Bureau
of Educational and Cultural Affairs
OFFICE OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROGRAMS
Home > English
Language Programs > English
Teaching Forum > Volume
39 > Number 3
Creating a Learner-centered Teacher Education Program
Mustafa Zulkuf Altan and Christine
Trombly (Turkey)
Teacher education is based on the assumption that students will eventually
teach in the way that they were taught (Johnson 1995). At Inönü
University in Turkey, an ELT teacher education program has set out
to change students’ beliefs about language learning and teaching during
their preparatory year, and thus to create a new type of language
teacher in Turkey. Since these students are studying to become teachers,
it is important early in their careers to impart the notion of learner-centered
education. This means organizing a class so that students are more
involved in the teaching and learning process and the teacher is less
likely to dominate classroom events (Nunan 1995). We have found that
a learner-centered classroom enhances students’ development in the
process of becoming teachers.
English instruction in Turkey is
important because without English proficiency, professionals in many
sectors of society are blocked from career advancement. The need for
more and effective English language teachers is greater than ever before.
Yet language education is particularly challenging in Turkey, as it
is in other parts of the world, due to the traditional classroom in
which teachers are considered authorities and the learning environment
is teacher-centered. In a traditional teacher-centered classroom, some
students are motivated to learn English. However, we believe that students
progress more rapidly in learning English in a more learner-centered
environment.
This article describes how we
created a learner-centered classroom environment with students who come
from a teacher-centered background. We explain how we used the communicative
approach, process writing, cooperative learning, and strategy and style
awareness in courses in listening and speaking, grammar, and writing.
We suggest how a teacher can give up some control of the classroom,
but not lose control, while creating a learner-centered environment.
The learner-centered classroom
Creating a learner-centered
classroom is a response to the problem created when a student’s learning
style differs from the teacher’s teaching style. The way a teacher presents
subject matter may conflict with students’ ideas about learning, thus
resulting in no learning. Therefore, it is the teacher’s duty to respect
individual learner differences and to assist the students in discovering
their own learning processes and preferences. It requires putting students
at the center of classroom organization and respecting their needs,
strategies, and styles.
In a learner-centered environment,
students become autonomous learners, which accelerates the language
learning process. A learner-centered environment is communicative and
authentic. It trains students to work in small groups or pairs and to
negotiate meaning in a broad context. The negotiation of meaning develops
students’ communicative competence (Canale and Swain 1980) and provides
comprehensible input (Long 1980). Crookes and Chaudron (1991:57) provide
an accurate summary:
The teacher-dominated classroom
("teacher-fronted") is characterized by the teacher’s speaking
most of the time, leading activities, and constantly passing judgment
on student performance, whereas in a highly student-centered classroom,
students will be observed working individually or in pairs and small
groups, each on distinct tasks and projects.
In short, a student-centered
environment becomes a solution to student and teacher differences by
providing the learner with more autonomy and control. The only caveat
is that students may become out of control in a student-centered classroom,
and conflicts about learning may arise between teachers and learners.
Nunan (1988) covers the problematic situation that emerges when teacher
methodology goes against what students believe is appropriate. Since
our students at Inönü University are coming from very teacher-centered
classrooms, we introduce a learner-centered environment step-by-step
so students won’t at first resist our ideas. Resistance includes disruptive
classroom behavior and the students’ failure to attend class, and results
in the teacher’s loss of prestige.
Introducing a learner-centered
environment requires more than one single adaptation of a traditional
classroom. We knew that moving from explicit to implicit instruction
and from controlled to free language production would require several
changes. The techniques chosen would have to support the development
of a learner-centered environment while maintaining classroom control
and providing students with a rationale for the changes. Overall, we
tried to utilize interactive activities of the communicative approach,
which gave students opportunities to use the target language. We also
encouraged student contributions to lesson planning and presentation,
which got them involved in teaching the class. Finally, we wanted them
to take more responsibility for their own learning.
