Interactive learner-centred learning

Interactive learner-centred learning is another pedagogical principle underlying the SCPS. Freire (1990, cited in Jones, 2007, p. 9) says that, in learner-centred education “the locus of the learning process is shifted from the teacher to the students” because the classroom activities are based on a cooperative rather than individualistic approach to learning and students do not rely on the teacher for a model. In interactive learner- centred lessons, students are expected to be active participants rather than passive listeners, and to take part in all the activities facilitated by the teachers.

There was a high level of understanding shown by the teachers in this study that interactive learner-centred learning approach was one of the important pedagogical principles underpinning the teaching approaches in the SCPS. All of the teachers, as illustrated in the example below, made some reference to interactive learner-centred learning as a norm in the recent EL curriculum reform.

...but for KSSR (SCPS) we use err...active learning and learner centred (Teacher E)

The explanation by the Curriculum Development Division (CDD) officer confirmed the teachers’ claim. She said the SCPS curriculum reform required EL teaching and learning to be interactive and learner-centred. It was expected that 70 per cent of the EL lessons would encompass interactions between the teacher and the pupils, as well as among the pupils, and that students would play an active role in the learning process to enable them to communicate confidently, appropriately and coherently in various situations.

The teachers were also very positive about interactive learner-centred learning; it was perceived as beneficial to the development of not only the students’, but also the teachers’ communicative ability; as Teacher D noted, the SCPS was,

...better than KBSR (ICPS) because it helps the pupils to improve their language and it also helps the teacher to improve their language. (Teacher D)

The teachers explained that interactive an learner-centred learning approach allowed more opportunities for, and created an environment that encouraged, more practical use of the English Language among the students and the teachers, particularly in the classroom. Hence, it was an approach that was able to encourage communication in the classrooms and eventually help to improve students’ communicative competence. In Teacher D’s words,

Interactive teaching is very good...the students will have the chance to talk, speak and perform their skills, perform what they have learned and present their ideas and provide the chance to practise what they have learned (Teacher D)

This finding is in line with Weerawong (2004) and Al-Nouh (2008), who mention that in an EFL context where the target language is not the native language, ample opportunities to use the language for communicative purposes and to develop the learners’ ability to take part in the process of communicating through the language is needed to compensate the insufficiency of the target language input. The teachers in the present study also believed that interactive learner-centred learning could enhance students’ confidence, which is fundamental in the development of students’ communicative competence, as mentioned below,

I think this new curriculum help to solve the problems because...err...throughout all these activities err...that we can conduct inside the class...it encourage the pupil to speak and engage with the activities...so the pupils are brave enough (Teacher G)

Schweisfurth (2011) supports the idea that interactive learner-centred learning provides opportunities for the students to actively engage in creating their own knowledge and understanding and thus build their confidence. Building self-confidence in second language learning is important, as research has shown that lack of confidence has always been one contributing factor that inhibits English as Second Language (ESL)

learners from using and speaking the language freely (e.g., Hassan & Selamat, 2002; Weimer, 2002).

The above finding that interactive learner-centred learning is perceived as useful and beneficial however contradicts Fitzpatrick (2011) who found that teachers in Thailand either did not like or did not find the teaching approach useful to their teaching context. Most teachers studied were not sure how the approach could function in a context where the students were not accustomed to asking questions, had very high respect for the teachers and learned in large classes of students of mixed learning abilities, divergent previous knowledge and different interest levels. Besides that, there was not enough support provided to aid the implementation of the approach.

Change in the instructional methods has led to an awareness about the change in teachers’ and students’ roles. Teachers increasingly understand their role in learner- centred learning is to facilitate students’ learning, rather than to simply provide and transmit the knowledge, as the following extract from the present study data illustrates,

As a facilitator...to make them use the language...try to speak up (Teacher A)

The finding seems to support Weimer’s (2002) theory of learner-centred teaching, where teachers play the role of “guides, facilitators and designers of learning experience and [are] no longer the main performer, the one with the most lines or the one working harder than everyone else to make it all happen” (p. xviii). Now teachers should play an active role by “placing children at the centre of the action and recognizing their unique contributions” in the learning process, which Paris and Comb (2006, p. 582) refer to as ‘learner-centeredness’. The centrality of the learners in the teachers’ thinking was evident in the present data, as the teachers described the process of teaching and learning as focusing on individual students rather than the class as a whole, as mentioned in the following account,

As I can see from the curriculum given err...teachers also have to prepare something err...more interactive and err...more pupil centre...so most of the activities I run in my class will be the pupils is doing the activities...not just me giving the talk or giving the lesson...so most activities is being based on the pupils (Teacher G)

The above finding suggests how the EL lessons are to be carried out and the role that teachers should play in the classrooms, as required in the SCPS, was clearly understood. Nevertheless, there was a lack of guidance in the standard document as to how to carry out the requirement. Carless (1998) and Kırkögz (2008) mention that teachers’ understanding of the underlying teaching principles of a curriculum could be an essential factor that determines the degree of implementation of a curriculum innovation. Hence, adequate guidance and support need to be provided to the teachers to ensure any requirements are carried out effectively and to allow successful implementation of the approach.

