Shifting from a teacher-centred approach to a learner-centred approach

Implementing the metacognitive approach requires time, and needs ongoing support for it to become embedded in the teaching and learning culture in the program. It requires a fundamental change in staff beliefs and values about students and therefore needs ongoing facilitation and mentoring for staff as they move away from teacher- centred expectations to a learner-centred approach (see specifically sections 4.1.3, 4.3 and 4.5).

In Indonesian culture, teachers are expected to follow the principles laid down by Ki Hajar Dewantara, a national education movement leader from the colonial era, who is still known for his Sistem Among, explained as Ing ngarsa sung tulada (being in front setting examples), Ing Madya mangun karsa (being in the middle building up spirit and motivation), and Tutwuri handayani (being behind the scenes supporting and

supervising) (Sumantri, 2012). However, as Sumantri points out, in recent times the teaching of Ki Hajar Dewantara seems to have little influence on teachers and students. Regular media reports indicate a reduction in the authority of teachers on students’ lives outside the school. One example she used to illustrate this was the occurrence of many student brawls in recent years, whereas in previous years students’ respect for educators and for their advice would have prevented such behaviour.

Putting Sistem Among into practice is a challenge for many teachers. Some might not even be explicitly aware of these principles, even though they have strongly influenced implicit expectations and cultures of educational practice. Teacher-centred practices, where knowledge is transferred from teachers to students, are deeply engrained (see, for example, Lamb, 2004b; Marcellino, 2008). This deeply engrained desire for teacher direction, even amongst the teaching staff, was illustrated in my colleagues’ comments and actions in seeking direction and approval from me in order to implement the metacognitive approach (see section 4.1).

While Sanata Dharma University (the focus of this research) has a culture which is more student-centred than many other Indonesian universities, and dialogue is a central part of teaching and learning practices, many teachers were not equipped with an awareness as to when to be in front, when they should be in the middle and when behind the scenes to support and supervise. Adapting the metacognitive approach, my colleagues and I began to recognise when to teach by explaining and giving examples, when to build up spirit and motivation, and when to support and supervise.

As put forward in section 4.1, my colleagues’ attitudes towards teaching, and toward students themselves, changed from being rather negative, teacher-centred and materials-oriented (reflecting their existing beliefs and assumptions), to being more positive, learner-centred and process-oriented. This took time and would need ongoing support to become embedded in the teaching and learning culture in the program. Regular mentoring and group discussions helped the teachers grow to see the value of Sistem Among, and the facilitative role that could be played by the metacognitive approach, since metacognitive teachers try to understand the minds of their students (Pressley, 2005, p. 407). Metacognition, as adopted in this research,

enabled teachers to reflect upon their teaching strategies and activities by regulating their own teaching and ensuring that their objectives and expectations were met (Alsamadani, 2010, p. 60). The challenge for the teachers was to decide when to teach and give instruction (being in front), when to motivate (being in the middle), and when to support and supervise (being behind). Although no specific finding referred to the implementation of the Sistem Among the multiple methods adopted in this research to engage learners with the metacognitive approach indicated the teachers’ growing ability to play these three roles (see section 4.2).

In addition, the teachers’ flexible approach to the teaching syllabus (section 4.3) and regular feedback provided to students (section 4.4) demonstrated the teachers’ increasing awareness and capacity to decide when to teach (through official weekly class meetings), and when to delegate the learning responsibility to their students, thus acting as a motivator, supporter and supervisor (for example, through the weekly wall magazine, and their encouragement of students to locate their own learning resources such as English films and songs).

As indicated in section 5.1.3, in the initial stages of the semester students found it difficult to learn when they were away from the teacher’s supervision and directions. However, with sufficient guidance and scaffolding, they were able to become more independent of their teachers. Much learning then took place away from us, indicating that students were becoming more self-regulated. This finding is consistent with Boekaerts (1997, p. 162) who argued that self-regulated learners are able to rely on internal sources to govern their own learning process, an achievement that was possible when teachers learn to have a better understanding about how adult learners learn (for example Merriam, 2008, p. 93).

While the findings of this research evidence that teachers’ ability to play these three roles enabled learners to become more self-regulated, more research is needed to find out how the teachers’ increased awareness of metacognition and self-regulation contribute to their decisions as to when and how to play these roles.

Implementing the metacognitive approach in other universities in Indonesia may require more significant change, since they may be characterised by more traditional teaching and learning practices which might not contribute to their awareness of

Sistem Among, nor favour the implementation of the metacognitive approach. Challenging these beliefs might need to be an explicit part of this implementation and would be a valuable focus for further research.