>\n

Today we had a discussion in group mode. This kind of discussion is not my favorite as I think that it is better to hear everybody\u2019s ideas. I know that the teacher did it because of my classmates\u2019 want, but he should also decide based on his own understanding.<\/p>\n

Teacher perceptions<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Due to the innovative nature of the pedagogy, the practitioner-researcher wrote down a number of concerns regarding its application before the course started. These concerns consisted of:<\/p>\n