\nUniversity of Exeter, U.K.
\n<N.Bremner
![\"atmark\"](\"http:\/\/www.tesl-ej.org\/atmark.png\")
exeter.ac.uk><\/p>\nAbstract<\/h3>\n
Despite a recent influx of conceptual studies on the topic of \u2018learner-centered education\u2019 (LCE), the term continues to be interpreted inconsistently by a wide range of stakeholders. This study develops previous quantitative work on teachers\u2019 understandings of LCE by exploring the perspectives of 16 Colombian EFL teachers. The methods consisted of semi-structured interviews based on a pre-interview questionnaire, which included both \u2018open response\u2019 and \u2018closed response\u2019 components. The study found similarities between participants\u2019 views and the findings of previous quantitative research. Participants considered LCE to be a multifaceted term, but placed more emphasis on \u2018practical\u2019 classroom-based aspects (\u2018Active participation\u2019) than those aspects implying changes to teacher-student relationships and epistemology (\u2018Power sharing\u2019 and \u2018Higher order skills\u2019). Certain interpretations of LCE were considered more important by the study participants than is typically evident in the literature (notably \u2018Formative assessment\u2019, \u2018Metacognition\u2019 and \u2018Humanistic role\u2019), suggesting that a wider range of aspects could be taken into account as part of a more flexible approach to defining LCE. Differences were also found between aspects mentioned in participants\u2019 initial \u2018open response\u2019 definitions, compared to their later \u2018closed response\u2019 questions, which may have implications for future conceptual research exploring stakeholder perspectives.<\/p>\n
Keywords<\/em><\/strong>: student-centered education; learner-centered education; student-centred education; learner-centred education; student-centered learning; student-centred learning.<\/p>\n \u2018Learner-centered\u2019 education (LCE), also known as \u2018student-centered\u2019 education, is a concept that continues to be popular with teachers. Indeed, in a recent survey of 248 English language teachers (Bremner, 2021), 94% responded that knowing about LCE was useful for their professional practice. Despite this, there continues to be a certain amount of uncertainty regarding what the term means. The practical implication of this is that ELT practitioners may find it difficult to reflect about implementing aspects of LCE in their own practice, or to discuss and compare \u2018learner-centred\u2019 practices with their colleagues. In recent years, a growing number of conceptual studies have attempted to reduce this uncertainty (Neumann, 2013; Starkey, 2017). Most recently, these conceptual studies have included a meta-analysis of academic journal articles (Bremner, 2020a) and a quantitative study of English language teachers\u2019 perceptions (Bremner, 2021).<\/p>\n The present study further develops our understandings by examining the perspectives of 16 English language teachers in Colombia. The study collected participants\u2019 responses from their initial \u2018open response\u2019 definitions (participants expressing LCE in their own words), and then compared them to their \u2018closed response\u2019 definitions (the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with pre-established definitions of LCE). The study found clear differences between the open and closed response findings, which may have implications for the way conceptual studies like these are operationalized.<\/p>\n The notion of \u2018learner-centered education\u2019 has existed for numerous decades and possibly even centuries (for a detailed account of the historical origins of LCE, see Chapter 3 of Wang, 2007). Perhaps for this reason, it remains difficult to tie down the concept to any specific methods, techniques or activities (Tudor, 1992). Chung and Walsh (2000) unpacked the related term of \u2018child-centeredness\u2019 and found over 40 different potential interpretations of the concept. More recent research has sought to organize these interpretations by establishing frameworks to categorize LCE. For example, Neumann\u2019s (2013) work focuses primarily on teachers allowing students more control over the learning process, proposing a 3-contoured framework that differentiates between centering learning \u2018on\u2019, \u2018in\u2019 or \u2018with\u2019 the students. A more encompassing framework is that of Starkey (2017), who proposes a model incorporating the \u2018cognitive\u2019 aspect (whose primary focus is on learning), the \u2018agentic\u2019 aspect (whose primary focus is on empowering students) and the \u2018humanist\u2019 aspect (whose primary focus is on attending to students\u2019 needs as human beings).<\/p>\n Schweisfurth (2013: 11-13) argues that a shift towards LCE (from traditionally \u2018teacher-centered\u2019 approaches) may involve changes not only in technique <\/em>(from \u2018frontal, \u201cchalk and talk\u201d, \u201ctransmission\u201d\u2019 to \u2018independent or group inquiry\u2019), but also changes in learner motivation <\/em>(from \u2018extrinsic\u2019 to \u2018intrinsic\u2019 motivation), different teacher-student relationships<\/em> (from largely \u2018authoritarian\u2019 to more \u2018democratic\u2019 relationships), and finally a shift in epistemology <\/em>(from seeing \u2018knowledge as fixed\u2019 to seeing \u2018knowledge as fluid\u2019).<\/p>\n In ELT, a key example of conceptual divergence can be found if we compare the work of Nunan (1988) and Jones (2007). Within the English language teaching literature, two main differences exemplify two key distinctions in the way LCE has been defined. Nunan defines LCE in terms of (a) adapting learning to take into account learners\u2019 prior knowledge and experiences; (b) granting learners more power to make decisions about how and what they learn; and (c) helping learners to become more independent learners, including developing their metacognitive skills. Conversely, Jones, although agreeing with Nunan in some areas such as learner autonomy, places most emphasis on keeping learners active in a range of activities, and the importance of developing real-life communication skills. Interestingly, Jones is keen to stress that LCE \u2018isn\u2019t<\/u><\/em> a place where the students decide what they want to learn and what they want to do\u2019 (p.2, emphasis mine) but rather \u2018a place where we consider the needs of the students, as a group and as individuals, and encourage them to participate in the learning process all the time\u2019. Jones\u2019 interpretation would therefore seem to include Schweisfurth\u2019s notions of changes in technique<\/em>, but would perhaps imply fewer changes in relationships <\/em>and epistemology<\/em>.