University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The dearth of learner-centered teaching methods in higher education: an innovation study

(USC Thesis Other)

The dearth of learner-centered teaching methods in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 1

The Dearth of Learner-Centered Teaching Methods in Higher Education: An Innovation
Study

by

Mary Amick

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2019

Copyright 2019 Mary Amick

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... V
LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................... VII

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION OF THE PROBLEM OF PRACTICE ............................................................... 1
BACKGROUND OF THE PROBLEM ...................................................................................... 2
IMPORTANCE OF THE PROBLEM ........................................................................................ 4
ORGANIZATIONAL CONTENT AND MISSION ...................................................................... 4
ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE STATUS/NEED ............................................................ 5
PURPOSE OF THE PROJECT AND QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 7
ORGANIZATION OF THE STUDY ......................................................................................... 8
DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................................................... 9

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ............................................................... 11
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING .................................................................................... 11
HISTORY AND CURRENT STATUS OF LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING IN HIGHER
EDUCATION .................................................................................................................... 12
Pedagogy .................................................................................................................... 12
Constructivist Theory ................................................................................................. 13
John Dewey ................................................................................................................ 13
Vygotsky .................................................................................................................... 14

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING METHODS ................................................................... 14
Methods of learner-centered teaching ........................................................................ 15
Problem based learning .............................................................................................. 15
Flipped classrooms................................................................................................ 15
Experiential learning ............................................................................................. 16
Does active learning work? ................................................................................... 16

THE FUNCTION OF LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION OUTCOMES JOBS
READINESS AND EMPLOYMENT ...................................................................................... 17
Current employment skill needs ........................................................................... 17

BARRIERS TO LEARNER-CENTERED TEACH METHODS IN HIGHER EDUCATION .............. 19
Predominance of Teacher-Centered Methods ............................................................ 19
Faculty Resistance ...................................................................................................... 20

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................ 20

STAKEHOLDER KNOWLEDGE AND MOTIVATIONAL INFLUENCES .................................... 21
Knowledge and Skills................................................................................................. 21
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING iii
Knowledge influences ........................................................................................... 21
Factual knowledge ................................................................................................ 22
Conceptual knowledge .......................................................................................... 22
Procedural knowledge ........................................................................................... 23
Metacognitive knowledge ..................................................................................... 23

Motivation .................................................................................................................. 25
Utility value ......................................................................................................... 26
Self-efficacy ........................................................................................................ 27

Organizational Influences .......................................................................................... 28
Stakeholders assumed influences .......................................................................... 29

Summary .................................................................................................................... 30

CHAPTER 3: METHODS ............................................................................................. 32
PARTICIPATING STAKEHOLDERS ..................................................................................... 32
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ................................... 33
SURVEY SAMPLING CRITERIA AND RATIONAL................................................................ 34
SURVEY SAMPLING (RECRUITMENT) STRATEGY AND RATIONAL ................................... 35
INTERVIEW CRITERIA AND RATIONALE .......................................................................... 35
INTERVIEW SAMPLING (RECRUITMENT) STRATEGY AND RATIONALE ............................ 36
OBSERVATION SAMPLING CRITERIA AND RATIONALE .................................................... 36
OBSERVATION SAMPLING (ACCESS) CRITERIA AND RATIONALE .................................... 36
DATA COLLECTION AND INSTRUMENTATION .................................................................. 37
SURVEY .......................................................................................................................... 38
INTERVIEWS .................................................................................................................... 39
OBSERVATION ................................................................................................................ 40
DOCUMENTS AND ARTIFACTS ......................................................................................... 41
ANALYSIS AND WRITING COMPLETION .......................................................................... 41

CODING QUALITATIVE DATA ......................................................................................... 42
Phases of Analysis ...................................................................................................... 42
Codebook ................................................................................................................... 42
Typicality ................................................................................................................... 43
Conceptual Framework .............................................................................................. 43
Moving from Codes to Findings ................................................................................ 43

NARRATIVE .................................................................................................................... 43
Writing up Findings and Results ................................................................................ 43

CREDIBILITY AND TRUSTWORTHINESS ........................................................................... 44
Triangulation .............................................................................................................. 44
Rich Data .................................................................................................................... 44
Member Checking ...................................................................................................... 45
Rigor ........................................................................................................................... 45
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING iv

ETHICS ............................................................................................................................ 45
LIMITATIONS AND DELIMITATIONS ................................................................................. 46

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ................................................................. 47
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 47
Survey......................................................................................................................... 47
Interviews ................................................................................................................... 52
Observation ................................................................................................................ 63
EXAMPLES OF LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING METHODS ............................................ 71
Progressive Designed Targeted Skill development .................................................... 71
The White Paper Exercise .......................................................................................... 72

SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................... 72

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......... 74
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 74
PURPOSE STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 74
REVIEW OF METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................... 76
SUMMARY OF RESULTS .................................................................................................. 76
Survey......................................................................................................................... 76
Interviews ................................................................................................................... 77
Observation ................................................................................................................ 81
Learner-centered environments .................................................................................. 84
FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 84
RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................................... 85

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 87

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 94
APPENDIX A: SURVEY ITEMS .......................................................................................... 94
APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .............................................................................. 96
APPENDIX C: OBSERVATION PROTOCOL ......................................................................... 98
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL .............................................................................. 99

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING v
Abstract

This is a study of the use of learner-centered strategies in a small, western university. A
review of the literature revealed that learner-centered methods engage students more than
traditional lecture methods, create a higher level of retention, and better prepare students for
the rigors of employment. The researcher developed a strategy to discover if instructors at the
university of study were knowledgeable of learner-centered strategies, utilized them in the
classroom, and if the university was meeting its goal of “innovative teaching.” This was
accomplished by means of a written survey distributed to all full-time faculty, in-person
interviews with nine of the respondents, and classroom observations of eight of the
interviewees. The results of the study were that 1) faculty are not well-informed about all the
facets of learner-centered teaching methods and 2) faculty used those methods in the
classroom less than they think they do or as much as they would like to. The researcher also
found that faculty would like to learn more about learner-centered strategies if they were
provided with the time and resources to accomplish that objective. Based on these results, it
was recommended that this study be replicated on a larger scale to be able to generalize the
results more broadly and that the university provide the time and expert instruction to help
faculty provide a more learner-centered environment in their classrooms.
Keywords: Learner Centered Education, Higher Education teaching, Professional
Development, Teaching Methods, KMO Framework, Innovative Teaching.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING vi
List of Tables
TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE, MOTIVATION, AND ORGANIZATIONAL NEEDS. ....... 7
TABLE 2: TOP TEN SKILLS EMPLOYERS REPORT THEY NEED FROM GRADUATES .............. 18
TABLE 3: KNOWLEDGE INFLUENCES ............................................................................... 25
TABLE 4: ASSUMED MOTIVATION INFLUENCES AND MOTIVATIONAL INDICATORS .......... 28
TABLE 5: ORGANIZATIONAL INFLUENCES ....................................................................... 30
TABLE 6: SURVEY – YEARS TEACHING IN HIGHER EDUCATION ........................................ 48
TABLE 7: INFLUENCES TEACHING METHODS ................................................................... 49
TABLE 8: PREFERRED TEACHING METHOD ...................................................................... 50
TABLE 9: LEARNER-CENTERED METHODS. ...................................................................... 50
TABLE 10: FREQUENCY OF USE OF LEARNER-CENTERED METHODS ................................ 51
TABLE 11: INTEREST IN LEARNING MORE ABOUT LEARNER-CENTERED METHODS .......... 51
TABLE 12: INTEREST IN INTERVIEW ................................................................................ 52
TABLE 13: INTEREST IN OBSERVATION ........................................................................... 52
TABLE 14: LENGTH OF TIME TEACHING .......................................................................... 53
TABLE 15: DESCRIPTIONS OF TEACHING STYLES ............................................................. 55
TABLE 16: CLASS DESIGN ............................................................................................... 57
TABLE 17: WHAT INFLUENCES TEACHING METHODS ...................................................... 58
TABLE 18: TEACHING METHODS INSTRUCTORS WOULD LIKE TO EMPLOY ....................... 59
TABLE 19: RECOMMENDED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOP TOPICS ......................................... 62
TABLE 20: INSTRUCTOR 1 – OBSERVATION AND REFLECTION ........................................ 64
TABLE 21: INSTRUCTOR 2 – OBSERVATION AND REFLECTION ........................................ 65
TABLE 22: INSTRUCTOR 3 – OBSERVATION AND REFLECTION ........................................ 66
TABLE 23: INSTRUCTOR 4 – OBSERVATION AND REFLECTION ........................................ 67
TABLE 24: INSTRUCTOR 5 – OBSERVATION AND REFLECTION ........................................ 68
TABLE 25: INSTRUCTOR 6 – OBSERVATION AND REFLECTION ........................................ 69
TABLE 26: INSTRUCTOR 7– OBSERVATION AND REFLECTION ......................................... 70
TABLE 27: INSTRUCTOR 8 – OBSERVATION AND REFLECTION ........................................ 71
TABLE 28: SUMMARY OF KNOWLEDGE, MOTIVATION, AND ORGANIZATION NEEDS ......... 75
TABLE 29: RECOMMENDED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TOPICS................................. 80
TABLE 30: COMPARISON OF PROPOSED METHODS TO ACTUAL METHODS ........................ 82

