saturs - rpiva

There is a broad consensus among English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers in the
global community that student-fronted instruction is more effective for teaching a foreign
language than the more traditional teacher-fronted approach; however, the Turkish educational
system is not well-prepared to implement such a step.
THE AIM OF THE STUDY
To review the particulars of teacher-centered and student-centered learning, emphasizing
the benefits of learner-centered instruction, and to explore the difficulties of introducing this
teaching paradigm in Turkish EFL classrooms.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study utilized a through examination of selected works relating to the topic in
question. The authors reviewed the current literature concerning the effectiveness of studentfronted
versus teacher-fronted learning, analyzing the findings of numerous researchers who had
investigated the benefits of teacher-centered versus student-centered learning on foreign language
instruction. Each piece of information was considered in relation to the others in a systematic
way in order to gain insights into their interpretations. In addition, the authors analyzed the
results of a survey of Turkish teacher-educators on the challenges associated with introducing
learner-centered instruction in EFL classrooms.
The difference between teacher-fronted and student-fronted instruction
The earliest formal schooling was highly personal; teachers interacted on an individual
level with diverse students, all of whom had different abilities and had attained different skill
levels, in a single classroom. As more standardized education evolved, and attendance in school
became compulsory, teachers were given a prescribed curriculum, which they taught to the entire
class without regard for the abilities and varied learning styles of individual students. This
approach, known as teacher-centered or teacher-fronted learning, was considered the norm until
late in the 20 th century (Thattai, 2001). Students were required to sit and passively absorb
material, without any means of relating it to the real world; to pursue the metaphor introduced
earlier in this article, the students were “given a fish.”
However, in recent decades, educators have recognized the inability of teacher-fronted
learning to meet the needs of a diverse student population (Brown, 2003). Researchers argue that
students understand and retain material better if they work it out for themselves through
discussion, peer-assisted learning, role play, and a variety of other problem-solving activities
(O'Bannon, 2008). The role of teachers should be to facilitate learning, offering guidance when
needed – in essence, teaching their students to fish.
The following table contrasts the main characteristics of teacher-centered and learnercentered
classrooms (adapted from Huba & Freed, 2000) (see Table 1).
Why is learner–centered instruction more effective in foreign language classrooms
Most educators have reached the consensus that learner-centered instruction is a more
effective method of teaching a foreign language than a teacher-centric approach. The teacher
centered approach, which typically consists of memorization of vocabulary and rules of grammar
(often reinforced with choral drills and recitation and with little emphasis on real-life usage), does
not result in true understanding or long-term retention of English language skills. EFL educators
criticize the inability of teacher-fronted learning to take into account the needs of a diverse
student population, citing the tendency to sacrifice individual learning to the teacher’s need to
cover all of the required material within a given time frame (Brown, 2003).
Conversely, as a study of junior high school level EFL learners in Taiwan suggests,
“cooperative [learner-centered] instruction helps significantly to enhance […] learners’ oral
communicative [sic] competence and their motivation toward learning English” (Liang, 2002).
31