LARNER-CENTERED METHODS:
EXPLORING TEACHER’S
BELIEFS AND PRACTICES
THESIS
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Sarjana Pendidikan
Dearet Putra Pratama
112012100
ENGLISH LANGUAGE EDUCATION PROGRAM
FACULTY OF LANGUAG AND ARTS
SATYA WACANA CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY
Learner-Centered Methods:
Exploring Pre-Service Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices
Dearet Putra Pratama
112012100
Abstract
Previous researches have revealed how teachers’ beliefs affect their classroom practices.
However, some studies have found that there can be mismatches between a teacher’s beliefs and classroom practices. This study intends to find out if there are such mismatches for its participants and why there are mismatches. To narrow the study down, the study is based on the
teachers’ beliefs around learner-centered methods. The participants chosen were two student
teachers of Salatiga’s UKSW’s FLA. Pre-observation interviews and post-observation interviews
were used to give insight as to the participants’ beliefs. Observations were done to give a better
understanding about the implementation of the participants’ beliefs. This study is significant
because there have not been many studies on the topic of mismatches around this area and it is also to raise awareness that mismatches can happen to student teachers. The result of this study was that the participants could define what learner-centered approach was but had trouble implementing it in their practices.
Keywords: Teacher beliefs, Teacher practices, Learner-centered
Introduction
Over the years, the traditional way of teaching (teacher-centered) has been changed to
that of student-centered. Garret (2008) stated that student-centered methods focus on "meaning
making, inquiry, and authentic activity." This is especially true in the 2013 curriculum in
Indonesia, in which teachers must use student-centered way of teaching in order to include all the
phases in one meeting. Also, Napoli (2004) said that the two different methods of
teacher-centered and learner-teacher-centered are "philosophical paradigms that reflect different views about the
contested nature of "learning," "teaching," and "knowledge." He further explained that a shift in
the methods is not simply a "one-off" teaching activity. A one-off means something that only
Some researchers have concluded that some teachers’ beliefs and what they actually
practice in class may differ. This results in a mismatch in what they intend to do and what they
actually do in the class (Garret 2008). Moreover, Ahmed (2013) has found that student-centered
method is most suitable in an environment in which the students are "more autonomous and
more self-directed" so they can create their own learning experiences. Because not all students
are this way, mismatch between teachers' beliefs and their methods may happen depending on
the class that they teach.
It is not always easy to actually teach what we have prepared before class because many
things can change and many unexpected things may present themselves. As Ahmed (2013) has
stated, teaching methods only work on certain classrooms and on certain kinds of students.
Teachers may be forced to change what they have prepared because of these unexpected factors.
Napoli (2004) has also said that in student-centered methods, teachers need to teach and care
about every student in the class, no matter how different they are individually. For the reasons
that have been written above, teachers may not be able to avoid making changes to their teaching
practices and this is why it needs to be found out why these changes happen.
This study aims to find out whether or not there are mismatches in the participants’
teaching beliefs and their classroom practices by using interviews and observations. Moreover,
this study attempts to find out the reasons for the mismatches. It is necessary for this research to
be done because many teachers and student teachers have had problems in what they believe
they should do and what they had to do in the class (their classroom practices). This research is
hoped to help those teachers and student teachers in dealing with these situations. The research
about learner-centered methods? 2. Is there any mismatch in the participants’ beliefs and
practices? 3. What could be the cause of the mismatches?
Literature Review
Many teaching practices treat the students as if they are “empty vessels” and the teachers
are supposed to fill them with knowledge (Montgomery & Groat, 1998). However, students have
different learning styles and it affects the way they acquire and process information (Felder &
Henriques, 1995; Gilbert & Swanier, 2008). Apanpa & Oluranti (2012) suggest that learning
styles are “reflections of how students take in and process information” and that they differ from
one another. Every student has a specific learning style and they need to be encouraged to
expand their learning styles to suit different and various learning situations (Ghada, Rima, Nola,
& Mona, 2011). It is assumed that learners can learn better when the way teachers teach fits their
learning styles (Awla, 2014).