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING vii
List of Figures

FIGURE 1: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ADAPTED FROM CLARK & ESTES (2008) ............ 33
FIGURE 2: SUPPORT NEEDED TO IMPLEMENT LEARNER-CENTERED METHODS ................. 60
FIGURE 3: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ADAPTED FROM CLARK & ESTES (2008) ............ 78

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This body of work addresses the evidence suggesting that there is a lack of learner-
centered teaching methods being used in higher education. The context of this problem is within
the higher education community including community colleges and four-year universities. The
issue of teacher-centered versus learner-centered education is significant to students, teachers,
and academia at large, as learner-centered teaching could be one of the answers to
individualizing education and creating a classroom environment that increases learning and
higher order thinking. Learner-centered teaching methods include such strategies as “flipped
classrooms” where students complete the majority of content before class which leaves class
time for more hands on and experiential learning (Conry & See, 2014; Weimer, 2013). Other
names for learner-centered teaching include “active learning” (Bonwell & Eison, 1991), and
“collaborative learning” (Bruffee. 1984). That a problem exists is evident from the amount of
literature and research related to finding better methods of teaching and assessing students
(Eddy, et al, 2014; Weimer, 2013). As institutions of higher learning are being asked to examine
the lack of teaching methods related to learning outcomes and learner needs, the matter of how
instructors teach is being debated.
Teaching methods in higher education are now being scrutinized and attention is being
given to improving student learning (Weimer, 2013). There are important reasons for the
scrutiny: (a) employers are concerned that graduating students do not learn the skills in higher
education that prepare them for the job market; (b) in-depth critical thinking is not being taught,
and; (c) there is a higher failure rate in lecture only classes (Eddy et al, 2014). The analysis of
higher education teaching methods is focused on finding alternative ways to teach the knowledge
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 2

and skills students will need in the work force and provide them with higher level thinking skills.
This manuscript discusses the foundation of learner-centered theory, methods and research on
whether such methods are effective, and possible strategies for bringing more learner-centered
teaching into the world of higher education (Carlson & Wurdinger 2010; Gilboy, Heinerichs &
Pazzalia, 2015).
Background of the Problem
Researchers purport a lack of student-centered teaching and learning methods being used
in higher education (Achen, Dodd and Lumpkin, 2015; Davidovitch, 2013; Gilboy, Heinerichs
and Pazzaglia, 2014; Prince, 2004) which negatively impacts the quality of education (Gilboy, et
al, 2014; Davidovitch, 2013). Students assert that traditional lecture does not keep their minds
engaged and research shows a decline of attention after 10 minutes of class (Gilboy, et al, 2014).
Moreover, researchers, through both qualitative and quantitative studies, affirm that learner-
centered methods improve problem-solving skills, critical thinking, and student engagement
(Achen et al, 2014).
It is important to understand the origins of student-centered learning since the theories
both offer insight into why these methods work and explore the role of the instructor. There are
many theories and explanations of why students learn, become engaged in learning, and
consequently acquire the information they need to succeed. The theory most closely tied to
learner-centered education is Constructivism (Schunk, 2008). “Learner-centered” and “active
learning” are often used interchangeably because learner-centered methods presume a more
active role by students than traditional methods (Weimer, 2013). Constructivist Theory is
founded on active learning, which is “learning by doing,” and on concepts of psychologist John
Dewey’s pedagogy of “meaningful activities” with high levels of student involvement (Avery &
Bergsteiner, 2014; Chan & Lam, 2005-2013; Prince, 2004; Weimer, 2013). The instructor’s
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 3

role, according to Constructivist Theory, envisions a classroom where they are not always the
person who imparts the message. Instead, the message is based on “diverse instructional
formats” where students actively discover the message and draw their own conclusions.
Instructional formats can be activity centers, small group work, cooperative learning, and
scaffolding of information by the instructor (Schunk 2008). Doyle (2011) contends that creating
a learner-center environment may be the most important thing that faculty can do to improve
student learning. Another theory closely linked to Constructivism is Vygotsky’s sociocultural
theory in which the social environment is a crucial element to the development and learning of
students since knowledge is a result of interaction (Schunk, 2008). Constructivism and
Vygotsky’s social cultural theory maintain that learning must involve real-world problems rather
than those fabricated in lesson plans (Schunk, 2008). This is significant when we consider the
desire of employers to find students who are ready for the work force (Learning Sciences, 2015;
Gilboy, Heinerichs, & Pazzalia, 2015).
A preponderance of research lauds the advantages of learner-centered education with
little research extolling the disadvantages. However, even those instructors who believe in the
benefits of this type of learning experience continue to use lecture as the core of their classroom
work. As an example, a study conducted by An & Reigeluth (2015) describes the reasons for this
paradox. Their results indicate that instructors face implementation challenges including “…(a)
lack of time;( b) state required assessment; (c) institutional barriers; (d) lack of knowledge about
learner-centered instruction; (e) subject culture; and (f) teacher’s attitude toward learner-centered
instruction” (An & Reigbuth 2015). Other opposition stems from chaos in busy classrooms,
managing multiple activities, and inconsistent application of instruction as the teacher moves
from group to group (Concordia Online Education, 2016).
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 4

Prior to the conduct of this study, no formal study analyzing the use of learner-centered
teaching methods had been done at the institution of focus. However, an informal survey of
administration, faculty, and students indicate that a large percent of faculty use traditional lecture
as their primary mode of instruction.
Importance of the Problem
The lack of learner-centered teaching methods creates a variety of problems that an
institution of higher education must solve if it is to meet its obligations to its students. Studies
show that students who have experienced leaner-centered teaching are more highly motivated,
learn more, and are better prepared for the workforce (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2014; Chan &
Lamb, 2005-2013; Prince, 2004; Weimer, 2003). One study shows that when using active
learning methods examination scores increased by six percent. The study also cited a 55 percent
higher failure rate in traditional lecture classes than in learner-centered classes. In real numbers,
the study claims that of the 29,300 students in the 67 lecture courses that were examined, 3,516
of them would not have failed if they were enrolled in a learner-centered classroom (Eddy et al,
2014).
Organizational Context and Mission
Mountain University (MU), a pseudonym, is a private, non-profit Christian institution of
higher education located on the West Coast of the United States. The mission identifies itself as
“a Christian University preparing leaders for the transformation of society.” MU’s core
themes include the following:
1. Christian: Mountain University engages diverse perspectives in an environment of
open discourse and academic freedom while bringing a distinctive voice and lens,
rooted in the Christian faith, Lutheran understanding and heritage, and liberal arts
tradition.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 5

2. Rigor: Mountain University programs prepare students for meaningful vocations
through intellectually challenging academic engagement, research and global
preparedness.
3. Servant Leaders: Mountain University creates an environment in which individuals
are transformed, becoming servant-leaders who are agents of positive change,
through ethical, humble and rigorous leadership, with and for their communities and
around the world
Mountain University has an enrollment of 7,182 students with 1,867 on-campus and
5,315 online. Undergraduates comprise 16 percent of the total and graduate, both masters and
doctoral students, comprise 84 percent. Gender consists of 76 percent male and 24 percent
female. Age statistics are not available.
Race and ethnicity for both the on-ground and online student population is as follows:,
1% Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander; Non-resident Alien, 3%; Hispanic, 3.3%, Black and
African American, 6%; Asian, 7%; two or more races, 9%; White; 61% ; and 10% unknown.
The high percentage of “unknown” warrants more research into whether students simply forgot
or made an active choice not to do so. Currently there is no vehicle for distinguishing the
intention of students.
Organizational Performance Status/Need
The problem of practice highlighted in this body of work is the lack of learner-centered
teaching methods in colleges and universities. Mountain University’s strategic plan does not
directly or specifically talk about the issue of learner centered teaching. In the school’s vision
statement there is a strategic goal titled “Impactful Innovation” in which it states that Mountain
University “will be marked by and known for innovative people, programs, relationships and
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 6

applications of technology.” This at least suggests a philosophical basis for implementing more
innovative teaching methods.
Informal conversations with 25 administration and faculty members revealed a consensus
that more learner-centered teaching methods should be introduced to MU’s students. However,
this same group of 25 cites reasons for not changing from didactic methods to active methods of
teaching in their classrooms. Grouped in three main areas, reasons include: (1) time does not
allow a change in current teaching styles, (2) uncertainty about how to get started, and (3)
unfamiliarity of what learner-centered methods are.
This suggests that a dichotomy exists between the university’s stated goal and the
motivations of faculty to reach that goal. Are faculty truly committed to an innovative teaching
program or are they simply unwilling to change from their traditional, and probably comfortable,
classroom strategies? It seems reasonable to assume that few people would openly oppose
innovation. To meet our goal of introducing learner-centered teaching methods, we must be
careful of hidden agendas.
To meet its mission of transforming society and achieving its core value of teaching
excellence, MU must take stock of how education is being delivered through a campus wide
survey of faculty members regarding their teaching styles. In addition, it is recommended that a
training and mentoring program should be introduced to help drive a learner-centered philosophy
forward. Although the message of improved teaching methods is not clear or measurable in the
strategic plan, the Office of Innovation has agreed that there is a need and has agreed to support
and fund such efforts.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 7

Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs analysis of the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational performance goal of
innovative teaching practices. The analysis began by generating a list of possible needs and
moved to examining these systematically to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete
needs analysis would have focused on all stakeholders, for practical purposes the analysis
presented here focused on the stakeholders who comprise the faculty of Mountain University.
The questions that guided this study are the following:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary for Mountain
University to meet its strategic plan of innovative teaching?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
needs?
The following table summarizes the needs of the primary stakeholders (faculty) that will
be studied.
Table 1
Summary of knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs.
Knowledge and Skills

Motivation Organization

Teachers need clear definition
of LCT to begin the
transition.