Interactive learner-centred teaching and learning in EL classes was also seen as beneficial to all of the teachers as it provided opportunities for them to learn and discover new ideas and teaching strategies in order to fulfil the requirements of the curriculum. As Teacher A put it,

I have to make err...activities err...more interactive so that they speak out...they learn how to use the language...they are able to err...speak the language with their friends in the classroom and outside the classroom (Teacher A)

The curriculum made the teachers realize the need to increase their content and pedagogical knowledge and skills in order for them to do a better job and provide a better service to the students. The teachers’ keenness and enthusiasm to learn how to conduct classes as required by the curriculum suggests that the teaching approaches as mandated in the curriculum were found useful and that teachers were indeed receptive to the reforms.

Nevertheless, teachers’ understanding of the concept of interactive learner-centred learning seemed somewhat limited. The teaching approach is generally defined in terms of encouraging pupils’ participation and contributions. Just one teacher referred to learner-centred learning in relation to designing meaningful and relevant learning materials to address the differing needs and abilities of pupils in order to enhance their full potential and enable them to progressively develop the ability, knowledge and confidence to use the language effectively, as stated in the curriculum standard document,

Teaching approaches, lessons and curriculum materials must suit the differing needs and abilities of pupils. It is important that appropriate activities and materials are used with pupils of different learning capabilities so that their full potential can be realized. The Mastery Learning strategy will ensure that pupils master all learning standards in order to help them acquire the language.

(Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2010a, p. 5)

Limited understanding of the teaching approach was also apparent when interactive teaching was seen mainly in terms of building communication between the teacher and the pupils, as shown in the following definitions,

...two way communication between the teacher and the pupils (Teacher G)

...two ways interaction...three ways...from teacher to students, students to teacher and students to other students...that one is interactive learning (Teacher E)

In other words, interactive teaching meant obtaining responses from the students, as the following shows,

Interactive teaching means err...when we teach we have...we have good...good positive response from pupils...and the pupils can...they can respond... (Teacher F)

Interestingly, feedback and responses from the students were not merely confined to verbal responses, but also included physical responses, that is how students react to and involve themselves in the activities in the lessons, as shown in the following account,

Interactive teaching...interactive learning...try to produce activities which can make them...err...speak among themselves in the classroom...responds to the activities that they need to do...(Teacher A)

Based on the teachers’ conceptualisations, the teaching principle was conceptualised as being synonymous with students’ participation in communicative activities such as singing, role playing, language games, reading a Big Book, storytelling, jazz chanting and question and answer sessions, as Teacher H mentioned,

In KSSR (SCPS), the learning process is more interactive...we learn English using songs, games, chants, rhymes...(Teacher H)

In the interviews, the reason given was that it was only by involving the pupils in communicative activities as listed above that communication could be enhanced and interactive teaching could be initiated. As Teacher A explained,

I have to make err...activities err...more interactive so that they speak out...they learn how to use the language...they are able to err...speak the language with their friends in the classroom and outside the classroom […] produce activities which can make them...err...speak among themselves in the classroom...responds to the activities that they need to do on that particular day... (Teacher A)

The above conceptualisation of interactive learner-centred teaching illustrates the teachers’ limited understanding of and unfamiliarity with the required teaching approach. The teachers’ major concern was mainly to provide as many activities as possible for the pupils to engage in in the EL classrooms. There was no reference to interactive learner-centred learning in terms of initiating quality or meaningful talk or construction of knowledge, although the SCPS emphasized the need to develop critical thinking among the students by involving them in activities such as those stated in the curriculum standard document,

…listen and respond to stimulus, participate in daily conversations, listen and demonstrate understanding of text, talk about stories heard, question, respond, evaluate, express opinions and demonstrate understanding of texts or other stimulus that they listen to, read or view.

(Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2010a, p. 10)

In other words, the development of higher-order thinking skills like those stipulated in the standard document, such as arguing, narrating, critiquing and creating new ideas, were not given much attention in most EL classes. The limited opportunities to develop students’ higher order thinking skills in the EL classes suggests that teachers did not perceive the development of critical literacy as crucial to the development of students’ communicative competence.