Learner-Centered Methods
Because of these different learning styles that the students have, teachers are encouraged
to adopt learner-centered methods. Learner-centered methods are methods “principally
concerned with learner needs, wants, and situations.” These methods basically give the students
meaning-focused activities because giving students the form and function of the language will
lead to their mastery of it (Kumaravadivelu, 2006). It also focuses on teaching the students, not
just the subject, which means teachers should care more about individual students and not simply
teach the subject like they would to any other students (Schug, 2002).
However, Nunan (2013) stated that the concept of learner-centered education is
“react negatively to the concept because they feel that implicit notion is a devaluing of their own
professional roles.” While other people may believe that it involves “handing over learner duties
and responsibilities that rightly belong to the teacher.” Nunan himself believed that both of those
criticisms are misguided. This is because he believed that it is a matter of educating learners so
that they can gradually assume greater responsibility for their own learning. The significant
contrast between learner-centered and traditional curriculum is that in learner-centered
curriculum, it is more of a collaborative effort between teachers and learners, since learners are
closely involved in the decision-making proves regarding the content of the curriculum and how
it is thought. (Nunan, 1988, as cited in Nunan, 2013)
The Indonesian Ministry of Education and Culture (Kemendikbud, 2014) stated in their
explanation of the 2013 curriculum that instead of dominating the class, the teacher should be
guiding the students into learning on their own (autonomous learning) by having the students
look for the answers instead of the teacher telling them the answers. This is in line with Nunan’s
(1988) statement that students should eventually learn autonomously in a learner-centered
classroom. Moreover, Kemendikbud (2014) also mentioned that the students should be
encouraged to “learn by doing.” This is also in line with Nunan’s (2013) statement about learner
-centered methods in which he said that in the learner--centered view, language acquisition is a
process of acquiring skills rather than a body of knowledge. This means that in the 2013
curriculum, teachers should use learner-centered methods in their classrooms.
Teachers’ Beliefs affecting Practices
It is the general consensus that teachers’ beliefs heavily affect the teachers’ way of
(Shinde & Karekatti, 2012). In regards to teachers’ decisions in the classroom, Kalsoom &
Akhtar (2013) said that they are influenced by the teacher’s prior knowledge and beliefs system.
They further explained that these decisions include the teaching materials that they teach and the
methods and techniques they use in the classroom. Similarly, Borg & Al-Busaidi (2012) stated
that “teachers’ beliefs can powerfully shape both what teachers do and, consequently, the
learning opportunities learners receive.” The teachers’ beliefs can also influence other things
outside of their own classrooms. They can create trends and even break trends and they can also
shape curriculum (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). Moreover, in the context specifically about
pre-service teachers, Malba (2014) stated that “As preservice teachers learnt to teach, they
constructed their theories which mediated and orientated their teaching practices.” This means
that they teach according to their beliefs.
Some studies, however, have found that there are mismatches between what the teachers
are supposed to do and how they actually act and implement in the classroom. Phipps & Borg
(2009) have found that there are “tensions” in the teachers’ beliefs and their practices. They also
found that some teachers who have mismatches acknowledge that their practices in the
classroom did not reflect how an effective teaching should be. Some of the teachers they
interviewed also said that breaking their habits to fit different situations is difficult. Garret (2008)
has also found mismatches between teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practices. All of
Garret’s participants claimed to support student-centered teaching. However, not all of them
implemented student-centered methods in the classroom. In Garret’s findings, it is stated that this
is because the teachers “thought about what management strategies were necessary to
successfully implement a particular lesson.” Also, in 2013, Baleghizadeh & Moghadam found a
they found a mismatch in teachers’ beliefs and their practices, in which teachers with different
beliefs could act similarly in practice. Borg & Al-Busaidi (2012) found that there was a
significant gap between how teachers think that learners should be more involved in the
decisions about their learning and the feasibility of it. The teachers thought that it was not
feasible “particularly in relation to objectives, assessment, and materials.”