<\/p>\n The aforementioned inconsistencies, combined with my own doubts based on discussions with ELT colleagues, motivated me to carry out a meta-analysis of definitions found in the literature (Bremner, 2020a). In the initial inductive phase, the following ten aspects of LCE emerged:<\/p>\n In the subsequent deductive phase, I collected 326 journal articles with the words \u2018learner-centered\u2019 or \u2018student-centered\u2019 in the title, and analyzed the definitions found within them. Table 1 shows the percentage of texts which explicitly mentioned each aspect, as well as the percentage of texts specifically from language teaching which explicitly mentioned each aspect.<\/p>\n Table 1. % of journal articles mentioning different aspects of LCE (data from Bremner, 2020a)<\/strong><\/p>\n The findings of the meta-analysis showed that \u2018Active participation\u2019 (83%) was by far the most common way that LCE had been interpreted in the literature, followed by \u2018Interaction\u2019 (67%), \u2018Adapting to needs\u2019 (64%) and \u2018Autonomy\u2019 (57%), thus corresponding mainly with the more practical aspects highlighted by Jones (2007). The aspects of \u2018Power sharing\u2019 (47%) and \u2018Metacognition\u2019 (30%), two key components in Nunan\u2019s (1988) interpretation, were found in less than half the journal articles, whereas \u2018Formative assessment\u2019 (19%) and \u2018Humanistic role\u2019 (13%) were mentioned in less than a fifth of the articles.<\/p>\n Up to this point, what has been noticeably absent in the literature has been research examining the concept of LCE from the perspective of language teachers themselves. In order to begin to address this gap, I designed a quantitative survey (Bremner, 2021) which asked 248 English language teachers to state the degree to which they felt each of the 10 aspects above should be included in a definition of LCE. The overall weighted scores for each aspect were as follows:<\/p>\n Table 2. Aspects that English language teachers felt should be included in a definition of LCE (data from Bremner, 2021)<\/strong><\/p>\n The views of teachers are much more balanced than the definitions found in the literature, and suggest that (a) what authors choose to include in a definition may not always reflect what they consider important in a term; and (b) that English language teachers generally viewed LCE as a broad, multifaceted term. In light of the previous, I argued that it would be important to be flexible when interpreting LCE, and to allow stakeholders to choose the aspects of LCE that were most relevant to their individual contexts.<\/p>\n One of the key limitations of the aforementioned survey was that it was purely quantitative, with no opportunity for participants to elaborate on the reasons behind their responses. This represented a clear opportunity to contribute to the existing literature by exploring participants\u2019 views of LCE from a qualitative perspective.<\/p>\n A final aspect to be discussed within the context of LCE is the notion of learnING<\/u>-centered <\/em>education. Some teachers believe that adapting their classes in order to meet learner needs (even if this means using traditionally \u2018teacher-centered\u2019 methods) should still be considered \u2018learner<\/u><\/em>-centered\u2019 (e.g., Croft, 2002). However, others disagree, arguing that, in such cases, a more appropriate term would be learning<\/u><\/em>-centered education (e.g., O\u2019Sullivan, 2004). It would appear that this issue continues to divide the opinions of ELT professionals. Indeed, in Bremner (2021), the category \u2018Adapting to needs, even if using teacher-centered methods\u2019, only received an overall score of 47%, compared to 83% for \u2018Adapting to needs\u2019 in general. However, it must be recognized that a quantitative survey may struggle to encapsulate the complexity behind this kind of question. Again, it was felt that a qualitative extension to the previous quantitative study would be a useful contribution to the existing literature, as it would allow participants to explain the reasons behind their decisions.<\/p>\n The aim of this study was to examine Colombian English language teachers\u2019 perspectives of the concept of learner-centered education, and to compare their \u2018open response\u2019 definitions to their \u2018closed response\u2019 definitions. To clarify, an \u2018open response\u2019 definition consisted of participants defining LCE in their own words, without being exposed to pre-established stimuli, whereas a \u2018closed response\u2019 definition consisted of participants indicating the degree to which they agreed with pre-established definitions of LCE.<\/p>\n The research questions of the study were as follows:<\/p>\n RQ1. How do participants define LCE in their own words?<\/p>\n RQ2. To what extent do participants agree with the 10 aspects of LCE emerging from the meta-analysis of literature, and how does this compare to their \u2018open response\u2019 definitions?<\/p>\n A total of 16 English language teachers, from a range of different education levels in Colombia, were recruited to take part in this study. Participants were recruited through convenience and snowball sampling, initially based on professional contacts I had gained whilst living in Colombia. Their names (replaced by pseudonyms to protect their identities) and some key information about their contexts and experience, are provided in Table 3. Due to the small-scale, qualitative nature of this study, this information has been included to provide the reader with a general overview of the key characteristics of the participants, and is not used for cross-tabulation purposes.<\/p>\n Table 3. Key information about the 16 participants<\/strong><\/p>\n Participants were given information sheets and consent forms to read before deciding to take part, and were recruited on an opt-in basis. In accordance with APA Ethical Principles, ethical approval was sought by the Bath Spa University Research Ethics Committee prior to starting the research.