Listening and speaking course
The aim of the preparatory program
is to develop and improve students’ communicative competence in the
four language skills. The program has a modest start with only 21 students,
all under 21 years old and at an intermediate level of English proficiency.
In speaking and listening courses, the most noticeable adaptations to
a learner-centered classroom were implemented by using communicative
methods that involve interactive tasks and activities. We established
a learner-centered environment in these courses in four ways:
- Stating the goals and objectives
of each lesson verbally and in writing.
- Using controlled, guided, and
free activities in a progressive order.
- Evaluating the usefulness of
pedagogical tasks by administrating a questionnaire.
- Involving students in determining
lesson content whenever possible.
Step 1 is to write the goals
and objectives of the lesson on the board and then explain them clearly
at the beginning of each lesson. Communicative tasks and activities
are a novelty to our students, and they want to know the reasoning behind
them. Also, these new communicative activities with negotiating, role-playing,
and transferring information can be confusing. Therefore, it is necessary
to clue the students into this teaching approach by explicitly stating
the purposes underlying the new tasks and activities in the daily lesson
plan.
Second, we rotate from controlled
to guided to free, and thereby achieve balanced activities (Crookes
and Chaudron 1991). Communicative tasks and activities take a variety
of forms, and this variety helps students with mixed speaking and listening
abilities to get involved.
Controlled activities are highly
structured and get nonparticipatory, low-level students involved in
speaking and listening. For example:
- Students volunteer answers
to display questions from the teacher.
- Students fill out a chart
from the book on a topic being presented by the teacher.
- Students look at an illustration
from the book and discuss what they see.
Guided activities, on the other
hand, appeal to students at an intermediate level of speaking proficiency.
For example:
- Students
ask one another questions and answer them in turn (an information
exchange).
- Students write an original
dialogue or narrative and then role-play it for the class.
- Pairs present their dialogue
or narrative to another pair to summarize (an information transfer).
Free activities appeal to students
who are highly communicative. For example:
- Students freely discuss
a topic provided by the teacher.
- Students report individually
to the class on a subject they know a lot about.
- Students work together to
come up with a solution to a problem posed by the teacher.
Later in the academic term,
a third step is to evaluate the usefulness of pedagogical tasks by eliciting
student feedback on these activities with a questionnaire. Nunan (1995)
emphasizes that teachers should discover their students’ feelings about
the learning process. The list of balanced classroom activities, from
controlled to guided to free, was rated according to the following scale:
Directions: For your speaking
and listening class, rate the following activities according to the
scale given below.
5. I always like this activity
4. I usually like this activity
3. I sometimes like this activity
2. I seldom like this activity
1. I never like this activity
We discovered with the questionnaire
how useful communicative activities were for learning. Different students
liked different activities more than others; but none of the activities
were unanimously disliked. The questionnaire results were shared with
the students in order to limit negative reactions to activities that
didn’t appeal to individual student’s learning styles. The questionnaire
results revealed that other students found the activities appealing.
Moreover, from the results of the questionnaire, students became aware
that all activity types are effective and by engaging in all of them,
their language learning opportunities will improve.
Finally, we got students involved
in lesson content. Studies show that student-initiated interaction results
in more comprehensible input than teacher initiated-interaction. Entire
lesson plans can be built on student-initiated topics in which most
students take an interest. Student-initiated topics can be encouraged
by the teacher by asking referential questions instead of display questions,
that is, questions to which the speaker does not already know the answer
and which have a variety of possible answers (Crookes and Chaudron 1991).
An open-ended referential question could invite students’ viewpoints
on any topic. For example, our students enjoyed discussing journalism
in Turkey, gun control, and the environmental impact of tourism.