The Study
Context of the Study
The data collection was done in SMKN 2 Warak Salatiga. This location was chosen
because it was one of the few schools which were always using K13, especially for their English
class. Implementing K13 was a crucial factor in choosing the context of the study because the
teachers need to use learner-centered methods in this curriculum. Also, in K13, the school only
provides teachers with 2 hours of class meeting each week per class.
Participants
The participants chosen were two student teachers who were teaching at SMKN2 Warak.
These student teachers were chosen instead of the teachers there because these student teachers
could open up more to the researcher due to them being on roughly the same level. These student
teachers were also more willing to open up to the interviewer and talk more about their beliefs
and mismatches. Both participants taught 10th grade classes when they were observed.
Participant Profiles
Participant 1 (P1) is a 22 year old male university student. He is a student at UKSW and
is currently a student teacher at SMK 2 Warak Salatiga. As of the observation and interviews
done to the participant, he had already taught there for a month but had no prior real life teaching
experience. However, the participant had previously taken various classes that could help him in
his teaching duties. These classes are Teaching & Learning Strategies (TLS), Teaching English
as a Foreign Language (TEFL), English Language Teaching Management (ELTM), and also
Micro Teaching. These classes taught the students how to teach, especially Micro Teaching,
which is a class specifically offered to prepare students before taking Teaching Practicum (a
class which P1 is currently taking).
Participant 2 (P2)
Participant 2 (P2) is a 22 year old female university student. As with P1, this participant
is also a student at UKSW and is also currently a student teacher at SMK 2 Warak Salatiga. She
has the same background as P1 regarding the previously taken classes which include TLS, TEFL,
ELT Management, and Micro Teaching. Their difference is in their teaching experience. While
P1 only had previously taught in SMK 2 for 1 month, P2 had already taught 2 for months when
the data was taken. Aside from the gender, this was the only difference between the participants.
Research Instruments
The methodology used in this research is qualitative. This research needs a qualitative
method because the research needs an in-depth look at the teachers’ perspective and their beliefs.
With qualitative method, the participants will be able to give more explanations and answers that
The first instrument used was a semi-structured interview. This was used for the
pre-observation and post-pre-observation interviews. In this type of interview, the interviewer used
open-ended questions and follow up questions in order for the participants to freely express
themselves. This instrument was chosen because it provides the participants a chance to
elaborate on their answers (as opposed to structured interviews) while not straying too far from
the topic at hand (as opposed to unstructured interviews).Aside from follow up questions, these
questions were asked to both the participants before observing their teaching:
1. How would you describe a learner-centered classroom teaching?
2. Do you believe that the students should be active in the class?
3. If there are any students who are not active, will you try to get them to participate in
class?
4. If yes, how do you motivate them to participate in class? If not, why not?
The same instrument was also used for the third part of the data collection
(post-observation interviews) for the same purposes already stated. Aside from questions which are
specifically asked regarding the observed class, here are some questions which were asked on
this set of interviews:
1. Did the teaching go as well as you wanted it to be?
2. If not, why? If yes, were there any problems that you overcame?
3. Did the class fit your definition of a learner-centered classroom?
As the second step of the data collection procedure, the researcher used a non-participant
observation instrument. In this type of instrument, the researcher had the chance to observe the
a non-participant observation, the researcher did not have any participation whatsoever in the
flow of the class except from observing from the back of the class for all four observed classes.
This method was chosen because the researcher believes that by participating in the class, the
way the participants taught would have been affected. Thus, minimizing participation was
needed to get the most accurate data.
Data Collection Procedures
As mentioned, there were three steps in collecting the data. The first one was that the
researcher used interviews in order to find out the participants’ view of learner-centered
methods. The questions asked are already discussed in the previous chapter.
The second step was to observe the participants while they taught in their classes. Two
classes were observed for each participant, and the observed classes were recorded using a
cellphone in order to be reviewed later.