<\/p>\n The main method employed in this study was a written questionnaire, combined with semi-structured interviews to give participants the opportunity to elaborate on the reasons behind their responses. There were two key questions in the questionnaire:<\/p>\n Question 1: The \u2018open response\u2019 question. <\/strong>Question 1 was an open question which asked participants \u2018What do you understand by the concept of \u2018learner-centered education<\/em>?\u2019. It was important to include this question before the subsequent \u2018closed response\u2019 question in order for participants\u2019 views not to be influenced by the pre-established definitions. Participants were sent Question 1 three days before attending the interview. The rationale behind giving participants the questions beforehand was that it would give them an opportunity to reflect about their answers before expressing them in the interview (for a discussion of the role of increased time in qualitative interviews, see Bremner, 2020b). Participants provided written responses, which were analyzed, and were also invited to explain their definition and\/or add any further details during the interview.<\/p>\n Question 2: The \u2018closed response\u2019 question. <\/strong>After discussing their answers to Question 1 in the interview, participants were then given a series of options (based on the previously mentioned 10-aspect framework of Bremner, 2020a), and were asked to decide the extent to which these options should be part of a definition of LCE. A 5-point Likert scale was used, including the following options:<\/p>\n It should be noted that there were no answers in the -1 and -2 columns, indicating that participants agreed with most of the aspects, and leaned towards \u2018not sure\u2019 when they had reservations about a particular aspect of LCE.<\/p>\n Participants were given as long as they needed to fill in their \u2018closed\u2019 responses (which took an average of around 10 minutes), and then returned to the interview to discuss their responses. For example, if a participant stated that a certain aspect should \u2018definitely\u2019 be part of a definition of LCE, I asked them to elaborate on why they had come to that decision, and asked follow-up questions where appropriate.<\/p>\n I met participants individually to conduct the interviews, which took place either face-to-face in Colombia (pre-COVID-19) or via videocall. Both face-to-face and online interviews were recorded, and were conducted in English, owing to the high level of English language proficiency of the participants.<\/p>\n Although it is unrealistic to expect complete \u2018objectivity\u2019 during qualitative interviews (Kvale, 1996), it was nevertheless important for me to remain as neutral as realistically possible, and to avoid divulging my own views on the topic. However, in order to maximize the credibility of the study, it was also vital that I made sure, where possible, that the participants had understood the questions and were providing faithful answers to their views. Throughout this article, I have attempted to include several examples of researcher-participant interactions, in order to be as transparent as possible about the potential ways in which I might be seen as influencing the data collection process. The excerpt below provides one example of how I tried to check participants\u2019 responses whilst trying not to \u2018lead\u2019 them towards a particular answer:<\/p>\n Researcher<\/em>:<\/strong> So \u2018Adapting to needs<\/em>\u2019. What did you put for that one?<\/p>\n Norberto<\/em>:<\/strong> I put \u2018one\u2019. Because I think that it\u2019s very good to keep students\u2019 prior knowledge, experiences in mind in order to create and to construct new ways of learning.<\/p>\n Researcher<\/em>: But not a \u2018two\u2019?<\/p>\n Norberto<\/em>: <\/strong>I\u2019m not sure. [\u2026] I think, yes, it will be pretty important, experiences are important. When we listen to them, we can decide on what to continue doing or what to avoid doing, in order to create an effective class.<\/p>\n Researcher<\/em>: Ok, so do you want to change it? I\u2019m not trying to make you change your answer, but would you make it a \u2018two\u2019? I mean the \u2018twos\u2019 really need to be the things that are really<\/em> important, so if you think it is really important, and it should definitely<\/em> be part of the definition, then it should be a \u2018two\u2019.<\/p>\n Norberto<\/em>:<\/strong> Well in that case, I will keep it as a \u2018one\u2019.<\/p>\n Researcher<\/em>: Ok, so it\u2019s not as important as the others you mentioned that did get a \u2018two\u2019, \u2018Active participation<\/em>\u2019, and so on.<\/p>\n Norberto<\/em>: <\/strong>Yes.<\/p>\n Researcher<\/em>: Ok, that\u2019s fine.<\/p>\n In the previous excerpt, a reader skimming the transcription quickly might reach the conclusion that I was trying to \u2018guide\u2019 Norberto towards a certain answer. However, on closer inspection, it should hopefully become clear that the questions allowed me to check that Norberto had understood the difference between \u2018definitely<\/em> should be part of the definition\u2019 (\u2018two\u2019) and \u2018could<\/em> be part of the definition\u2019 (\u2018one\u2019). In the end, Norberto decided to remain with his original decision of a (\u2018one\u2019). These checks were vital in maximizing the credibility of the participants\u2019 responses, thus increasing the trustworthiness of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).<\/p>\n Another key challenge throughout the process was encouraging participants to reflect about LCE as a concept<\/em>, as opposed to what they thought was possible<\/em> in their classrooms. This was something I tried to emphasize at various points throughout the participant information sheet and during the interviews, but it was often very difficult to keep teachers\u2019 minds fixed on how they would define LCE in purely theoretical terms. Below I have included a further excerpt which demonstrates how I attempted to remind participants to think about LCE as a concept:<\/p>\n Mariela<\/em>:<\/strong> In this part [\u2018Power sharing\u2019] I was a bit confused. I wasn\u2019t sure if it was that important. [\u2026] Like the students\u2019 needs are really important but when you involve the students in the course design it\u2019s kind of difficult to integrate all their needs<\/p>\n Researcher<\/em>: <\/strong>Yes, but remember, it\u2019s not about whether or not it\u2019s difficult, it\u2019s whether or not that is \u2018learner-centered\u2019, that\u2019s the question.