Utility Value

Teachers need to see the
value of student-centered vs
teacher-centered.

Faculty need time in order to
learn teaching methods.

Teachers need knowledge of
how research supports the
merits of LCT.

Self-Efficacy

Teachers need to believe they
are capable of implementing
and facilitating learner-
centered teaching.

Faculty need more
opportunities within the
school to help learn new LCT
methods.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 8

Teachers need to know the
principles that guide
implementation of learner-
centered teaching.

Faculty need commitment
from leadership including
clearly articulated strategic
goals to support LCT.

As previously described, this issue is significant because learner-centered teaching has a
positive effect on learning, retention, critical problem-solving and, ultimately, the ability to
function in the work place. All of the above-mentioned effects are supported by literature which
will be elucidated in Chapter 2.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 2 is a literature review that describes the history and current status of learner-
centered teaching. It explains the pedagogy and theories of scholars who have studied and
practiced the methods. Chapter 2 will illuminate the findings other research brings to the benefits
of learner-centered teaching and provides a foundation to expand the knowledge already
accumulated for this topic. Chapter 2 will summarize the literature and build on it to identify
gaps in the knowledge, motivation, and organizational aspects of the research questions.
Chapter 3, commonly referred to as the methods chapter, will explain the inquiry process,
data collection approaches and analysis processes. It will also benefit other researchers as it will
clarify and outline strategies used in collecting data through the use of a geographic survey, one-
to-one interviews, and classroom observation.
Chapter 4, the results chapter, will be a concise and objective report that contains the
collected data. Empirical data will be presented to coincide with the research questions.
Chapter 5 will offer the results of the study. It will be structured through the use of
coding and themes. This chapter is the conclusion of the study and will offer both a summary of
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 9

findings and any conclusions that can be drawn from the research. At this point it will be clear if
further research is needed to advance this study and recommendations will be made.
Definitions

Active Learning: An instructional method in which students engage in “meaningful” activity
and reflect on what they are doing.
Authentic learning: An instructional approach that uses real-world problems and learner-
relevant projects.
Coding: An analytical process to categorize data.
Conceptual framework: An analytical tool used to organize research and identify gaps in
performance.
Constructivist theory: A theory established by Piaget that says that knowledge and meaning
come from personal experience.
Cooperative learning: Requires students to work together in teams to improve their
understanding of a subject.
Critical thinking: CT is the process of elevating thinking by analyzing and assessing problems.
Experiential learning: Learning through experience and reflection.
Flipped classrooms: This is a method of teaching that introduces students to content outside of
the classroom so there can be more discussion within the classroom.
Higher order thinking: Thinking that goes beyond memorization or repeated facts.
Instrumentation: What is used to collect data in a qualitative study.
John Dewey (1859-1952): An influential educational reformer.
Learner-centered teaching methods: These are methods in which the student is the center of
education rather than the teacher.
Learning environment: Refers to the physical locations and milieu in which students learn.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 10

Meta-analysis: Increases reliability by combining and analyzing the results of all known trials in
the same subject.
Metacognitive knowledge: Knowledge about cognition including knowledge of the self.
Problem-based learning (PBL): An instructional method utilizing the solving of an open-ended
problem.
Qualitative research: Focuses on meaning and understanding rather on measuring.
Quantitative research: Measures the quantity of something.
Scaffolding: A temporary framework to provide support during the learning process. May rely
on the Zone of Proximal Development.
Self- efficacy: A belief in one’s own capabilities.
Sociocultural theory: Stresses the interaction between people and culture.
Stakeholder: a person with an interest or concern in something, especially a business.
Triangulation: Validates data by cross verification of two or more sources.
Vygotsky's Social Development Theory: One of the foundations of constructivism. Asserts that
three major themes of social interaction, the more knowledgeable other, and the Zone of
Proximal Development.
Zone of Proximal Development: A concept introduced by Vygotsky describing the difference
between what a student can do with or without help.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 11

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE
This literature review focuses on research that describes how learner-centered teaching
increases learning and higher order thinking and also asserts that there is a lack of learner-
centered methods being employed in higher education classrooms. The literature review begins
with pedagogical insights of learner-centered teaching followed by a description of what
constitutes learner-centered teaching methods. This will be followed by the role that learner-
centered teaching has on student outcomes and employer needs. Finally, the literature review
will discuss the barriers for implementing learner-centered teaching methods into higher
education curricula.
Learner-Centered Teaching
Mountain University lost 26% of its students in 2016 (college factual, 2016). Among the
reasons for this high failure rate are cost, location, Christian standards, teaching style and lack of
diversity in faculty and students. According to Blumberg (2008) there is a connection between a
didactic learning environment and one that is learner-centered. She reported that “Benefits of
learner-centered teaching to the educational institution” include “…higher rates of student
retention” (Blumberg (2008). A case study conducted at the University of Central Florida of
“living-learning communities” showed that the learner-centered approach has “positively
impacted student retention…” (Bickel, Morrison-Shetlar & Schneider, 2015). The study was
conducted over a three-year period and included 28, 28, and 27 students respectively. The
authors reported results only for the first two years. Retention rates for students in the
“communities” were compared to control groups, numbering 100 and 101, respectively, of non-
community university students. Reported results for the first year were a retention rate of 100%
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 12

for students in the study versus 88% for the control group. The second year shows 100%
retention for study students versus 85% for the control group.
The issue of student retention is an example of the problems addressed by this project. By
employing more learner-centered teaching methods, the university may be able to better educate
students, retain more students, draw more students with a reputation of collaborative teaching,
and graduate students who are ready for the workforce.
Traditionally, instructors in higher education spend the greatest amount of time lecturing
while students engage in such passive roles as watching and listening (Gilboy, 2014). Currently,
higher education is being reproached for not delivering the kind of education that increases skills
such as problem solving and critical thinking (Gilboy, Heinerichs & Pazzaglia 2014). Employers
are concerned that students do not graduate with the competencies to succeed in the job market
(Eddy et al, 2014; Weimer, 2013). The literature informs us that students who have a more active
role in their own education learn the skills needed by employers (Gilboy, et al, 2014;
Davidovitch, 2013). It is important for instructors to recognize their own philosophy of teaching
and learn new skills to create curricula and environments that provide the opportunity for
students to become engaged in class as they experience problem-solving skills and critical
thinking (Achen et al., 2014). Without becoming informed of both the merits and criticism of
learner-centered teaching and the barriers instructors face in instituting such methods, we cannot
then expect to develop the strategies that will prepare students for successful lives.
History and Current Status of Learner-Centered Teaching in Higher Education
Pedagogy
The pedagogical basis of learner-centered teaching is informed by several theories
including Constructivism, John Dewey’s reflective thought, and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory.
Each theory provides insight into this student-focused archetype.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 13

Constructivist theory. The Constructivist theory is one that bases learning on the ability of
learners to construct their own meaning by pairing new information with personal experiences.
Constructivist theory is more a philosophy of learning than a theory (Schunk, D. H., 2008).
Central to the concept of constructivism is the belief that students create their own learning and
must be able to link new information to their own experiences in order to learn. Constructivist
thinkers believe that, “Knowledge is not imposed from outside people but rather formed inside
them” (Schunk, D. H., 2008, p. 236). It is also the Constructivist belief that the environment
plays an active role in learning. Therefore, simply listening to content in a passive environment
does little to advance a student’s knowledge. According to Weimer (2013) it is much more
important to set an environment for learning where students interact and can “reshape, enlarge,
and deepen their current knowledge” (Weimer, 2013 p. 24).
There are four principal features of modern Constructivism according to Krahenbuhl
(2016). “Learners construct their own meaning, social interaction plays a key role, authentic
learning tasks are crucial for meaningful learning, and learning is dependent on existing
understanding “(Krahenbuhl, 2016). These principles, which are substantiated by John Dewey’s
theories of learning (Dewy, 1938), will be elaborated in the following section.
Dale H. Schunk explained how the environment and meaningful activity combine to
influence learning. He contended that with social, cultural-historical, and environmental
relationships, students make meaning of information which produces cognitive changes (Schunk,
2008. 274).
John Dewey. T. Grady Roberts research of John Dewey revealed how his writings describe the
interaction between a student and surrounding milieu as the basis for optimal learning. He
contended that didactic teaching and memorization of a series of facts is not equivalent to
learning. To have learning, students must be able to “transfer knowledge to new situations”
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 14