The third step was to do post-observation interviews in regards to how the participants
taught in their observed classrooms. The participants were interviewed while watching the
videos of their teaching in order for them to have fresh memories and thus able to answer the
questions more easily.
Data Analysis Procedures
The data analysis focused on how the teachers describe a learner-centered classroom and
how they would use the learner-centered methods and try to match them with their corresponding
observed classes. The reason to ask the participants and to find out how they would describe the
mismatch would then be found if what the participants described as a learner-centered classroom
did not match their actual practice that could be observed from the videos taken from the
observations. The mismatches were then asked to the participants and confirmed to be actual
mismatches. The data taken in the post-observation interviews were compared to the data taken
from the pre-observation interviews and the observations.
Findings & Discussion
Participant 1
Pre-Observation Interview
The pre-observation interview was aimed to know and understand both participants’
beliefs about or definition of a learner-centered classroom. Participant 1 described his belief as
follows:
“Classroom dimana kelasnya itu aktif, terus mereka bisa mempelajari sendiri bahannya, dan guru itu di kelas fungsinya itu sebagai seperti cuma memberikan fasilitas. Gimana cara menjadi fasilitator yang baik untuk mereka.”
(P1, 16/09/2016)
“A learner-centered classroom is where the students are active and they are able to learn on their own. The teacher, in this case, only gives them the means to learn. Also to be a
good facilitator for the students.”
(Researcher’s translation, 19/10/2016)
From this, we can see that the participant describes a learner-centered classroom as a
class in which the students autonomously learn instead of being taught by the teacher. This
means that he believes that in a learner-centered classroom, the role of the teacher is only to be a
facilitator.
that he should guide students to discuss topics and materials with their peers and also help
encourage the students to adopt autonomous learning. This is in line with Maor’s (2003) theory
in which a teacher whose role is a facilitator needs to limit his or her participation “to promote an
active, willing and responsible participation.” This is also similar with what Ernest (1988) said
about teachers as a facilitator, the teacher should be a problem solver in the class which means
that the teacher should help the students overcome their problems whenever they have any.
The first participant also believes that the students need to be active in the classroom. He
would try several ways to motivate the students to be active in the classroom. Asking specific
students to answer questions is one of those ways, as can be seen from his answer when he was
asked how he would deal with students who were not active in the class.
“Mungkin bisa ditunjuk…diberi pertanyaan bisa. Nanti mereka pasti secara saat itu juga mereka langsung mikir”
(P1, 16/09/2016)
“Maybe I can call them and ask them questions. They will then immediately think at that moment”
(Researcher’s translation, 19/10/2016)
If some of the students were not yet active in the class, the participant would ask them
questions in order for them to think and by thinking and then answering, those students would
hopefully be interested in the topic or material being talked about and hopefully, be more active.
His other technique to catch the students’ attention and help them pay more attention in class is
to use videos as seen from his answer when he was asked about how to motivate the students.
“Kayak yang saya pakai ini, pakai movie.Apa yang mereka inginkan gitu. Karena saya dulu juga pernah sama kayak mereka. Pelajaran bahasa inggris sukanyagimana?Pakai film, mereka jawab gitu, karena mereka juga merasa pakai film itu mereka balajar banyak banget.”
“Like using movies. It is what they want. I know because I have been a student like them
before. How would you like your English class be? “Watching movies” they would answer that because they feel that through movies, they can learn a lot.”
(Researcher’s translation, 19/10/2016) He claimed that “it is what they want” and as a former student himself, giving what the
students want to capture their attention is a good way to do that.
Overall, it was found that the participant believes that a learner-centered classroom is
where the teacher acts as a facilitator and the classroom’s learning is autonomous, and to have
that, the students need to be active in the class, instead of the teacher. Nunan (1988) said that the
teacher should monitor the students in learner-centered methods and help “facilitate the growth
of learner autonomy.” Also, Norman & Spohrer (1996) said that in learner-centered methods, the
goal is “active exploration, construction, and learning rather than the passivity of lecture
attendance and textbook reading.” This is the same as participant 1’s beliefs and also what he
described as a learner-centered classroom.