<\/p>\n Mariela<\/em>:<\/strong> Yes, yes. I would say not that much.<\/p>\n Again, a quick reading of the excerpt might suggest that I was trying to lead Mariela towards a certain response. However, on closer examination, my clarification helped Mariela to respond not in terms of how difficult <\/em>it was to implement \u2018Power sharing\u2019, but rather the extent to which \u2018Power sharing\u2019 should be part of a theoretical definition of LCE.<\/p>\n It was also interesting to note that several participants (7 out of 16) decided to make changes to at least one of their answers during the interviews, which is a typical characteristic of this kind of exploratory research. Here is an example of this happening with Rosemary:<\/p>\n Researcher<\/em>: <\/strong>So \u2018Real-life skills<\/em>\u2019, you put that as a \u2018zero\u2019.<\/p>\n Rosemary<\/em>:<\/strong> Yes, I think I\u2019m going to change that \u2018zero\u2019 to a \u2018two\u2019. I was reflecting when I was waiting for you and then I thought that maybe when you find a methodology that is learner-centered you are also teaching your students to face challenges and to work on them individually and collectively, but for all<\/em> their lives [\u2026]<\/p>\n Researcher<\/em>:<\/strong> So that\u2019d be an essential part of the definition of learner-centered education?<\/p>\n Rosemary<\/em>: Definitely, yes.<\/p>\n I revisit the possible implications of participants developing their ideas through the affordances of increased time in qualitative research in the later Discussion section.<\/p>\n After all of the 16 interviews were completed, the interviews were transcribed, and then both questionnaire written responses and interview transcriptions were coded using the qualitative data analysis tool NVivo 12. For RQ1 (How do participants define LCE in their own words?<\/em>) each definition was coded into one or more of the 10 potential aspects of LCE (\u2018Active participation\u2019; \u2018Interaction\u2019, and so on). Although I had planned to use a combination of inductive and deductive coding, I found that all aspects of each definition could be coded deductively, within the 10 codes that had emerged from my previous meta-analysis of literature (Bremner, 2020a). In other words, the 16 definitions did not provide me with any \u2018new\u2019 interpretations of LCE. Once the initial \u2018open response\u2019 definitions had been coded, I created a tally of how many times each aspect had been mentioned most over the 16 cases.<\/p>\n For RQ2 (To what extent do participants agree with the 10 aspects of LCE emerging from the meta-analysis of literature, and how does this compare to their \u2018open response\u2019 definitions?<\/em>), participants had already allocated Likert scores to their responses. However, I also made sure to record and transcribe participants\u2019 interview responses, in which they justified their responses to each question. These helped provide explanatory value to the findings, and some examples of these explanations are included in the Findings that follow.<\/p>\n In order to analyze the results of RQ2 across participants, an overall \u2018score\u2019 was allocated to each aspect (1 point for \u2018definitely<\/em>\u2019 should be part of the definition; \u00bd point for \u2018could\u2019<\/em> be part of the definition; 0 points for the others). In order to compare \u2018open response\u2019 and \u2018closed response\u2019 definitions, I compared overall tallies from RQ1 to overall \u2018scores\u2019 from RQ2. These comparisons are presented and analyzed in the following section.<\/p>\n In this first section, I discuss the participants\u2019 initial \u2018open response\u2019 definitions. A very wide range of definitions emerged from all 16 participants\u2019 initial definitions. In Table 4, I have provided shortened versions of each definition, and have indicated which aspects of LCE are evident in such definitions (based on the 10 categories emerging from the meta-analysis of Bremner, 2020a). It is important to note that although the definitions have been reduced so that they can concisely fit into the table, all references that participants made to the 10 categories have been retained (in other words, no references were \u2018lost\u2019 through reduction).<\/p>\n Table 4 shows that \u2018Adapting to needs\u2019 (10 out of 16) was by far the most mentioned aspect in participants\u2019 initial open response definitions. \u2018Autonomy\u2019, \u2018Metacognition\u2019 and \u2018Power sharing\u2019 were mentioned 5 times, \u2018Active participation\u2019 and \u2018Humanistic role\u2019 were mentioned 4 times, whereas \u2018Real-life skills\u2019, \u2018Higher order skills\u2019 and \u2018Formative assessment\u2019 were only mentioned once. \u2018Interaction\u2019, in the context of learners interacting with others in pair and group work, was not mentioned in any of the participants\u2019 initial definitions.<\/p>\n It is important to note that the coding of these initial definitions into clear-cut categories (i.e. containing, or not containing an \u2018\u2718\u2019) was not an \u2018exact science\u2019, given that it relied on my interpretations of the words found in each definition. Moreover, just because a participant did not make reference to a particular aspect in their initial definition, does not necessarily mean that they would have disagreed that this aspect could form part of a definition of LCE. Indeed, as we will see shortly, when participants were asked to judge the extent to which they agreed with pre-established categories, \u2018Interaction\u2019 scored relatively highly.