(Roberts, 2003). Dominant in Dewey’s way of thinking is that we are all influenced by prior
experiences which must be considered in order to shape concepts of the present (Roberts, 2003).
He contended that it is a teacher’s obligation to organize content that can be scaffolded upon the
knowledge and experiences of students to make sense of them in real world circumstances. New
skills and philosophy will be needed for teachers to understand and develop a curriculum that
supports experiential learning (Roberts, 2003, Dewey, 1938).
Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory asserts a cultural-historical dynamic in which
learning and development are dependent on context. The thinking of learners is transformed as
they interact with all the elements of their world and react to what they know. Vygotsky is very
clear in his belief that students cannot learn without utilizing a mental process with other people.
He called this the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and defined it as “the distance
between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving
and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult
guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky 1978, p86).
Learner-Centered Teaching Methods
It is the purpose of this section to bring these theories together and uncover the theory of
learner-centered teaching and what the term means to students, teachers, and future employers
when applied in the classroom.
Learner centered teaching (LTC) is a term that is widely used with myriad of
interpretations than can make the term itself confusing. Literature labels a variety of methods as
learner-centered including problem-based learning, flipped classrooms, active learning,
experiential learning, cooperative learning, and collaborative learning to mention a few. LCT is
also called active learning and describes many types of teaching methods and strategies which
complicate the understanding of it by teachers and organizations. However, key findings include
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 15

definitions of active learning as a method that engages students mentally and physically in such
active ways as, “…gathering information, thinking, and problem solving” (Collins & O’Brien,
2003).
Methods of learner-centered teaching.
Problem based learning. Problem-based learning (PBL) is a method that began in the medical
field to introduce students to real-world problems through discussion and exploration. Students
work cooperatively in finding solutions to questions that may not have a definitive answer. It was
initially based upon cooperative learning among students who attempted to find answers to an
open-ended problem without the use of a teacher leading them (Weimer, 2013, p. 43). A concise
definition came from Vernon and Blake (1993, p. 550):
PBL by its instructional design components, students' cognitive processes, and teachers'
role: "a method of learning (or teaching) that emphasizes (1) the study of clinical cases,
either real or hypothetical, (2) small discussion groups, (3) collaborative independent
study, (4) hypothetico-deductive reasoning, and (5) a style of faculty direction that
concentrates on group progress rather than imparting information.
This approach compels students to learn content as they study problems. Although there
is some criticism of this approach, arguing that traditional didactic education in science results in
higher test scores, others argue that PBL students retain knowledge longer (Prince & Felder,
2006, 129). Research indicates that this approach to learning prompts students to study for
meaning rather than simply relying on memorization (Dochy, Segers, den Bossche, & Gijbels,
2003).
Flipped classrooms. The flipped classroom is another form of active learning
(learner-centered) teaching. The flipped classroom implies students will complete
traditional class activities prior to class (Collins & O’Brien 2003, 5). The article asserted that
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 16

this allows time for activities in class that strengthen students’ understanding of content. The
research indicates that this method is useful with all types of learners and that all levels of
Blooms taxonomy are fully achievable rather than just focusing on lower levels of the scale such
as remembering and understanding (Gilboy, Heinerichs & Pazzaglia, 2014). In current literature,
the name has been changed to “flipped learning.” The Flipped Learning Network, a non-profit
organization for teachers, has established four pillars that further explain the meaning of flipped
learning (Honeycutt, 2016.) The pillars include 1. a flexible learning environment which may
mean that teachers rearrange classrooms to make them more comfortable and beneficial for
learning, 2. learning culture, 3. intentional content, and 4. a professional educator.
Experiential learning. Experiential learning is another concept that is taken from
theorists including Kolb and Dewey. In the simplest of terms, it means learning through actual
experience, not experience as read in a textbook or from a teacher standing at the head of the
classroom (Grady, 2003). As in any other type of active learning the student is the center of this
model.
An example of experiential learning is one in which students were admitted into a nursing
home to live in a geriatric setting. They experienced the life of an aging adult in order to gain
knowledge and understanding by experiencing a real situation. In this situation, they were able to
combine theory and reflection (praxis). Using this experiential method of learning students
gained insight about aging and “creating change in attitudes, skills, and knowledge” (Gugliucci
& Weiner, 2013).
Does Active Learning Work?
There is a body of research refuting the usefulness of these theories. There are variables
involved in student-centered teaching methods such as measuring “factual knowledge, relevant
skills and student attitudes, and pragmatic items as student retention in academic programs”
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 17

(Prince, 2004, 2). These variables cause some researchers to discount the success of active
learning methods because the outcomes cannot adequately be measured and without being
thoroughly defined results are a matter of interpretation (Prince, 2004, 2).
Regardless of how one identifies active learning there are several research findings that
show positive outcomes when active learning is employed in the classroom. “Long-term
retention, understanding, and transfer is a result of mental work on the part of learners
who are engaged in active sense-making and knowledge construction” (Lynch, 2016.)
Prince’s research of active learning showed a variety of strength in the outcomes, but all
outcomes were positive (Prince, 2004.) Student performance increased when exposed to
active learning compared to lecture (Freeman, Eddy, McDonough, Smith, Okorafor, Jordt,
and Wenderroth, 2014.) Research over the past decade has repeatedly shown that student
outcomes in classes where active learning methods are utilized are better than from classes
utilizing lecture (Wieman, 2014, p.8319).
The Function of Learner-Centered Teaching in Higher Education Outcomes
Job Readiness and Employment
Current employment skill needs. Employers are concerned that graduating students do not
learn the skills in higher education that prepare them for the job market. The World Economic
forum produced a report of the top 10 skills that students need in order to match the eminent job
market (see Table 1).
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 18

Table 2

Top ten skills employers report they need from graduates in 2020 vs. 2015.

Projected for 2020

In 2015
1. Complex problem solving 1. Complex problem solving
2. Critical thinking 2. Coordinating with others
3. Creativity 3. People management
4. People management 4. Critical thinking
5. Coordinating with others 5. Negotiation
6. Emotional intelligence 6. Quality control
7. Judgment and decision making 7. Service orientation
8. Service orientation 8. Judgment and decision making
9. Negotiation 9. Active listening
10. Cognitive flexibility 10. Creativity
Source: World Economic Forum, Future of Jobs Survey, 2016.

It was projected that critical thinking will move from fourth in importance for employee
skills to second. There is support in the claim that failure rates in lecture only classes
increased by 55% whereas classes that use the principles of learner-centered teaching
showed, on average, grades increased by one-half of a letter grade (Eddy, S. L., Freeman, S.,
Jordt, H., McDonough, M., Okoroafor, N., Smith, M. K., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014).
The Association of American Colleges and Universities conducted a national survey of
business leaders and found that 93 percent of them said they wanted graduates to be able to
demonstrate critical thinking, “solve complex problems,” use “innovation in the workplace,”
have the “capacity for continued new learning,” and be able to apply knowledge to “real-world
settings” (Hart Research Associates 2015.)
Learner-centered methods have the potential to generate all ten of the skills needed for
employment in 2020. Each of the skills can be introduced into a classroom design that targets the
development of students in the areas that will ready them for employment (Weimer, 2013 p.
225).
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 19

Barriers to Learner-Centered Teaching Methods in Higher Education
Predominance of Teacher-Centered Methods
The current role of the faculty in higher education is predominantly teacher-centered
rather than learner-centered in nature (Henderson, Beach, & Finklestein, 2011 p. 953). The
research confirms the idea that learner-centered teaching (LTC) produces positive outcomes such
as deeper understanding of content as well as increased student engagement and yet teachers are
still not using student-centered methods (Henderson, et al, 2011 p. 953). Teachers who claim to
use LCT show disconnects between the methods they say they are using and those they actually
use (Hannafin & Polly, 2011). It is logical that faculty must have a clear definition of learner-
centered teaching to know whether or not they are engaging in it and to begin transforming their
classrooms, teaching methods, and personal philosophies to meet the needs of the 21
st
century
employer.
A meta-analysis of 225 surveys showed that traditional lectures “increased failure rates
by 55 percent,” whereas learner-centered teaching methods “…resulted in better grades and a 36
percent drop in class failure rates” (Freeman, et al. 2014). Lecture is a passive form of learning
creating poor attention spans and students remember only 20 percent of the content during a
lecture. Still some faculty resist giving up the control and power that lecturing offers them or the
“exclusive reliance on content expertise” (Weimer, 2011, p. 214).
Without encouragement and training, university faculty lack the skills and understanding
of the value of learner-centered teaching (Gilboy, M, Heinerichs, S., & Pazzaglia, G. 2014).
Blumberg agreed that without professional development opportunities within higher education to
help teachers learn new teaching methods, faculty do not understand how to implement learner-
center teaching (Blumberg, 2011).
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 20