Observation Results
First Class (29/09/2016, 7:00 AM, Grammar, Grade X)
The participant taught in the language lab of the school, in which they have computers for
each student and also one computer for the teacher to control what the students see in their own
computers. There are, however, some broken monitors, which means that some students need to
use one monitor together. The teacher’s teaching plan is to let the students see each other’s
completed assignments and then watch a movie together and discuss it.
After the class started, some students were notably not paying attention to the teacher
each other and some were sleeping on their desks. The teacher did not move from his spot while
controlling the main computer and this lasted for about 28 minutes in the recorded video. In the
post observation interview, when confronted about the fact that he sat on his desk for more than
20 minutes, he answered that in the language laboratory, he had to do this in order to control
what the students saw in their monitors and that he had to control the computers himself.
T: (While sitting on his desk) The one your friend did isn’t correct. The correct one is … (gives
the correct answer)
S: … (Students in the front (about 10 students) paid attention but the rest of them were either sleeping or talking to each other)
(1st Video, 29/09/2016)
While correcting the students’ assignment, the teacher kept asking the students questions,
possibly to motivate them to participate and become more active. However, many students didn’t
answer.
For the second half of the class, the teacher played them a video for the students to watch.
The video showed a person explaining about grammar. The students were noticeably more
interested and paid more attention in this session of the class. Afterwards, P1 taught the class
about the same topic, grammar. However, most of the class did not pay attention to what P1 was
explaining about. In the post-observation interview, the participant admitted that the students
paid less attention when grammar was being taught by himself but paid more attention to the
videos that he showed. He said that “It seems like they didn’t like it.”
Second Class (29/09/2016, 9:00 AM, Grammar, Grade X)
Similarly, in the second observed class, the same material was used by the teacher and
students’ response to the teachers’ questions was lack of interest. An example would be as
follows:
T: (Plays video of a grammar lecture) (Pause video after about 12 minutes) Why is there an “s” here?
S: Because… (Only some of the students responded while the others were silent) T: Why is this one different? Why is this one “sings”?
S: Because… (Some students gave the same answer while the others were talking to each other)
T: When do we add an “s”?
S: (Only one student answered) He, she, it.
T: Yes… (Then explained to the class while the class was silent)
(2nd Video, 29/09/2016)
From this, we can see that the students were paying attention to the video that the
participant played for them but they seemed to not get anything from it. The participant later told
the researcher that the reason of the lack of acquisition was because of the topic or focus of the
study, which was grammar:
“Kayaknya mereka nggak suka. Malah lebih suka tugasnya mereka atau temannya dibahas itu mereka jadi suka.”
(P1, 03/10/2016)
“It seems like they didn’t like it. They preferred if we discuss about their or their friends’ work.”
(Researcher’s translation, 19/10/2016)
Most students failed to keep paying attention later on in the class around the time when
the video stopped playing and the teacher explained the grammar point instead, like in the
example given above. There were also some students who just refused to cooperate.
teacher. Sadly, some monitors kept shutting off and the some students had to watch the video on
their friends’ monitors. When asked about this, P1 said:
“Equipmentnya harus benar-benar mendukung supaya nggak rusak-rusak, mati-mati sendiri sehingga tidak membuat mereka terganggu, begitu.”
(P1, 03/10/2016)
“The equipments need to really be able to support us by not shutting off periodically so that the students won’t keep getting interrupted.”
(Researcher’s translation, 15/01/2017)
From the observations presented earlier, there are some things that led the researcher to
believe that both observed classrooms did not fit the participant’s description of a learner
-centered classroom. What the participant described as a learner--centered classroom was a class in
which the students are active, learning autonomously, and the teacher is merely a facilitator. In
the observed classes, none of these happened. First, the students were not active in participating
in the class. Many of them only talked to each other and some only participated when the teacher
discussed the assignment that they themselves had done previously. Second, the students could
not learn autonomously. The teacher had to teach them all the time whenever the videos were not
played. The students did not have the chance to study or learn by themselves. Third, the teacher’s
role should have been as a facilitator in which they are a problem solver (Ernest, 1988) and in
which they have limited participation (Maor, 2003).