<\/p>\n Table 4. Summary of participants\u2019 initial \u2018open response\u2019 definitions of LCE<\/strong><\/p>\n In this second section, I discuss the participants\u2019 \u2018closed\u2019 responses. Table 5 summarizes how each participant responded to the \u2018closed response\u2019 questions, and Figure 1 compares these results to the initial \u2018open response\u2019 definitions in graphical form. Given the small sample sizes involved, Figure 1 provides a visual overview of the main trends in the study, but should not be interpreted as a statistical generalization.<\/p>\n Table 5. Summary of participants\u2019 responses to the \u2018closed response\u2019 question<\/strong><\/p>\n As Figure 1 shows, there were considerable differences between the scores from Question 2 of the interview, compared to the aspects participants mentioned in their initial definitions (Question 1). Indeed, it was only the aspect of \u2018Adapting to needs\u2019 that yielded fairly similar results for the open (63%) and closed (75%) response questions. Possible reasons and implications of this are examined in the Discussion section.<\/p>\n As mentioned in the Methods section, participants were invited to discuss the reasons behind their responses in the interviews. A selection of examples of these are provided below, divided into sub-sections based on the different aspects of LCE. Due to the close links between certain aspects, some have been combined into the same sub-section \u2013 for example \u2018Active participation\u2019 and \u2018Interaction\u2019 below.<\/p>\n Active participation and Interaction. <\/strong>A clear example of the differences between \u2018open response\u2019 and \u2018closed response\u2019 definitions was for \u2018Active participation\u2019 (91%) and \u2018Interaction\u2019 (81%). For example, whereas only 4 out of 16 participants mentioned \u2018Active participation\u2019 in their initial definitions, 13 responded that this aspect should \u2018definitely\u2019 be part of the definition in Question 2. Indeed, \u2018Active participation\u2019 was seen by many teachers as \u2018essential\u2019 for learner-centered education to occur:<\/p>\n Norberto:<\/em> The \u2018learning by doing\u2019 thing, I think, is essential to any learning process.<\/p>\n Rosemary:<\/em> I think learner-centered education has to make it possible for students to participate, actively, during their learning process, so I think teachers must organize lessons so that students can actively participate all the time.<\/p>\n Even Jaime, whose open response definition focused exclusively on \u2018Power sharing\u2019, was quick to recognize the importance of \u2018Active participation\u2019:<\/p>\n Jaime:<\/em> I think, well, more than others that I have read across these options, it\u2019s one of those that sounds like very obvious, you know, with the concept of student-centered learning.<\/p>\n \u2018Interaction\u2019 (81%) also achieved a much higher score in Question 2 compared with Question 1. \u2018Interaction\u2019 was not mentioned in any of the participants\u2019 open response definitions, but 10 out the 16 teachers reported that it should \u2018definitely\u2019 be part of a definition of LCE. Felicia for example, highlighted:<\/p>\n Felicia:<\/em> When you teach in another language, it\u2019s really important that it\u2019s not just the teacher talking all the time, but for there to be interaction between the students, student-to-student and student-to-teacher, it\u2019s like the main point of what they\u2019re doing.<\/p>\n \u2018Interaction\u2019 did not receive complete support from the interviews, with 6 participants responding that it was only fairly important. Rosemary, for example, highlighted that interaction was not always necessary in a learner-centered class:<\/p>\n Rosemary:<\/em> I think it\u2019s part of the definition, but not necessarily, because if they are working individually on a project, there are different goals for learning. I think it depends on them, the subject, or the objective of the lesson.<\/p>\n Real life-skills and Higher order skills. <\/strong>An aspect linked to both \u2018Active participation\u2019 and \u2018Interaction\u2019 was \u2018Real-life skills\u2019, which achieved a fairly high overall score of 81%, despite only being mentioned explicitly by one participant in the open response definitions. For example, although Norberto\u2019s open response definition focused on adapting to learner needs, he felt \u2018Real-life skills\u2019 should \u2018definitely\u2019 be part of the definition of LCE, commenting:<\/p>\n Norberto:<\/em> Of course, as language teachers we have to always think about how what we\u2019re trying to teach can be used in a real-life environment. [\u2026] Anything that we bring into the classroom should have some use in the outside world.<\/p>\n The aspect of \u2018higher order skills\u2019, whilst still moderately popular with a score of 53%, produced a range of opinions. 4 of the 16 participants felt that it should \u2018definitely\u2019 be part of the definition, whilst 9 felt that it \u2018could\u2019 be part, and 3 answered that they were \u2018not sure\u2019. Melisa, for example, stated:<\/p>\n Melisa:<\/em> I\u2019m not sure if [higher order skills] should be a \u2018must\u2019 for this concept, [\u2026] I would say this is, I don\u2019t know, \u2018transversal\u2019<\/em>, I don’t know how to say it<\/p>\n Researcher:<\/em> It transcends, like learning in general? It\u2019s not just about learner-centered education?<\/p>\n Melisa:<\/em> Yes, that\u2019s what I want to say. So that\u2019s why I\u2019m not sure if it\u2019s only<\/em> related to this concept.<\/p>\n The views of Melisa suggest that while she may encourage higher order skills with her students, they are not necessarily a fundamental part of her interpretation of LCE. This would seem similar to Rosemary\u2019s argument about whether \u2018Interaction\u2019 should be considered an essential part of the definition.<\/p>\n Autonomy and Metacognition. <\/strong>\u2018Autonomy\u2019 (78%) and \u2018Metacognition\u2019 (81%) also scored considerably higher on the closed response component of the interviews in comparison to participants\u2019 initial open response definitions. 11 participants expressed that both \u2018Autonomy\u2019 and \u2018Metacognition\u2019 should \u2018definitely\u2019 be part of the definition, despite only 5 participants mentioning these aspects in their initial definitions.