Faculty Resistance
In spite of evidence supporting the value of learner-centered teaching methods, there are
several reasons that faculty do not embrace and practice these strategies. A study conducted by
An & Reigeluth (2015) described the reasons for this paradox. Although specific to technology
and learner-centered implementation, their results indicated that instructors face challenges
including time, misunderstanding of the concepts, value of the concepts, questioning the value of
the concepts and organizational hurdles
Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework is an analytical tool that is best used to organize research and
identify gaps in performance as exemplified by Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge, motivation,
and organizational criteria. To achieve the goal of changing from teacher-centered teaching to
learner-centered teaching, all three elements must be identified and used as part of the analysis. It
is essential to carefully think through assumptions and ideas and then set them into a framework
that can be followed throughout the analysis.
The first step of the conceptual framework is to analyze the current knowledge level of
those being studied as well as what it needs to be for them to achieve their performance goal. Do
people have an understanding of what knowledge they have and have they completed something
similar to the task being analyzed? Motivation is essential to produce an environment that is
conducive to learning. Motivation is a more difficult element to ascertain than knowledge and
skills. According to Clark & Estes (2008) the three features of motivation are choice, persistence,
and development that translate into desire to achieve a goal, the willingness to continue working
at it, and the will to put effort into achieving it. In the analysis of an organization or system, if
knowledge, skills, and motivation are in place, then the next area of exploration should be
organizational elements. Clark & Estes (2008) believe problems will arise from the lack of
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 21

resources, insufficient work environments, and poor organizational practices. If strategic plans
do not match daily practices, employees are left to do their work with inadequate direction. The
following sections will discuss the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that would accomplish the stakeholder goal of attending a learner-centered training
and implementing it into one class.
Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivational Influences
Knowledge and Skills
Learning-centered teaching is becoming more popular at all levels of education
(Blumberg 2015). Clear evidence demonstrates that learner-center teaching methods increase
students’ long-term retention and their ability to apply learned concepts (Blumberg, 2015; Doyle,
2011; Weimer, 2013). However, many teachers still do not employ the variety of methods under
the umbrella of learner-centered teaching because doing so requires skill in curriculum design
(Weimer, 2013). Teachers are not always secure in facilitating an open class rather than
lecturing, and do not like the shift in power from teacher to student (Weimer, 2013). In short,
teachers often don’t have the knowledge or skills needed to change from teacher-centered to
learner-centered instruction. A literature review was conducted to verify and validate the
assumption and confirm that without the knowledge and skills needed to change teaching
methods, change will not happen (Arnold, Derling, Ebert-May, Henkel, Middlemis Mayer,
Morrisen, Passmore, 2014).
Knowledge influences. To meet the organizational goal of increasing the use of learner-
centered teaching methods, instructors must reframe their methodologies (Weimer, 2002). The
first step in this shift is to analyze the types of knowledge needed for instructors to understand
and implement curriculum design. This concept will be illustrated through the use of knowledge
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 22

types as described by Krathwohl (2002), in his seminal work, “A Revision of Bloom’s
Taxonomy: An Overview.”
Knowledge types include four elements: 1. factual, 2. conceptual, 3. procedural, and 4.
metacognitive. All four knowledge types are central in meeting stakeholder goals because they
are the underpinning of learning and self-awareness. The implementation of these four elements
will provide teachers with knowing, doing, and feeling to be successful in their practice
(Grossman & Salas 2011).
Factual knowledge. Teachers need a clear definition of learner-centered teaching to
begin the transition (see Table 1). The core of factual knowledge consists of the definitions,
principles and terminology of learner-centered methods (Krathwohl, 2002). Factual learning is a
basic need when learning something new (Rueda, 2011). Instructors who want to change their
teaching styles must first recognize exactly what learner-centered methods entail. Maryellen
Weimer (2013) described these essential elements as the function of content, the instructor’s
responsibility, the learner’s responsibility, the role of assessment, and the shift of power. All of
these elements must be taught to instructors before beginning a learner-centered classroom
approach.
Conceptual knowledge. Teachers need knowledge of how research supports the merits of
learner-centered teaching (see Table 1). Conceptual knowledge influences will be used to discuss
a broad base of variables that must be examined including goals, designs, and specific program
experiences in order to understand the complexity and relationship of facts and integration of
concepts (Ewert, & Sibthorp, 2009).
Conceptual knowledge supports a deeper examination into learning (Rueda, 2011). In
using this concept instructors will be able to analyze the definitions, terms, and details found in
the factual information phase and create prototypes and constructs (Krathwohl, 2002). This part
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 23

of declarative knowledge offers the instructor a more complex and nuanced approach to
understanding how the elements of learner-centered concepts fit together and will provide the
“what” in the learning cycle (Krathwohl, 2002). Teachers must understand the intricate
connection each of the elements of learner-centered teaching demand in order to apply the
principles described by Maryellen Weimer as “the role of the teacher…the balance of
power…the function of content…the responsibility for learning…and the purpose and processes
of evaluation” in order to create a new classroom environment (Weimer, 2013 p.10-11).
Procedural knowledge. Teachers need to know the principles that guide implementation
of learner-centered teaching (see Table 1). Procedural knowledge is, simply put, how to do
something, and is profoundly important. One may have facts but without procedural knowledge
implementation is impossible. Procedural knowledge is the roadmap to implementing learner-
centered principles and includes skills, methods, and techniques.
According to the results of a case study conducted by Conry and See, learning how to
implement learner-centered methods is best achieved through professional development
programs (Conry & See, 2014) which can offer a chance for them to experience implementing
procedures. In this process of gaining procedural knowledge, instructors can move away from
traditional lecture to more learner-centered instruction such as a flipped classroom which is best
accomplished by using discussion, case studies, and hands-on learning (Conry & See, 2014;
Weimer, 2013). The last and equally important type of knowledge is Metacognition.
Metacognitive knowledge. Teachers must understand their own motivations for changing
teaching methods to appreciate teacher-centered over learner-centered instruction (see Table 1).
Metacognitive knowledge is knowledge of the self. This type is necessary as it encompasses
knowledge of an instructor’s own planning approach, strategies for modification, and knowledge
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 24

of self (Baker, 2006). Baker goes on to include the importance of being able to analyze the task
to be completed and change principles to keep control of the task (Baker, 2006).
It is essential for instructors to analyze their own abilities, skills, and mindsets about
learner-centered vs teacher-centered instruction. Without the insight into self and the motivation
behind teaching methods, there is little chance that instructors will change on their own. Weimer
(2013) suggests that many instructors like being the “sage on the stage,” find change to learner-
centered methods difficult, and feel less in control when practicing learner-centered teaching
methods (LTC).

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 25

Table 3
Knowledge influences

Organizational Mission

Mountain View is a Christian university preparing leaders for the transformation of society.

Organizational Global Goal

By Fall 2020, MUV faculty will increase the use of learner-centered teaching methods by
25%.

Stakeholder Goal

By October of 2020, 50% of on-ground faculty will attend one of two teaching methods
workshops and implement one learner-centered method in one class.

Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment
Teachers need a clear definition of
learner-centered teaching to begin
the transition.

Factual Teachers were asked to identify
three types of learner-centered
styles of teaching.
Teachers need knowledge of how
research supports the merits of
learner-centered teaching.

Conceptual Teachers were asked to
paraphrase what learner-
centered teaching methods are.
Teachers need to practice the
principles that guide
implementation of learner-centered
teaching.

Procedural Teachers were asked to put
guiding principles into their
order of importance and explain
choices.
Teachers must understand their own
motivations to appreciate teacher-
centered over learner-centered
instruction.
Metacognitive Teachers were asked to reflect
on their own teaching
preferences.

Motivation
To move a concept, idea, pedagogy, or goal from the state of knowing to the state of
doing and being, one must be motivated (Clark & Estes, 2008). To be a great teacher one must
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 26

be a motivated teacher (Eggleton, 1992). In other words, motivation is essential to produce an
environment that is conducive to learning. According to Clark & Estes (2008) the three
progressions that an instructor must develop to motivate students to act are choice, persistence,
and development. Choice is foremost in this progression. In order for MVU instructors to meet
both the stakeholder goal and the organizational goal they must first choose to change their
methods and learn the processes and principles of learner-centered education (Clark & Estes,
2008). They must then persist in creating the many changes that need to take place in order to
convert curriculum, environments, and methods from teacher-centered to learner-centered
(Weimer, 2013). Changing a well-honed pedagogy while attending to the myriad of distractions
and duties sometimes can cause a problem with persistence (Clark & Estes, 2008) so continued
belief in the goal and one’s ability is critical. Because learner-centered teaching methods are new
to many instructors and not part of their past experience, instructors will need to expend a higher
level of mental effort to meet the stakeholder goals and sustain motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Mental effort is linked to self-confidence and values.
Utility value. Expectancy theory asks the questions “Can I do the task?” and “Do I want
to do the task?” (Eccles, 2009). Utility value is a concept within expectancy theory that expands
the theory by asking another question, “Is the task useful in meeting other goals?” Eccles in her
2009 article, “Expectancy Value Motivational Theory,” explained task value beliefs and
described utility value as the component of the theory that speaks to whether or not the instructor
sees the usefulness of the tasks in reaching goals. Teachers need to see the value of student-
centered vs teacher-centered teaching methods (see Table 2).
As a part of expectancy theory, utility value becomes central to whether or not instructors
are motivated to invest their time and energy into fulfilling their psychological needs (Eccles,
2009). If utility value is low, motivation may wane (Eccles, 2009). It will be necessary to address
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 27

value and self-efficacy in order to help instructors succeed in reaching organizational and
stakeholder goals.
Self-efficacy. Teachers need to believe they are capable of implementing and facilitating
learner-centered activity (see Table 2). Albert Bandura (2000) postulated that unless people
believe that they can succeed at something, they have little motivation to act. Such is self-
efficacy. Furthermore, unless people believe in their own ability to achieve, they will expend
little effort, will not persevere, or recover from disappointments. The literature specifies that
motivation plays a large part in the success of both students and teachers (Eggleton, 1992;
Kayler, 2016; Blumberg, 2015). As with students, the key element of increasing self-efficacy
and therefore motivation among teachers was through personal development that gave them the
ability to make choices, experience methods, actively engage in putting theory into practice, feel
success, and receive affirmation that they were capable of achieving their goals (Kayler, 2016).

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 28

Table 4
Assumed motivation influences and motivational indicators.
Organizational Mission
Mountain View University is a Christian university preparing leaders for the transformation of
society.