When the teacher was asked if the class fit his definition of a learner-centered classroom,
he immediately admitted that the observed classes did not fit his idea of a learner-centered
classroom. He said:
“Belum sih. Mereka kurang di, kurang saya buat saya pancing supaya aktif. Ada beberapa yang ribut sendiri saya biarin gitu.”
“Not yet. I didn’t motivate them enough. There were some students who talked to each other, and I just let them.”
(Researcher’s translation, 19/10/2016) This confirms the researcher’s speculation that the classes taught did not go as intended
and there was a mismatch between P1’s beliefs and practices.
Participant 2
Pre-Observation Interview Results
When asked about her beliefs, the second participant (P2), answered as follows:
“Kalau saya pribadi beliefnya ya manajemen classroomnya baik, anak-anaknya nurut, anak-anaknya aktif, nggak ngobrol sendiri, nggak ngantuk.”
(P2, 24/10/2016)
“For me, personally, I believe that the classroom management should be good, the students are obedient, active, not talk to each other, and not sleepy.”
(Researcher’s translation, 05/11/2016)
As stated above, P2 has similar beliefs as P1. That is for the students to be active in the
classroom. Furthermore, when she asked about the teacher’s role in the learner-centered class,
she answered:
“Sebagai fasilitator, menjadi role model ya pastinya. Gurumya yang memfasilitasi terus siswanya yang aktif. Ya student-centered.Kita yang memberikan materi, mereka yang mengolah
sendiri. Mereka yang mikir sendiri.”
(P2, 24/10/2016)
“As a facilitator, to be a role model, surely. The teacher facilitates and the students are the ones who are active. So, student-centered. We’re the ones who give them materials and
they’re the ones who will process them. They will think for themselves.”
(Researcher’s Translation, 05/11/2016) With this, it is clear that P2’s beliefs should make her teach less to her students while
P2’s belief is that she wants her students to actively learn while she acts as a facilitator
who gives out materials to her students. In her belief, the students should also be able to process
materials given by her on their own (learning autonomously).
Interestingly, P2’s beliefs are in line with Nunan’s (2013) description of learner-centered
methods in which the students should, in time, assume more responsibility for their own
learning, and with Norman & Spohrer’s (1996) description of learner-centered methods, in which
students need to work to solve problems from the teacher.
Observation Results
First Class (24/10/2016, 11:00 AM, Describing People, Grade X)
The participant taught in a regular classroom equipped with an LCD projector, as
opposed to P1 who taught in the language lab. In this classroom, from the beginning, she used
the LCD projector to display the materials to help her teach for the duration of the class.
Contrary to her beliefs, she almost dominated the class discussion for the whole meeting. This
can be seen in these examples:
T: What is this called? (While showing a picture of a hair type in the LCD) S: Kriting (Using Indonesian)
T: Curly. Repeat after me. Curly. S: Curly.
T: This?
S: …(Silent)
T: Wavy. Bergelombang. (Using Indonesian) Repeat after me. Wavy. S: Wavy
(3rd Video, 24/10/2016)
This went on for about 20 minutes. After this, the teacher showed the students pictures of
people and asked them to describe them using the vocabulary learned previously.
T: What about his nose? S: Mancung!
T: Pointy!
(3rd Video, 24/10/2016)
This went on until the class ended. This means that the class did not fit P2’s belief about
the learner-centered classroom where she described it as the students being active and her being
just a facilitator. In the first observed class, however, she had to keep asking the students
questions and kept guiding them from the beginning to the end. She also hoped that the students
could learn on their own over time but this did not happen either. When she was asked about this
in the post-observation interview, she said that the students kept talking to each other and she
had to operate the laptop in front of the class instead of walking around the class.