<\/p>\n The overlap between these two aspects was clear; indeed, Claudio highlighted that there were clear links between the two:<\/p>\n Claudio:<\/em> In the process of becoming autonomous and making the class learner-centered, we have to give students the skills or the tools to become autonomous and to understand the way in which they learn. [\u2026] So I think it is important to work on metacognition; helping them understand how they learn to learn and that\u2019s also one of the processes to get to autonomy, which would be the final goal.<\/p>\n Power sharing and Adapting to needs. <\/strong>\u2018Power sharing\u2019 received mixed messages from the Colombian teachers. Only 5 participants felt that it should \u2018definitely\u2019 be part of the definition of LCE, with 6 responding that it \u2018could\u2019 be part of the definition, and the remaining 5 \u2018not sure\u2019. Within the \u2018definitely\u2019 group, there were comments like:<\/p>\n \u00c1ngel:<\/em> Students need to have the opportunity to decide on the way this learning is going to happen. [\u2026] They need to take part in that decision-making process.<\/p>\n However, more skeptical participants highlighted potential problems with allowing students to make key decisions in their learning:<\/p>\n Jonas:<\/em> I mean, the teacher is the person who is planning the different lessons and activities, so I think although it is important, sometimes teachers need to decide what to do in the classroom.<\/p>\n A possible issue with the previous quotation is that Jonas may have been thinking in practical terms with regards to the possibility <\/em>of allowing students increased choice and control, as opposed to how LCE should be defined theoretically<\/em>. As stressed in the Methods section, this was a constant issue throughout this research and although I tried to mitigate against it, practical concerns may have interfered with the participants\u2019 conceptual understandings of LCE. An example in which this was less of an issue was Rosemary:<\/p>\n Rosemary:<\/em> I think it\u2019s an important part [of the definition of LCE], but maybe not the core<\/em>. I mean you definitely have to listen to your students and when I say listen to them, that is not to give them what they want all the time, but to always take their opinions into account when you are planning future lessons.<\/p>\n The examples of both Jonas and Rosemary suggest that although taking learners\u2019 views into account may be important, the teacher is nevertheless vitally important in the decision-making process. With this in mind, it is perhaps unsurprising that the aspect of \u2018Adapting to needs\u2019 was relatively more popular than \u2018Power sharing\u2019, with 10 participants feeling it should \u2018definitely\u2019 be part of a definition of LCE. As mentioned earlier, this aspect was the only one to score relatively highly in both the open and closed response definitions. Jonas, for example, stated:<\/p>\n Jonas:<\/em> I think it\u2019s very important because sometimes we have different kind of students and some of them might have particular needs, so we have to adapt the materials to them, and to be flexible.<\/p>\n Some participants related this flexibility to the notion of constructivism; that is, considering students\u2019 prior knowledge and experiences:<\/p>\n Claudio:<\/em> I said it should definitely be part, because when we\u2019re talking about learner-centeredness, the students need some sort of baseline to start constructing new knowledge. [\u2026] It\u2019s part of learner-centeredness, because it\u2019s taking into consideration what he or she already knows.<\/p>\n The qualitative nature of the interviews allowed me to explore the notion of \u2018Adapting to needs\u2019 in more detail with the participants. Related to the discussion of learning-<\/em>centred education (see Literature Review) I asked them if they would still consider themselves \u2018learner-centered\u2019 if they adopted traditionally teacher-centered methods (lecturing, drilling, etc.), but with the ultimate aim of \u2018Adapting to needs\u2019. Out of the 16 participants, only Araceli expressed that she could consider herself just as \u2018learner-centred\u2019 if she utilized more \u2018teacher-centred\u2019 methods in an attempt to adapt to her learners\u2019 needs. Araceli\u2019s view seemed to be based around the idea of doing everything possible to help her students learn:<\/p>\n Araceli:<\/em> It should \u2018definitely\u2019 be in the definition, because [\u2026] you need to give the students activities in which they can practice, but you also need to teach grammar, [\u2026], because I think that it is necessary that you don\u2019t only focus on the fun part, but also on the topics you are teaching.<\/p>\n Researcher:<\/em> But would you consider that teaching to be learner-centered still?<\/p>\n Araceli:<\/em> That\u2019s what I\u2019m realizing now. [\u2026] I think that as a teacher if you are still teaching grammar or focusing on the more formal elements, yes, that would still be part of a learner-centered approach.<\/p>\n However, not all participants were as sure as Araceli, with most participants not sure when I asked them this further question. The general lack of certainty when answering this question was summed up well by Jaime:<\/p>\n Researcher:<\/em> So I want you to imagine a teacher who is drilling and lecturing but the reason that they do that is because they feel that that it is the best way for their students to learn in that moment. Would you consider that to be learner-centered?<\/p>\n Jaime:<\/em> I think at certain points in our teaching we all mix and use different approaches and that might also depend on what we perceive in our classroom and what we might think our students need at certain points, we make the decisions. So I think, yes, absolutely, because I mean, how could I say no? [\u2026] But I would expect that mostly, if I am talking about a student-centered approach, most of the approaches would be related to [\u2018Power sharing<\/em>\u2019] [\u2026] So neutral; not sure whether this should be part of the definition of learner-centered education or not.<\/p>\n Perhaps one of the most important factors was whether or not participants considered \u2018Power sharing\u2019 to be a key part of their understanding of LCE. Flavio\u2019s views are telling here:<\/p>\n Researcher:<\/em> Do you think that a teacher can still justify that they are being learner-centered, because they are thinking about the needs of the students?