Organizational Global Goal
By Fall 2020 MUV faculty will increase the use of learner-centered teaching methods by 25%.
Stakeholder Goal
By October of 2020 50% of on-ground faculty will attend one of two teaching methods
workshops and implement one learner-centered method in one class.

Motivational Indicator(s)
Assumed Motivational Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Utility Value – Teachers need to see the value
of student-centered vs teacher-centered
teaching methods.
Personal Interview:
1. “Do you know the difference between
student-centered and teacher-centered
teaching methods?
2. “Is it important to use learner-centered
teaching methods? Why?”

Self-Efficacy – Teachers need to believe they
are capable of implementing and facilitating
learner-centered activity.
Written Survey Question: Likert scale: Not
capable to Very capable.
“I feel capable of implementing learner-
centered methods in my classroom.”

Organizational Influences
Every organization has a culture whether it is acknowledged, visible, or represented in
any way. Culture is a myriad of things including “values, goals, beliefs, emotions, and
processes” (Clark & Estes, 2008). In his formative work on organizations and culture, Schein
proclaimed three foci of culture: 1) artifacts, 2) beliefs and values, and 3) underlying
assumptions (Schein, 2010). Artifacts at MU are in evidence because it is a faith-based
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 29

institution with a multitude of objects and icons representing spiritual beliefs. There are
observable behaviors such as daily chapel, published devotional outlets for all religions, and
open talk of God in hallways and classrooms. These artifacts are based on the beliefs, values, and
goals that were established over a century ago when the institution originated. The underlying
assumptions of the culture are often invisible and difficult to identify but have the power to shape
decisions and strategies (Rueda, 2011). Much organizational culture is learned through watching
others behave with a resultant “70 – 90 percent of all our knowledge and skills becoming
automated and unconscious” (Clark & Estes, 2008). Consequently, faculty may subconsciously
resist changes to such things as curriculum design, teaching methods, or professional
development.
Stakeholder assumed influences. The assumed organizational influences include several issues.
The first relates to whether or not faculty have the time to implement new teaching methods.
Other issues focus on the availability of training for faculty to learn how to implement new
methods and whether or not commitment from leadership is needed to motivate faculty to
introduce learner-centered teaching into their classrooms (see Table 3).
Failure to implement change initiatives often results from a misalignment of goals with
organizational structure (Clark & Estes, 2008, p 118). When time is in such short supply for
teachers, additional training may drop to the end of a long list of duties. “When it comes to
teaching most of us are still learning” (Ambrose, et al. 2010 p.223). The complexity of learner-
centered teaching methods requires accessible, well-structured faculty development programs
(Karim, 2011). According to Clark & Estes (2008, p 118) it is essential that leadership becomes
actively involved in change management and supports it through clear, transparent, and ongoing
communication to faculty.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 30

Table 5

Organizational influences.

Organizational Mission
Mountain University is a Christian university preparing leaders for the transformation of
society.

Organizational Global Goal
By Fall 2020 MU faculty will increase the use of learner-centered teaching methods by 25%.
Stakeholder Goal
By October 2020, 50% of on-ground faculty will attend one of two teaching methods
workshops and implement one learner-centered method in one class.

Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Faculty need time in order to learn teaching
methods.

Interviews with questions about available
time needed to add new teaching methods.
Faculty need more opportunities within the
school to help learn new learner-centered
teaching methods.

Survey to ask whether faculty would attend
on-campus work groups to learn more about
learner-centered teaching methods.
Faculty need commitment from leadership
including clearly articulated strategic goals to
support learner-centered teaching.
Interview of leadership regarding
interpretation of strategic goals related to
teaching innovation.

Through interviews and surveys of both organizational leaders and faculty, this project
may be able to find and potentially close the organizational gaps that inhibit innovation such as
learner-centered teaching methods.
Summary
There are claims that learner-centered teaching methods increase student’s knowledge,
retention, and engagement in the learning process. Faculty who claim they incorporate learner-
centered methods into their classrooms may not fully understand the concept. Others, who would
like to incorporate learner-centered methods into their classrooms, face barriers to doing so. In
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 31

Chapter 3 I will attempt to discover the acceptance and extent of learner-centered teaching on
campus and the role the faculty’s knowledge and motivation have on implementation. I will also
attempt to discover any of the previously discussed organizational barriers that impede the
understanding and use of innovative teaching methods.
This literature review revealed the following major points;
• Evidence suggests that learner-center teaching provides students with the ability to
engage in critical problem-solving and acquiring the competencies to succeed in the job
market.
• Learner-centered teaching is informed by the following theories: Constructivism, John
Dewey’s reflective thought, and Vygotsky’s social-cultural theory.
• Learner-centered teaching methods help students both acquire knowledge and develop
advanced learning skills.
• Learner-centered teaching methods include flipped classrooms, active learning, problem
based learning, experiential learning, cooperative learning, and collaborative learning.
• Current educational methods are predominantly teacher-centered. Faculty face
implementation barriers which makes adopting learner-centered methods challenging.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 32

CHAPTER 3: METHODS
This project examines the teaching practices of Mountain University faculty. Specifically,
it analyzes the ability and willingness of the faculty to utilize innovative teaching practices. The
needs analysis therefore examines the knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources
necessary to achieve the university’s performance goal of innovative teaching. In this chapter,
there are several matters that were considered; the research design, methods for collecting data,
and the analysis of that data. This chapter provides a detailed review of who participated in the
project and how they were selected, interviewed, and how the data was analyzed.
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders in this project are fulltime faculty selected from four colleges
represented on the MU campus through a non-probability, purposeful sampling process. The
colleges are made up of Health and Human Services, Education, Arts & Sciences, and
Management. The participants are being selected because of their roles as educators in higher
education.
The university, which was established over 100 years ago, is located in the suburbs of a
major metropolitan area. It is composed of 7,182 students and 100 full-time faculty. Students are
both traditional and non-traditional. Traditional students enroll as freshman between the ages of
18 and 25 and graduate with senior standing. Non-traditional students are those who are
returning to complete their degrees and range in age from 25 to 50.
The importance of this study is multifaceted as the literature validates that learner-
centered teaching methods help retain more students, help students learn at a deeper level, and
prepare students to be ready for the workforce.
The questions that drive this study are the following:
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 33

1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary for
Mountain University to meet its strategic plan of innovative teaching?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions
to those needs?
Conceptual Framework and Methodological Approach
A conceptual framework is an analytical tool that is best used to organize research and
identify gaps in performance as exemplified by Clark and Estes’ (2008) knowledge, motivation,
and organizational criteria. To achieve the goal of changing from teacher-centered teaching to
learner-centered teaching, all three elements must be identified and used as part of the analysis. It
is essential to carefully think through assumptions and ideas and then set them into a framework
that can be followed throughout the analysis (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework adapted from Clark & Estes (2008)
Cultural Model

Christian University, 7,000 students
Value traditional educational approaches.
Limited professional development for
faculty.

Knowledge & Skills

Factual Knowledge: Faculty
need a clear understanding of
what learner-centered teaching
methods are.

Conceptual Knowledge: Faculty
need training to apply skills
learned.

Procedural Knowledge: Faculty
need the knowledge of how to
design learner-centered teaching
methods.

Motivation

Choice: Do faculty have the desire to
achieve a goal?

Persistence: Are faculty willing to continue
working at it?

Development: The will to put effort into
achieving it?

Goal of Stakeholders

To introduce learner-centered
teaching methods into classrooms.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 34

The methodological approach for this study was qualitative and included a survey, one-
to-one interviews, observations, and video recording. Qualitative methods informed my research
and allowed me to identify the knowledge and current practices of learner-centered teaching
methods. My sample size was 12 faculty members across four colleges in one institution, M.U. I
chose a qualitative design as it provided a deeper insight into the attitudes and behaviors of the
stakeholders. Questioning may open new avenues of thought that have not been considered. It
will offer the researcher the chance to get firsthand knowledge of why learner-centered teaching
is not being practiced.
Survey Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Instructors must be employed by MU as full-time with a work schedule of
Monday through Friday.
Rationale. The rationale is one of convenience for the researcher as it will make
instructors accessible during the day for interviews and observations. Most classes at MU are
taught during the day and that will offer the researcher more choices for observation.
Criterion 2. Instructors must have at least five years of experience in teaching at the
college or university level.
Rationale. It is important for instructors to have enough higher education teaching
experience to have established a philosophy of teaching and self-efficacy in their teaching
methods. There is a greater likelihood that experienced instructors have formed a foundation of
beliefs (why are methods important?), knowledge (how do I construct classroom instruction?),
and motivation (is the effort worth the return?).
Criterion 3. Instructors must be willing to be observed and be both audio and video
recorded.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 35

Rationale. It is crucial for data gathering to have both visual and audio recordings of
instructors demonstrating their teaching methods to ascertain if their understanding of learner-
centered teaching methods is accurate. Having both audio and video recording will allow the
researcher to have a secure and objective set of data for question development and coding.
Survey Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
In order to learn more about what instructor’s construe as learner-centered teaching, the
sampling was purposeful. Of the 77 on-campus instructors, the researcher recruited 15 and
interviewed and observed 12 of them. They were recruited through the use of an on-line survey
that was voluntarily completed. Instructors represented six of the programs within MU including;
Arts and Sciences; Health and Human Services; Nursing; Exercise Science: Health Care
Administration; Social Work.
Interview Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Participants must be willing to attend one, one-hour interview on campus
with the possibility that a second interview could occur.
Rationale. The first interview preceded the observation phase of the study. With data
gathered from the first interview and from the observation, a second interview should provide
more in-depth information than one interview alone.
Criterion 2. Participants should represent at least three of the five colleges and programs
on the MU campus.
Rationale. It is important to the study to see if differences in teaching methods are
specific to colleges. That identification will inform the need for college preference of teaching
methods and further professional development. This criterion will offer a richer campus-wide
view of teaching methods.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 36

Interview Sampling (Recruitment) Strategy and Rationale
This sampling was one of convenience and selection was be done through a two-tier
process (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pg. 99). The first tier was a survey sent to all full-time
instructors explaining the study and asking for volunteers. Purposeful sampling was used in the
second tier and new criteria was established.
The total number of participants was twelve. Due to the depth of data gathering including
survey, interview, and observation, a great deal of data needed to be analyzed. The length of time
in which this study was being conducted was short and it was determined that 12 participants
were the maximum this study could manage.