Grammar course
While speaking and listening
courses focused on communicative competence for fluency of expression,
the grammar course focused on explicit presentation of grammar rules
for accuracy of expression. The grammar course is a popular course with
our students because it conforms to their previous experiences with
learning the language code through a teacher-fronted method. However,
in addition to explicit rule presentation, we helped students understand
implicit rules, using communicative activities again. We incorporated
interactive and meaningful tasks and activities to highlight relevant
grammatical explanations.
Communicative language teaching
relates forms to meaning (Littlewood 1981). In order for students to
grasp grammatical features of the target language, we teach the language
forms first by rules, then in structured activities. Structured activities
begin with a teacher prompt, and students’ replies are limited and inauthentic.
However, from the structured activity, we move on to communicative functions
which are naturally more authentic. Communicative functions teach students
how to use the target language to perform specific tasks such as to
give advice, make suggestions, describe, request, compare, and so on.
While we are aware that real communication is still limited in this
procedure, students are made aware to associate these practices and
put their explicit knowledge to use in other course work.
Process writing
In the writing course, other
adaptations for learner-centeredness and autonomy were put in place
through process writing, which creates highly skilled writers (Krapels
1990). It also presents many opportunities for classroom interaction,
because students are taken though prewriting steps that require them
to draft and revise before producing a final written product (Kroll
1991). Within these steps—that is, preparing for writing, organizing
the writing, drafting, and evaluating—we have multiple opportunities
for creating a learner-centered environment. Later in the academic year,
with process writing already in place, we created more of a learner-centered
classroom environment in three other ways:
- Students were given opportunities
to become teachers of the writing content.
- Students interacted through
peer editing.
- Students broadened their
discourse communities through electronic publishing.
First, a prewriting technique
gave our students the opportunity to become the teacher. The technique
can take the form of grammar exercises, reading with comprehension exercises,
or a discussion of previous readings. With 21 students in our program,
we evenly divided students into cooperative groups. Each group was given
a short text with comprehension and vocabulary exercises and discussion
questions. Three students from each group led the entire class through
these simple activities. Using an overhead projector with transparencies,
students followed this procedure:
- The entire class read
a short text on an engaging theme.
- One student prepared vocabulary
questions while another student prepared comprehension questions,
and both individuals led the activity in turn.
- The third student then led
a discussion with prepared questions relevant to the theme of the
text.
- The rest of the class took
notes during this prewriting step to use later in preparing a first
draft of a composition on the theme.
Second, we created a learner-centered
classroom through peer editing. Using the process approach allows students
to design and interact with written materials and with each other. Once
they have completed the prewriting procedure mentioned above, and with
a first draft in hand, students can proceed to peer edit by exchanging
papers and commenting on each other’s product. A helpful peer editing
technique is to use a structured checklist, samples of which can be
found in many recent writing textbooks. The checklist helps students
look for specific elements of effective writing, such as topic sentences,
supporting details, a conclusion, transitions, and correct punctuation.
We had students design the peer editing checklist together as an additional
activity, based on the goals and objectives of the course. (See the
appendix for two sample checklists.)
Finally, in the writing course
students were also given the opportunity to reach a larger discourse
community outside their classroom by publishing their compositions on
a faculty member’s Internet Web page. This required that students evaluate
each other’s final drafts and choose the best ones. First, we put students’
writing on a bulletin board and devoted a class period to having students
read each other’s work and check the one they liked most. (During this
evaluation process, it is useful to block out students’ names so that
choices are based on the written content rather than personal allegiance.)
Then, the composition with the most checks was typed up and posted to
the Web page. The chosen work was made available on the Internet and
the honored writer’s identity revealed. The noticeable rise in writer
motivation level proved that this method is effective.
Cooperative learning
We adopted even more innovative
approaches and techniques in learner centeredness in the reading course
by forming cooperative groups. Cooperative group learning is an instructional
strategy that calls for students to work together in groups in order
to achieve a common learning goal (Slavin 1983). During this collaborative
work, students develop social skills as well as language proficiency.