<\/p>\n Flavio:<\/em> No, I don\u2019t think so. [\u2026] I think that in some classes, there could be transitions between the approaches; at the beginning, we could have the teacher-centered approach and then, at the end, a learner-centered approach, or vice-versa. [\u2026] If the teacher is providing opportunity to empower his students, I think that that is learner-centered. But if the teacher is the one that finally takes the decision, I think that that would be teacher-centered education.<\/p>\n Formative assessment. <\/strong>The penultimate aspect was that of \u2018Formative assessment\u2019. Despite only being mentioned in 1 of the 16 initial open response definitions, it was interesting to note that \u2018Formative assessment\u2019 was very well-received by the Colombian teachers, with an overall score of 88%, placing it second overall in the closed response question. Armando, for example, seemed to link formative assessment with students\u2019 \u2018process\u2019 of learning:<\/p>\n Armando:<\/em> By having formative assessment, learners are going to feel that they are part of a learner-centered process because; we\u2019re not talking about \u2018you failed\u2019 or \u2018you passed\u2019; we are talking about your process.<\/p>\n The fact that some aspects like \u2018Formative assessment\u2019 achieved high scores in the closed response questions despite barely appearing in participants initial open response definitions, would seem to mirror its general lack of representation in the academic literature. I revisit this point in the subsequent Discussion section.<\/p>\n Humanistic role. <\/strong>The final aspect of LCE was that of \u2018Humanistic role\u2019. Although this was one of the lowest scoring aspects overall, it nevertheless achieved a score of 63%, suggesting that it was still considered somewhat important by the Colombian teachers, and was mentioned in 4 out of the 16 open response definitions. In the closed response question, 9 participants expressed that it should \u2018definitely\u2019 be a part of LCE, such as Armando, who stated:<\/p>\n Armando:<\/em> If we have that empathetic perspective towards others, it means that we are having that humanistic perspective. I do think it\u2019s really important in learner-centered education.<\/p>\n Of the remaining participants, 2 felt \u2018Humanistic role\u2019 \u2018could\u2019 be part of the definition, whilst 5 were \u2018not sure\u2019. Mariela, for example, responded:<\/p>\n Mariela:<\/em> I didn\u2019t have a very clear idea, but [\u2026] yes, the students need to be comfortable if they want to learn [\u2026] so yes, it is important.<\/p>\n Researcher:<\/em> But if you were designing a definition, would you put this in?<\/p>\n Mariela:<\/em> I don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n In the previous example, it was not that Mariela did not value the notion of humanistic teaching, but rather that she did not feel it should be a key part of the definition of LCE. This was similar to Rosemary\u2019s views on the role of interaction in LCE and Melisa\u2019s views on higher order skills.<\/p>\n Three main discussion points emerged from the findings, which are examined in the following sub-sections.<\/p>\n This study again highlights the broad, complex nature of the concept of \u2018learner-centered education\u2019. Overall, the teacher participants agreed that all 10 of the potential aspects emerging from the meta-analysis of literature (Bremner, 2020a) should be part of a wide-ranging definition of LCE. Indeed, there were no aspects that were universally rejected, and all aspects received an overall score of at least 50%.<\/p>\n Figure 2 demonstrates the similarities in the overall tendencies by placing the summary of qualitative responses alongside the quantitative scores of Bremner (2021). Although it must be recognized that the sample size in this qualitative study is too small to make statistical comparisons, the graph tentatively suggests that participants appear to hold broadly similar views to the 248 teachers in the quantitative survey, with only slightly larger differences in certain aspects such as \u2018Higher order skills\u2019, \u2018Humanistic role\u2019, \u2018Power sharing\u2019, \u2018Formative assessment\u2019 and \u2018Interaction\u2019.<\/p>\nLiterature review<\/h3>\n
Multiple interpretations of LCE<\/h4>\n
A meta-analysis of literature on LCE<\/h4>\n
\n
\n\n
\n Aspect of LCE<\/strong><\/td>\n % of articles that mentioned this aspect<\/strong><\/td>\n % of articles from language teaching<\/em> that mentioned this aspect<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Active participation<\/td>\n 83%<\/td>\n 75%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Interaction<\/td>\n 67%<\/td>\n 70%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Adapting to needs<\/td>\n 64%<\/td>\n 60%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Autonomy<\/td>\n 57%<\/td>\n 65%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Power sharing<\/td>\n 47%<\/td>\n 50%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Real-life skills<\/td>\n 43%<\/td>\n 45%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Higher order skills<\/td>\n 41%<\/td>\n 30%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Metacognition<\/td>\n 30%<\/td>\n 30%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Formative assessment<\/td>\n 19%<\/td>\n 10%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Humanistic role<\/td>\n 13%<\/td>\n 25%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n English language teachers\u2019 perspectives on the concept of LCE<\/h4>\n
\n\n
\n Aspect of LCE<\/strong><\/td>\n Overall weighted score from English language teachers\u2019 perspectives<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Active participation<\/td>\n 90%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Interaction<\/td>\n 89%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Adapting to needs<\/td>\n 83%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Metacognition<\/td>\n 83%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Autonomy<\/td>\n 82%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Real-life skills<\/td>\n 77%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Higher order skills<\/td>\n 76%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Formative assessment<\/td>\n 73%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Humanistic role<\/td>\n 72%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Power sharing<\/td>\n 71%<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n LearnING-centered education<\/h4>\n