“Mereka malah pada sibuk ngobrol sendiri sama temannya… saya sibuk di depan kelas buat mengoperasikan laptop saya biar pergantian slidenya bisa nggenah jadi saya nggak bisa keliling kelas.”
(P2, 28/10/2016)
“The students were talking to each other… I was busy operating my laptop to change the slides of the materials so I couldn’t walk around the class.”
(Researcher’s translation, 15/01/2017)
Second Class (28/10/2016, 09:15 AM, Describing People, Grade X)
The setting of the classroom was very similar to the previous classroom that P2 taught in.
It was a regular classroom but without an LCD projector to display the class material. This
means that unlike the previous class because P2 could not use an LCD projector in the
classroom, she had to come up with something else and she was also able to move around the
class as opposed to the previous class where she had to operate her laptop. Unfortunately, the
students were having problems remembering the materials so P2 had to write some vocabularies
While this class was already taught about the material in the previous week, they still had
a problem in remembering the material and answering P2’s questions. Only about five students
who were sitting right in front of the teacher were very responsive.
T: What can we use to describe people?
S: Um…
From the exchange above, it is clear that the teacher only gave the students a minimum
chance to speak up. However, this could be because only one student answered her question and
the answer was not even what she was looking for. This went on for about 25 minutes while they
continued to try to describe people. For the rest of the class, P2 asked the students to write down
the homework questions that she wrote on the whiteboard for them.
In this observation, the researcher once again thought that the class did not live up to P2’s
expectations of the class because the students were not active and she had to guide the students.
It was clear that she was disappointed because she repeatedly said this:
T: Come on, we already studied about this last week. S: (Talk to each other or silent)
(4th Video, 28/10/2016)
When asked about her teaching in the post-observation interview, P2 answered:
“Belum terpenuhi. Agak kecewa tapi menurut saya sudah banyak belajar kok muridnya… Murid-muridnya itu kurang niat… Mereka kelihatan males kalau di kelas”
(P2, 28/10/2016)
“Not yet fulfilled. I’m a little disappointed but I think the students have learned a lot. It
wasn’t fulfilled because the students were lacking in motivation and looked lazy in the
(Researcher’s translation, 05/11/2016) Just like in P1’s case, there was a mismatch in P2’s beliefs and practices. Both know
what learner-centered method was but could not apply it in their teachings.
Even though this did not show in P2’s observed classrooms, she did mention this in her
pre-observation interviews about her past experiences:
“Biasanya mereka labih boring kalau ngajar grammar.”
(P2, 24/10/2016)
“The students are usually more bored when talking about grammar.”
(Researcher’s translation, 15/01/2017)
Factors of Mismatch
From the discussions above, it’s true that the participants had mismatches in their beliefs
and their practices. Based on both the interviews and observations, these were the factors that
both participants said to be affecting their teaching performance and not enabling them to
achieve learner-centered classrooms:
1. Teaching topic/focus
Both participants told the researcher that when the focus is on grammar, the students
were reluctant to be active. However, some topics like discussing their friends’ work made them
want to participate in the discussion.
The facilitation in the classroom was said to affect both participants. Both said that they
wanted to walk around the class and interact with the students but they could not because
they had to operate their computers/laptops or write on the board.
3.Students’ motivation
Both participants have also commented on how lacking their students’ motivation was.
They said that this may have caused the students to not want to participate in classroom
discussions.
Conclusion
The aim of the study is to find out whether or not there are mismatches between the
participants’ beliefs and teaching practices, focusing on learner-centered methods and to find out
the reasons for those mismatches. The result of the study is that it is confirmed that there were
mismatches found in P1 and P2’s beliefs and practices. These mismatches seem to happen
because of the facilities which they used, the lack of motivation from their students, and lack of
interest from their students towards the material that they are teaching.