Apart from that, the data from the interviews and the video stimulated recall dialogue (VSRD) sessions show that more than half of the teachers were either unsure or not confident about whether their classes were interactive or learner-centred. Their misgivings suggest that the concept of an interactive learner-centred teaching approach

was not clear to them, despite the fact that interactive learner-centred learning was not a new concept in Malaysian English language policy. The CDD officer confirmed that the teaching principle had first been introduced to teachers in the previous curriculum, the Integrated Curriculum for Primary School (ICPS). The interview with District English Language Officer 1 further confirmed that the teachers should already have been familiar with the concept:

Not really new in that sense...I think they all know these aspects that we are talking about...it’s just that sometimes maybe through err...you know...demands from the school, demands from parents, demands from the education system somehow they have to forsake those things so it’s just telling them it should be done. (DELO1)

However, an analysis of the standard document reveals that the concept of interactive learner-centred learning was only briefly mentioned. Detailed explanation of the principles and characteristics of interactive and learner-centred learning was absent. The lack of comprehensive explanation and information on the teaching approach could be because the ministry assumed that the teachers were already well informed and knowledgeable, since the approach had been introduced in the previous curriculum. The statements by the CDD officer and District English Language Officer 1 above confirmed this assumption.

Even though interactive learner-centred learning needed to be incorporated into EL lessons, there was also concern about the feasibility of the teaching approach, due to students’ weak level of English language proficiency and their inability to use the English Language as a means of learning. A shift in classroom instructional practices to learner-centred ones, which require contributions of ideas and participation in pairs or groups was viewed as impractical with a class where only one or two of 25 or 30 pupils were able to speak and interact in the language. Indeed, students’ low level of language proficiency resulted in a resistance to classroom participation and communication, as Teacher B pointed out,

…active learning difficult to be done, learner-centred approach… because three quarter of them are remedial it’s very hard to use the active learning and learner-centred approach because they are dependent on teachers. They do not know the language. They don’t have the words (Teacher B)

Fitzpatrick (2011) reported a similar finding in a study on the implementation of a learner-centred approach to ELT in Thailand, as explained earlier. The Thai teachers felt that their students were incapable of adapting to the new approach due to their low level of language proficiency. Thus getting them to perform activities, to respond to teachers’ questions and enquiries, and to contribute actively in the lesson proved difficult. Several other studies have come to a similar conclusion; an example is Abdul Karim (2006), who found that students’ limited oral proficiency and lack of confidence to participate made communicative language teaching difficult and unfeasible. Again, Li (1998) found that due to students’ limited proficiency in the English Language, teachers in South Korea found it difficult to conduct communicative activities. This finding supports Nunan (2003) and Orafi and Borg (2009) who all reported that a mismatch between what students were able to do and what the curriculum required led to a limited uptake of the curriculum innovation.

In the present study, the teachers recognised that their pupils came from rural areas and had very little exposure to English language and as a consequence would have difficulties speaking in the target language, especially during the listening and speaking lessons, and accordingly decided to teach using the traditional methods of drill and practice, as explained by Teacher B,

In KSSR (SCPS) during the listening and speaking...they must speak but they don’t have the language to speak so every time in the classroom what I do for my students...I drill them (Teacher B)

The present finding is consistent with those of Sato and Kleinsessar (1999) who found that the teachers turned to traditional practices where the instruction was more didactic, heavily teacher-fronted and involved very few interactions among the students in the classrooms when they were adamant that communicative language teaching was impossible due to students’ low level of language proficiency.

There were also reservations about large class sizes in relation to the effectiveness of the curriculum. In a class with 40 students, it was, they said, impossible for EL classes to be learner-centred and interactive because it would make the class very noisy and hence get out of control. Teacher G admitted that she had tried the approach, but realized that it had not been successful,

My concern of using active learning and centred approach is that err...one first of all I may have less class control […] and other than that when the class is err...large it is difficult for me to conduct the activities because the pupils at this age especially the Year 1 are very active (Teacher G)

Moreover, it was stated as being impossible to administer pair or group work activities to initiate pupils’ active involvement and participation in a class size of 35 to 40, because of the limited space, as noted by Teacher C,

When we do some activities, the pupils will make so many noise because my class is too big...there were 35 pupils...where the boys are more than the girls...the classroom is limit...the space is limit...so if I do the activities it will take a lot of time and the pupils will make noise (Teacher C)

This finding seems to correspond to the study by Wedell (2005), who reports that the difficulty with managing a large number of students in a terribly restricted space was the main issue that inhibited teachers in China from practising classroom techniques or activities for developing young learners’ skills in a manner in keeping with national curriculum requirements throughout an English for young learners (TEYL) programme. Similarly, Abdul Karim (2006), Kırkögz (2008), Kizildag (2009), Li (1998) and Littlewood (2007) all report that one factor that held teachers back from implementing a learner-centred teaching approach was large class size. This was primarily because large class sizes “posed a serious problem to teachers since class control was difficult and organizing the students to participate in the activities was very time-consuming” (Abdul Karim, 2006, p. 135). Besides, “crowded classrooms obstruct the communications among students” (Kizildag, 2009, p. 195) and developing students’ communicative competence thus becomes impossible. This issue echoes what Kennedy (1988, p. 336) refers to as the “feasibility” of an innovation, meaning that an innovation is likely to be