Active learning as a student-centred approach

All eight Science lecturers believed that the core dimension of active learning was related to student-centredness. In particular, the extent of their belief about active learning embraced learner autonomy, construction of new knowledge, problem solving, and critical thinking. These higher order-thinking processes are discussed further below.

The lecturers’ focus on student-centredness demonstrates that an important shift has occurred in the lecturer beliefs about teaching, because it indicates a move from a traditional lecturing (teacher-centred) view towards adopting an active learning approach. This shift was driven by intellectual curiosity and its tradition of valuing knowledge and learning. As noted in Chapter Two, in Vietnamese educational culture, the teacher is a highly respected person located within a hierarchically defined position of power over students. Student-centreness is therefore contrary to traditional cultural constructs of the teacher-student relationship in Vietnam.

It is important to note that this shift is meaningful in this context because the traditional Vietnamese learning philosophy is predominantly described within the context of collectivism that focuses on the interdependence between personal attainment and the

value of social relationships. In addition, encouraging active participation by students is prioritised by the Vietnamese government’s goals for higher education corresponding to the call for quality of teaching and learning, as stated in the Education Law of Vietnam (2005). Both similarities and slight variations existed among participants in their views about students being at the centre of learning. The lecturer beliefs about active learning and a student-centred approach, as evidenced during interviews and data on their reflections in planning meetings after the changes, are now addressed.

Four of the eight participating lecturers (Anh, Binh, Mai, and Lan) believed that active learning was linked to the notion of learner autonomy. For instance, Anh said, “Active learning is very important because students can freely contribute to discussion in class. They do not need to wait for others or me to tell them what to do” (IT.Anh.S2.I). Thus, it appears that Anh’s view of active learning encourages students to become

independent of him. Students became decision-makers and were able to make choices about their ways of learning.

In Binh’s case, there was a major change in his beliefs about active learning during the change process. Initially, Binh indicated that he believed active learning is “a difficult question.” He implied that active learning resulted from the fact that students learned through his lecture mode where he had a dominant power over his students. He said, “Previously, I lectured and my students listened” (IT.Binh.S2.F). However, Binh also recognised the value of active student participation in constructing new knowledge, as shown in his comment: “Now, I think active learning depends on student involvement

and their responsibility for their studies” (IT.Binh.S2.I). From the perspective of meaningful learning (Kember, 2009; Michael & Modell, 2003), Binh’s belief about students being responsible for their own learning is likely to link with his role shift from traditional lecturing to active learning. This belief was confirmed during his practice. He had his students work in groups and required them to identify the key ideas of a reading text after which each group representative summarised the main points of the text (OB.Binh.S2.13.30-13.50pm).

Mai initially also believed that students should play a central place in taking

engage students in problem-solving activities. She initially encountered this concept through the tenure-track examination to become a full-time lecturer and through co- teaching and working with an Australian expert in environment projects (IT.Mai.S1.I). It is therefore likely that her awareness of the need for a role change in her practice was influenced by research and professional experience with foreigners. Mai was the only lecturer who had this sort of experience.

In Lan’s account, she did not view herself as the role of knowledge provider only. Rather, she believed that students must search for the knowledge and interact with her for more information (IT.Lan.S2.F). She therefore believed that active learning allowed students the opportunity to learn by discovering. This belief is supported in the literature (e.g., Ganza, 2008; Lamb & Reinders, 2008; Poskitt, 1994) which claims that learner autonomy depends mostly on the relationship between the lecturer and students.

Cuc and Truc believed that active learning was related to the importance of critical thinking that results in student learning. For example, Truc associated active learning with brainstorming, free practice, or questioning in the class presentations

(IT.Truc.S2.F). These strategies seemed not only to provoke students in her class into thinking about what they were learning but also to engage them in interactive activities. This is a noteworthy finding because Truc recognised the need to provide students with opportunities to learn by doing things or to inquire into new knowledge critically and meaningfully.

Hung and Tin, despite slight differences within their views on active learning, seemed to have encouraged students to actively participate in their learning. While Hung believed active learning was related to student interest in learning an ESP paper, Tin believed active learning enhanced his student feeling of confidence. In Hung’s case, he indicated that when students were required to search for more references or to work in groups or teams, they expected to learn more (IT.Hung.S1.F). Tin also revealed that after he implemented more active learning practices, students in his class felt more confident in verbally presenting their assignments to the class (PM4.Tin.S1). Lecturers therefore believed that a positive impact of creating such active learning strategies was that students had greater involvement in and responsibility for their tasks.

The lecturers also came to understand the need to encourage students to voice their own ideas, and to select and construct new knowledge. This understanding is consistent with the literature on learning space design in higher education (Harrop & Turpin, 2013; Howard, 2011; K. E. Matthews, Andrews, & Adams, 2011; Oblinger, 2006; Perkinson, 2009; Savin-Baden, 2008; Temple, 2008). These authors indicate that informal learning spaces allow students to have greater engagement in active learning.

The findings of this study concur with the research literature that indicates the importance of encouraging active roles for students in order for them to contribute to their own learning process (e.g., Bonwell & Eison, 1991; Capel et al., 2009; Meyers & Jones, 1993). However, these studies tend to focus on the theoretical perspectives of using active learning strategies. This study sheds new light on how lecturer beliefs link to the implementation of active learning strategies through a student-centred approach, within the context of teaching ESP science undergraduate classes. Such understandings of the importance of placing students in the centre of the learning process seem to encourage lecturers to engage students in learning new knowledge and to change lecturers’ ways of assessing student performance to align with the credit-based system required by a Vietnamese university. In the credit-based system, Science lecturers can adopt a student-centred active learning approach because they have been encouraged to design their own curricula in this course.