Method<\/h3>\n
Aim and research questions<\/h4>\n
Context and participants<\/h4>\n
\n\n
\n Name
\n(pseudonym)<\/strong><\/td>\nTeaching experience
\n(years)<\/strong><\/td>\nMost teaching
\nexperience in<\/strong><\/td>\nTeacher training
\nexperience?<\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n \u00c1ngel<\/td>\n 5-10<\/td>\n Private language institutes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Armando<\/td>\n 5-10<\/td>\n Private secondary<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Araceli<\/td>\n 5-10<\/td>\n Private language institutes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Claudio<\/td>\n 20 +<\/td>\n Higher education<\/td>\n \u2714<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Felipe<\/td>\n 10-15<\/td>\n Higher education<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Felicia<\/td>\n 0-5<\/td>\n Higher education<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Flavio<\/td>\n 10-15<\/td>\n Public secondary<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Jaime<\/td>\n 20 +<\/td>\n Higher education<\/td>\n \u2714<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Jonas<\/td>\n 5-10<\/td>\n Public secondary<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Leonora<\/td>\n 0-5<\/td>\n Higher education<\/td>\n \u2714<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Melisa<\/td>\n 5-10<\/td>\n Public secondary<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Mabel<\/td>\n 0-5<\/td>\n Private language institutes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Mariela<\/td>\n 5-10<\/td>\n Public secondary<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Norberto<\/td>\n 0-5<\/td>\n Higher education<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Pamela<\/td>\n 5-10<\/td>\n Private language institutes<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Rosemary<\/td>\n 5-10<\/td>\n Higher education<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Data collection<\/h4>\n
\n
Key methodological considerations during the interview process<\/h4>\n
Data analysis and presentation<\/h4>\n
Findings<\/h3>\n
RQ1: How do participants define LCE in their own words?<\/h4>\n
![](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej100\/a12pix\/table-4.png\")
<\/p>\nRQ2: To what extent do participants agree with the 10 aspects of LCE emerging from the meta-analysis of literature, and how do their responses compare to their \u2018open response\u2019 definitions?<\/h4>\n
\n\n
\n Aspect of LCE<\/em><\/td>\n Overall score \/16
\n(Overall %)<\/td>\nThis should definitely<\/u> be part of the definition of LCE
\n(1pt)<\/td>\nThis could<\/u> be part of the definition of LCE
\n(\u00bdpt)<\/td>\nNot sure<\/u> whether this should be part of the definition of LCE
\n(0pt)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n\n Active participation<\/td>\n 14.5
\n(91%)<\/td>\nn=13<\/td>\n \u00c1ngel, Araceli, Armando, Claudio, Felipe, Flavio, Leonora, Jaime, Jonas, Mabel, Mariela, Melisa, Rosemary<\/td>\n n=3<\/td>\n Felicia, Norberto, Pamela<\/td>\n n=0<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Interaction<\/td>\n 12.5
\n(78%)<\/td>\nn=10<\/td>\n Armando, Claudio, Felicia, Felipe, Flavio, Jaime, Jonas, Leonora, Mabel, Mariela<\/td>\n n=5<\/td>\n Araceli, Melisa, Norberto, Pamela, Rosemary<\/td>\n n=1<\/td>\n \u00c1ngel<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Real-life skills<\/td>\n 13
\n(81%)<\/td>\nn=12<\/td>\n \u00c1ngel, Araceli, Armando, Claudio, Felipe, Flavio, Jaime, Jonas, Leonora, Melisa, Norberto, Rosemary<\/td>\n n=2<\/td>\n Felicia, Mabel<\/td>\n n=2<\/td>\n Mariela, Pamela<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Higher order skills<\/td>\n 8.5
\n(53%)<\/td>\nn=4<\/td>\n Araceli, Felipe, Flavio, Leonora<\/td>\n n=9<\/td>\n \u00c1ngel, Armando, Claudio, Jaime, Jonas, Mabel, Mariela, Melisa, Norberto<\/td>\n n=3<\/td>\n Felicia, Pamela, Rosemary<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Adapting to needs<\/td>\n 12
\n(75%)<\/td>\nn=9<\/td>\n \u00c1ngel, Araceli, Armando, Claudio, Leonora, Jaime, Jonas, Mabel, Mariela<\/td>\n n=6<\/td>\n Felicia, Felipe, Flavio, Melisa, Norberto, Rosemary<\/td>\n n=1<\/td>\n Pamela<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Power sharing<\/td>\n 8
\n(50%)<\/td>\nn=5<\/td>\n \u00c1ngel, Armando, Jaime, Mariela, Melisa<\/td>\n n=6<\/td>\n Araceli, Claudio, Flavio, Jonas, Leonora, Rosemary<\/td>\n n=5<\/td>\n Felicia, Felipe, Mabel, Norberto, Pamela<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Autonomy<\/td>\n 12.5
\n(78%)<\/td>\nn=11<\/td>\n Armando, Felipe, Flavio, Jaime, Jonas, Leonora, Mabel, Mariela, Melisa, Pamela, Rosemary<\/td>\n n=3<\/td>\n Araceli, Claudio, Norberto<\/td>\n n=2<\/td>\n \u00c1ngel, Felicia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Metacognition<\/td>\n 13
\n(81%)<\/td>\nn=11<\/td>\n \u00c1ngel, Armando, Claudio, Felicia, Flavio, Jaime, Jonas, Leonora, Mariela, Melisa, Norberto<\/td>\n n=4<\/td>\n Araceli, Felipe, Pamela, Rosemary<\/td>\n n=1<\/td>\n Mabel<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Formative assessment<\/td>\n 14
\n(88%)<\/td>\nn=12<\/td>\n \u00c1ngel, Araceli, Armando, Claudio, Felicia, Felipe, Jaime, Mabel, Mariela, Norberto, Pamela, Rosemary<\/td>\n n=4<\/td>\n Flavio, Jonas, Leonora, Melisa<\/td>\n n=0<\/td>\n <\/td>\n<\/tr>\n \n Humanistic role<\/td>\n 10
\n(63%)<\/td>\nn=9<\/td>\n \u00c1ngel, Araceli, Armando, Claudio, Felipe, Jaime, Jonas, Leonora, Melisa<\/td>\n n=2<\/td>\n Flavio, Rosemary<\/td>\n n=5<\/td>\n Felicia, Mabel, Mariela, Norberto, Pamela<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n ![](\"https:\/\/tesl-ej.org\/ej100\/a12pix\/figure-1.png\")
\nFigure 1. % of aspects mentioned in initial \u2018open response\u2019 definitions, compared to overall % scores from the \u2018closed response\u2019 questions<\/strong><\/p>\nDiscussion<\/h3>\n
1) Teachers support the view of LCE as a multifaceted concept, but focus mostly on practical, technical aspects<\/h4>\n