We begin to create a learner-centered environment by again giving students
opportunities to research and choose their content materials through
discourse communities outside the classroom, namely the Internet.
The first step is setting up
base groups. These are long-term heterogeneous groups with stable membership
whose primary responsibility is to provide members with support and
encouragement in completing course requirements and assignments. We
tried hard to keep the groups together. When a group did not work well,
we avoided breaking it up, even if the group requested it; and we helped
them to learn to cope with and overcome their unproductive interactions.
These cooperative groups engaged
in project work using topics from the reading textbook as a model—for
example, education, news, wealth, food, marriage, travel, and world
issues—and then found an article from an outside source, usually online.
Some of the Internet sources they utilized were yahoo.com, CNN.com,
edweek.com, the BBC online and the English Teaching Forum online.
Next, we required the groups to present a report of the material they
chose. Each time, a different member led the presentation to the rest
of the class. During their reports, each group presented the new vocabulary
they learned from the article, and all groups were given vocabulary
quizzes every two weeks. Finally, the groups submitted a copy of the
project to the teacher for evaluation. All group members got the same
grade on the group task.
Learning strategy and style awareness
Within the reading class, in
addition to the cooperative learning activities, we presented students
with an entire unit devoted to raising awareness of learning styles
and strategies. Language learning strategies are the conscious steps
or behaviors used by language learners to enhance the acquisition, storage,
retention, recall, and use of new information (Rigney 1978; Oxford 1990).
Using strategies enhances learner autonomy and self-direction. A specific
learning style is a sensitive sensory channel. Style awareness determines
learners’ preferred channels, matches their styles with the instructors’
teaching style, and encourages students to develop their weaker areas.
To create a learner-centered environment, we raised students’ awareness
of learning strategies and styles in three steps.
First, to prepare students for
the unit, we discussed learning strategies. The discussion related specific
strategies to familiar learning situations, such as guessing the meaning
of new words, a common compensation strategy in reading. We gave students
examples of reading passages in which unknown words could be deciphered
from the given context. Other strategies included memory strategies,
in which students can group new words from a text in order to create
a mental link.
Second, for students to better
understand their own learning strategies and styles, we administered
Oxford’s (1990) Strategy Inventory for Language Learning (SILL) and
O’Brien’s (1990) Learning Channel Preference Checklist (LCPC). The SILL
scores allow students to identify their language learning strengths
and weaknesses. Additionally, students became aware of which strategies
best suit their abilities. The LCPC scores help students determine their
own learning preferences as well as the style the teacher uses when
presenting lessons.
Third, we taught language learning
strategies and styles using a formal presentation. We transferred onto
overhead slides an outline of Oxford’s (1990) classification of six
types of learning strategies: memory, cognitive, compensation, metacognitive,
affective, and social. There are only three types of learning styles:
visual, auditory, and haptic. This neat categorization makes for an
appealing lesson.
Applying strategies to learning
is challenging in a theoretical sense, but the opportunities to apply
strategies to course work and to associate them to specific lessons
are almost endless. Any classroom activity applies a learning strategy
and we attempted to draw students’ attention to it. For example, students
used to teacher-centered instruction often want to know the reason for
doing group work and question its value. We explain that group work
is a social strategy involving cooperation with others to achieve a
common goal. Once students understand this, the learning environment
is improved.
Applying learning styles in
the classroom means student must be aware of their preferred sensory
channel. For example, when the teacher uses a visual aid in lesson content,
certain students who are not visually oriented may lose the thread,
while others quickly see what they are learning. A kinesthetic, hands-on
activity is useful for haptic learners, but it may boggle other learners.
A verbal presentation tunes out some non-auditory learners completely.
But the fact that students are made aware of different styles helps
them to refocus their sensory channel.