Observation Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Researcher attended a regularly scheduled class for two sessions as a full
participant.
Rationale. This step was important in order to establish the rapport needed to reduce
anxiety of the instructor and students when video equipment was added to the classroom
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pg. 143).
Criterion 2. Audio and video taping took place in their customary classroom setting as
determined by the registrar’s office. All members of the class were asked to provide an approval
form.
Rationale. Observation of instructors using video equipment is intrusive and can
interfere with the reactions of both the instructor and student being observed. It was therefore
important to stage the observations in customary environments to decrease the effect of the
equipment.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 37

Criterion 3. Instructors signed a release for themselves and obtained informed consent
for each student prior to audio and video recordings.
Rationale. Informed consent was demanded by both the IRB and MU. Informed consent
is an ethical issue and is value based (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pg.261).
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
In both the researcher’s Conceptual Framework and research questions the issue of
learner-centered teaching methods was explained. The appropriate setting was therefore the
classroom with an emphasis on utilizing the participant’s regular classroom setting in order to
keep the environment as normal as possible. Access was gained through permission from MU,
the instructor, and through consent forms for each student.
There was an initial interview to gather data on teaching method practices and knowledge
of those practices. Observation was held within two weeks so participants did not have time to
produce teaching methods that may be implied from the first interview. A second interview was
not a firm decision until the researcher looked at data from the first interview and observations.
This decision was based upon the use of a model of purposeful sampling (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, pg. 100).
Data Collection and Instrumentation

In the words of Merriam and Tisdell (2016) this analysis was of descriptive design which
is “intended to systematically describe the facts and characteristics” of the existence of
innovative teaching in a small university. The thrust of the research derives from an MU
document stating that innovative teaching is part of its strategic plan and falls under the research
questions stated above. The planned data collection sought to understand whether or not MU’s
instructors are in fact using innovative teaching methods and therefore meeting part of the
university’s strategic plan. Data was specifically being gathered in one area of innovation:
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 38

learner-centered teaching methods. Collection methods started with a one-to-one interview and
moved to observation and finally through a video recording.
Survey
Data collection started with a survey with multiple purposes including gathering
geographic data, knowledge data, and interest in possible participation in a research project
(Appendix A).
Question #1 of the survey gathered data about the number of years respondents have been
teaching. Conclusions were drawn as to whether experienced teachers use innovative teaching
more than inexperienced teachers.
Questions #2 and #3 gathered information about the instructors’ history of learned
teaching methods and the preferred style of teaching.
Questions #4 through #6 gathered data about the knowledge that instructors have about
innovative teaching methods, specifically learner-centered teaching, and whether or not they are
practicing such methods on the Mountain University campus. To narrow responses, questions #5
and #6 asked for specific learner-centered methods being used.
Questions #7 through #10 determined whether or not respondents are interested in
participating in a teaching methods research project.
This survey was administered to all 77 MU instructors through email. Respondents were
given one week to return the surveys. Since there were less than 45 surveys returned, another
round of emailed surveys was sent. Each survey was sent on Tuesday morning to avoid Monday
morning class prep and give sufficient time before the end of the work week to respond. After
the first email, 30 (39%) of faculty members responded to the survey. After the second email, 4
additional faculty responded with a total of 34 (44%).
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 39

The data was gathered from participating respondents and those interested in
participating in the study were then randomly sampled to select the 12 participants for further
study. The need to survey and subsequently observe and interview selected participants was
based on the concept of purposeful selection (Maxwell, 2013, pg. 98). According to Maxwell
(2013) there are five goals that produce conclusions that could otherwise not be reached except
through a very large sample (pg. 98). I have based my survey on two of those goals. Literature
suggests that the selection criteria is critical to keep continuity. In this case, it was a select group
of teachers who have teaching experience in higher education. It was necessary to explore
teaching methods with instructors who have classroom experience ((Maxwell, 2013, pg. 98). The
other goal is based on the need to “select groups or participants with whom you can establish the
most productive relationships” (Maxwell, 2013, pg. 99). The researcher is a teacher who teaches
on MU’s campus and therefore had a greater chance to establish “productive relationships” with
potential survey participants. Note that “productive relationships” can be construed as a form of
convenience sampling but rather is, according to Maxwell (2013), purposeful selection (pg. 99).
Rigor was enhanced through the use of “triangulation” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pg.
259). Comparison to the three other forms of data collection being used in this study, interviews,
observation, and document searches showed the similarities of data and corroborate results. Each
survey question was written to elicit one or more concepts related to motivation, knowledge, or
organization. The use of multiple data collection methods, in theory, gave the researcher a higher
chance to uncover any “alternative explanations or interpretations” (Maxwell (2013), pg. 123).
Interviews
Participants must have been willing to attend at least one, possibly two, one-hour
interviews on campus. The first interview preceded the observation phase of the study. Data from
the first interview and observation indicated whether a second interview was necessary to
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 40

acquire sufficient information. All interviews were held in a pre-scheduled, private office on
campus at a time that was most convenient for the participant.
Interviews were formal with an interview guide that set the questions to be ask (Appendix
B). The questions were semi-structured to allow flexibility in their use (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016, pg. 110). Although specific questions were asked of all participants, the flexibility offered
the opportunity to explore answers more thoroughly.
The initial interview gathered data on teaching method practices and knowledge of those
practices. A second interview was not a firm decision until the researcher looked at data from the
first interview and observations. This decision was based upon the use of a model of purposeful
sampling (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pg. 100).
Observation
Observation was held within 7 to 10 days of the first interview so participants would not
alter reaching methods based on the first interview. The use of video equipment gave the
researcher the opportunity to observe and record the participants for later analysis. To make
video recording most natural, the researcher was a full participant in two regularly scheduled
classes without note taking. This step was important in reducing the anxiety of the instructor and
students when video equipment was introduced into the classroom (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pg.
143).
Audio and videotaping took place in participant’s customary classroom setting. Because
audio-visual equipment is intrusive and can alter normal interactions, it was important to
minimize its effect by making the observations in a natural environment. During videotaping the
researcher used protocols that helped keep observation notes organized and as precise as possible
(Appendix C).
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 41

Access was gained through permission from the university, the instructor, and through
signed consent forms from each student.
Documents and Artifacts
The interview section of this study included questions asking about the presence of
professional development that may be or has been available to faculty. In order to see if the
university has offered faculty skill development in the area of learner-centered teaching,
documents were collected that gave the researcher insight into any organizational attempts to
develop innovative teaching methods.
Documents included faculty retreat agendas random-campus professional development
workshops, seminars, and any other offerings related to learner-centered teaching methods. The
researcher obtained permission from the president of the university and the chief of innovation to
examine records retained in their respective offices. The researcher also interviewed the library
director for documents that may be stored there. These institutional records provided knowledge
of past attempts to initiate and train instructors in learner-centered and other innovative teaching
methods. When contacting each university office for possible data, the researcher asked for more
names and departments to yield additional documents (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pg. 164).
There are no artifacts that represent this study.
Analysis and Writing Completion
This project examined the teaching practices of the MU faculty. Specifically, it analyzed
the ability and willingness of the faculty to utilize innovative teaching practices. The needs
analysis therefore examined the knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources necessary
to achieve the university’s performance goal of innovative teaching.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 42