The first implication of the study is for the UKSW’s FLA’s ELE teachers to be aware the
mismatches can happen to the pre-service teachers just like what the researcher found, the
participants understood the concept of learner-centered methods yet failed to implement them in
their practices. This should help them make their future student teachers prepared in facing these
possibilities. The second is that for future student teachers to be aware of the possibility of there
being a mismatch. By being aware, future student teachers can prepare themselves with
Unfortunately, due to time constraints, this study only had two participants in from only
one school. This makes the study unable to be generalized in a larger context.
It is hoped that future researches of this topic will be deeper and have more participants
with varying backgrounds for the study to be able to be generalized in a larger context.
Acknowledgment
First, I would like to thank God in blessing me during my time writing this thesis, for
blessing me with strength and faith to complete the work.
I would like to thank my thesis supervisor (Anita Kurniawati, M. Hum.) for always
helping me throughout my time in writing this thesis. I’m thankful for her being patient in
guiding me. I could not have done the work without her help.
I would like to thank my family who has supported me all this time. I especially thank,
my mother (Retno Harimurti) who helped me by discussing her own thesis with me and giving
me examples of how many things should be written.
I would also like to thank my girlfriend (Brigita Ardita Indira Vindiasari) who has stayed
with me in difficult times and encouraged me to keep going.
Lastly, I would like to express my gratitude for all of my friends for allowing me to gain
more knowledge in what I need to do to write my thesis. I especially would like to thank the
References:
Ahmed, K. A. (2013). Teacher-centered versus learner-centered teaching style. The Journal of
Global Business Management, 9, 22-34.
Apanpa, O. S., & Oluranti, O. (2012). Learning and teaching styles in language, science and
technology education in Nigeria. British Journal of Art and Social Science, 5(2),155-162.
Awla, H. A. (2014). Learning styles and their relation to teaching styles. International Journal of
Language and Linguistics, 2(3), 241-245.
Baleghizadeh, S. & Moghadam, M. S. (2013).An investigation of tensions between EFL
teachers’ beliefs and practices about teaching culture. Gist Education and Learning Research Journal, 7, 35-53.
Barahona, M. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs in the activity of learning to teach English in
the Chilean context. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 10(2), 116-122.
Borg, S. & Al-Busaidi, S. (2012). Learner autonomy: English language teachers’ beliefs and
practices. ELT Research Paper, 12(7), 1-34.
Felder, R. M., & Henriques, E. R. (1995). Learning and teaching styles in foreign and second
language education. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 21-31.
Garret, T. (2008). Student-centered and teacher-centered classroom management: A case study
of three elementary teachers. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 43(1), 34-47.
Ghada, S., Rima, B., Nola, B. N., & Mona, N. (2011). A match or a mismatch between student
and teacher learning style preferences. International Journal of English Linguistics, 1(1),
162-172.
Kalsoom, T. & Akhtar, M. (2013). Teaching grammar: Relationship between teachers’ beliefs
and practices. Global Journal of Human Social Science, 13(12), 54-61.
Konsep dan Implementasi Kurikulum 2013. (2014). Retrieved from
Khader, F. R. (2012).Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and actual classroom practices in social
studies instruction. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(1),
75-92.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching from method and postmethod.ESL
& Applied Linguistics Professional Series. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Montgomery, S. M., & Groat, L. N. (1998).Student learning styles and their implications for
teaching. CRLT Occasional Paper, 10, 1-8.
Napoli, R. D. (2004). What is student centered learning? Educational Initiative Center, 1-7.
Norman, D. A., & Spohrer, J. C. (1996). Learner-centered education. Communications of the ACM, 39(4), 24-27.
Nunan, D. (2013). Learner-centered English language education. World Library of
Educationalists. New York, NY: Routledge.
Phipps, S. & Borg, S. (2009). Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs
and practices. ScienceDirect, 37, 380-390.
Schug, M. C. (2002). Teacher-centered instruction.The Rodney Dangerfield of Social Studies,
94-110.
Shinde, M. B. & Karekatti, T. K. (2012). Pre-service teachers’ beliefs about teaching English to