Conclusion
This article has explained why
and how we created a learner-centered classroom in our teacher education
program. We believe that such an environment can be achieved in any
classroom context. In fact, learner-centered classroom setup does not
rely on preset formulas or magical recipes; rather, it requires involving
students in the teaching process. We discovered that success meant slowly
implementing new techniques and thereby adapting students so they would
understand lesson goals and objectives, value communicative tasks and
activities, generate topics and choose materials, work cooperatively,
and identify their own learning strategies and styles. A successful
learner-centered environment also requires frequent student feedback.
What should be emphasized is that learner-centered methods should proceed
in a moderate, adaptive pace. We should help students who are accustomed
to a teacher-fronted classroom to accept a change in classroom organization
so they may gain the benefits of being at the center of the learning
process.
Note: We invite teachers and
other students to read our students’ compositions online: http://web.inonu.edu.tr/~mzaltan.
References
Canale, M., and M. Swain. 1980.
Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching
and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1, pp. 1–47.
Crookes, G., and C. Chaudron. 1991.
Guidelines for classroom language teaching. In Teaching English as
a Second or Foreign Language (2nd ed.), ed. M. Celce-Murcia. Boston,
Mass.: Heinle and Heinle.
Johnson, K. 1995. Understanding
communication in second language classrooms. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Krapels, A. R. 1990. An overview
of second language writing process research. In Second Language Writing,
ed. B. Kroll. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kroll, B. 1991. Teaching writing
in the ESL context. In Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language
(2nd ed.), ed. M. Celce-Murcia. Boston, Mass.: Heinle and Heinle.
Littlewood, W. 1981. Communicative
language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Long, M. H. 1980. Input, interaction,
and second language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles.
Nunan, D. 1988. The learner-centered
curriculum. New York: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1995. Closing the gap between
learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 1, pp. 133–158.
O’Brien, L. 1990. Learning channel
preference checklist. Rockville, Maryland: Specific Diagnostic Studies.
Oxford, R. L. 1990. Language
learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston, Mass.:
Heinle and Heinle.
Rigney, J. W. 1978. Learning strategies:
A theoretical perspective. In Learning Strategies, ed. H.F. O’Neil,
Jr. New York: Academic Press.
Slavin, R. E. 1983. Cooperative
learning. New York: Longman.
|
Mustafa
Zulkuf Altan is the chair of the ELT department at Inönü
University in Malatya, Turkey.
Christine Trombly is a U.S. Department
of State English Language Fellow teaching at Inönü
University in Malatya, Turkey. |
|
Appendix
1st Draft Peer Editing Checklist
Theme: Responding to a Proverb
Writer __________________ ... Peer
editor ______________________
-
What is the proverb or
quote?
- Does the writer correctly put quotation
marks around the proverb? ______Yes ..
______No
- What does the proverb/quote mean?
- What is the writer's response to the proverb/quote?
Does s/he agree or disagree with it?
- How does the writer explain his/her response?
Does the writer give one detailed example, reasons, several
short examples, or another pattern of organization?
- Is there a lesson from this proverb? What
is it?
- Did you enjoy reading the response to the
proverb? Why or why not? Explain.
|
1st Draft Peer Editing Checklist
Theme: Definition
Writer __________________ ... Peer
editor ______________________
-
Does the paragraph use
good form? ______Yes .. ______No
- Does the topic sentence of the paragraph
have a main idea and controlling idea? ______Yes ..
______No
- Underline the main idea and controlling
idea on the writer's first draft.
- Does the topic sentence contain a dictionary
definition? ______Yes .. ______No
- If so, does the dictionary definition use
correct quotation marks and punctuation? ______Yes ..
______No
- How does the writer define the term? (circle)
Examples ... Description
... Classification
... Chronological
History ... Stating
what it is not
- How many times is the keyword repeated?
- Are there any unclear details that need
additional explanation? ______Yes ..
______No
- Do you understand the term better now that
you have read this definition? ______Yes ..
______No .. ..
Why or Why not?
|
back
Back to the top
|