Coding Qualitative Data
Phases of Analysis
Organize and Prepare. Organizing the data was the most important first step of
analysis. Because of the three strategies of one-to-one interview, observation, and video
recording it was necessary to sort the information and prepare the data in three different ways.
Interviews. Analytic memos were written immediately after each interview.
Interviews were transcribed.
Observation. Field notes were typed immediately following the observation of
each classroom.
Video. Video recordings were scanned and notes were written about the visual
environment and the teaching methods being used.
Read and Look at Data. All data were read and reviewed. First impressions of meaning
and general ideas were written and reflective memos written. For the video data, a sketchbook of
the classroom arrangement, including the positions of the students and instructor, were drawn.
Codebook
Data was gathered in multiple ways and each needed to be analyzed individually. The
researcher used a system of grounded theory by way of open and axial coding. Data was hand
coded. This was a tedious and time-consuming effort, but it allowed the researcher to extract
information that both falls into theoretical models as well as ideas that may need further study.
With the amount of data multiple sources generate, it was imperative to prepare a codebook. The
codebook had both predetermined and emerging codes. Survey questions dictated some codes
but it was important to keep track of new patterns of information. During the interview process,
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 43

it was helpful to code “people, places, and events” (Creswell, 2014) in order to form themes and
emerging information.
Typicality
Trustworthiness was shown through the use of rich data, triangulation, and member
checking. The research data was gathered using interviews, observation, and video. It was
important to look for bias in all of these methods.
Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework guided the researcher during analysis to stay focused on the
key ideas and theories to be studied. It was used to validate, expand, and/or explain the concepts
and key points of the analysis (Maxwell, 2013 41). It showed the relationship to previous
assertions and explained the proposed study (Maxwell, 2013, 145).
Moving from Codes to Findings
Findings were first organized by research questions and then by theme. The telling of a
story rather than a dry recitation of cold facts helped create a coherent and compelling story for
readers.
Narrative
Writing up Findings and Results.
The purpose of this analysis was to determine whether or not faculty at Mountain
University uses learner-centered teaching methods to justify the claim of teaching innovation.
The findings were “inductively derived from the data” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, 284) and
presented in the order they were collected via one-to-one interviews, observation, and video tape.
After an explanation of each data set, the data was integrated and presented through a
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 44

combination of text (including participant’s quotes), charts, and graphics that illustrated the
configuration of the classrooms. The use of multiple methods made the conclusions both analytic
and graphic.
Credibility and Trustworthiness

Credibility and trustworthiness are essential to qualitative research but have been
challenged for many years by researchers who do not believe that the data can ever be reliable
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, pg.240). This distrust makes it essential for qualitative researchers to
use rigor in design, data collection, and analysis.
Triangulation
Because there were several data collection methods being used, one of the ways
credibility was established was through triangulation. Not only were there two investigators, a
variety of data collection methods were utilized. In this study data collection was done through a
survey, two one-to-one interviews, and three observations. In addition, the two investigators
analyzed data independently and compared findings. The use of different methods and multiple
investigators would “reduce the risk that your conclusions will reflect only the biases of a
specific method…” (Maxwell, 2013, pg.102).
Rich Data
Another method of assuring credibility was through collecting rich data. Observations
were video and audio-taped which gave the researcher the actual words being spoken rather than
a hand-written recording method where important data could be missed. The same was true for
the interviews. A flexible guide was developed and was utilized to make questions consistent but
still open enough to give the interviewer a chance to dig deeper into knowledge and motivation
of the interviewee. These sessions were recorded as well.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 45

Member Checking
Member checking is a strategy recommended both by Merriam & Tisdell and Maxwell.
After each interview, observation, and analysis of the preliminary results, the primary and
secondary investigators met with selected interviewees to check for any misinterpretations.
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016 pg. 246).
Rigor
Both the primary and secondary investigators worked with the Director of Institutional
Review Board (IRB) at Mountain University. The director agreed to look at every aspect of the
data collection and analysis process and advise us on anything that may need additional
exactitude. This increased rigor, honed the investigators’ knowledge and skill, and helped
confirm the trustworthiness of the investigators.
Triangulation, member checking, and collection of rich data are all ways that will
increase the credibility and trustworthiness of qualitative research. Adding these methods to this
study increased time and cost but made the results more reliable.
Ethics
As previously described in the dissertation, participation in all aspects of the study was
completely voluntary. Professors who volunteered their classrooms for study completed a
questionnaire that clearly delineates the scope and purpose of the study. Students whose
classrooms were videotaped were formally asked through a letter (Creswell, 2008, p. 157)
outlining the study in broad terms so as not to sway the actions of the students. There was
language in the letter informing students that not participating would have no effect on their
grade. Furthermore, all facets of the study were reviewed and approved by the campus IRB
Board.
No incentives were provided to induce participation except an awareness that this study
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 46

may provide tools for better teaching effectiveness. The researchers plan to provide a thank you
card along with a gift card of nominal value at the end of the study. Upon approval of the
dissertation, the author will meet with each participant professor to share the study’s data and
conclusions. Each professor will then receive a complete copy of the study.
To help ensure as little bias as possible, data was compiled and reviewed by both the
author and each participant. The researcher is a professor on the campus of study and took
precautions not to insert positive bias into the study by writing reflective and analytic memos at
the end of each interview and observance (Maxwell, 2013, p.124).
In a final guarantee of ethical compliance, the study was submitted to the USC Internal
Review Board.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations within research are a way to point out weaknesses that help readers judge the
results of the findings (Creswell, 2008 p. 207). Size could be considered a limitation in this study
since there was fallout from the twelve people this study intended to interview. Nine interviews
and eight observations were conducted. Although the original goal was 10 to 12 participants,
saturation was achieved so the study is still viable.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 47

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Introduction
Chapter 4 is a synopsis of the data used in the findings of whether or not the university of
study is meeting the innovative teaching practices espoused in their strategic plan. Learner-center
teaching methods are at the heart of innovative education. In order to see if instructors know
about and practice this style of teaching research has been conducted to understand their level of
knowledge as well as practice.
The questions that delineated the data gathering portion of the study are as follows”
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organization needs necessary for the university
to meet its strategic plan of innovative teaching?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to those
needs?
Data gathering included a survey, one to one interviews, and classroom observation which
demonstrates the knowledge that faculty have about the innovative practice of learner-centered
teaching. Their motivation to carry out innovative teaching and their perception of what type of
professional development to which they have access will illustrate whether the university is
meeting its goal of innovative teaching, i.e. student-centered teaching. The information will be
triangulated to ensure validation of the findings (Creswell, 2008 pg. 266).
The following tables and figures will tell the story of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational elements guiding this study.
Survey
A survey was sent to all faculty asking if they wished to participate in a survey regarding
teaching styles. At the time there were 77 fulltime instructors on campus. The survey was sent to
all fulltime faculty listed on the email service entitled “fulltime faculty.” However, it was later
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 48

learned that seven of the recipients were assistants to university officials. Thirty-four professors
returned the questionnaire for a 44% return. All 34 respondents indicated a desire to participate
in the survey.
Category two solicited information on how long the respondents had been teaching in
higher education. The responses are as follows:
Table 6

Survey - Years teaching in higher education

Years Respondents
0-2 years 1
3-4 years 7
5-6 years 3
7-8 years 2
9 or more 21
Total 34

The next category asked what influenced the respondents’ teaching methods. The options
and the responses are as follows:

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 49

Table 7
Influences teaching methods
Influences teaching methods Responses
It depends on the type of class I teach. 30
I use my personal philosophy. 2
I use the teaching methods I was taught. 2
I use the teaching methods endorsed by
school leadership.
0
Other. 0
Total 34

Conclusions are difficult to reach for this category. On reflection, it may be that this
category is irrelevant because the, “It depends on my personal philosophy,” category can
encompass so many variables.
Responses to the next category are more pertinent because it requests information on
active student participation, a key component of learner-centered teaching. The category asked
professors to select a preferred teaching method, ranging from lecture with 0% active student
participation to lecture with over 75% active student participation. The responses are as follows:

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 50

Table 8
Preferred teaching method
Teaching Method Responses
Lecture with 0% 0
Lecture with 25% 12
Lecture with 50% 6
Lecture with 75% 10
Lecture with 75+% 6

The next category describes five specific learner-centered methods as well as “none” and
“other.” Respondents were instructed to select any item that applied. Therefore, the total number
of responses exceeded 34. The results are as follows:
Table 9
Learner-Centered Methods
Methods Responses
Flipped classrooms 19
Collaboration among student groups 31
Students making decisions about curriculum
content
0
Hands on projects and assignments 1
Student reflection 0
None 0
Other 0

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 51

The results of observation and interview in Chapter 5 will reveal what kind of “active student
participation” actually occurs in the classroom.
Section 6 requested information about the frequency of use of learner-centered methods.
Respondents could select only one. Those results are as follows:
Table 10
Frequency of Use of Learner-Centered Methods
Frequency Responses
Always 4
Most of the time 18
About half the time 5
Sometimes 7
Never 0

Section 7 asks the question, “Would you be interested in learning more about learner-
centered teaching methods?” The responses were:
Table 11
Interest In Learning More About Learner-Centered Methods
Choices Response
Yes 24
No 10

My starting assumption was that those who had taught the longest would be least likely to
want to learn more about learner-centered teaching methods. The responses proved that
assumption to be wrong. Of professors who have taught for nine or more years, sixteen
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 52

responded “yes” (47%) and only five responded “no.” Of those who have taught from zero to
eight years, eight responded “yes” (24%) and five responded “no.”
Section 8 asks the question, “Would you be interested in taking part I a 30-minute
interview to share more about your teaching methods?” The responses were:
Table 12
Interest in Interview
Choices Responses
Yes 11
No 23

Section 9 asks, “Would you be interested in allowing your class to be observed to learn
more about your teaching methods?” The responses were
Table 13
Interest in Observation
Choices Responses
Yes 12
No 22

Interviews
The original target for interviews was twelve faculty. However, only eleven respondents
stated they would be interested in taking part in a 30-minute interview and yet two respondents
did not add their contact information and could not be reached for additional information.
Ultimately nine professors answered a series of questions (Appendix B). All respondents met the
criteria of teaching in higher education for over one year.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 53

The results of the interviews are as follows:
Question #1: How long have you been teaching in higher education.

Table 14

Length of Time Teaching

Years Teaching Number of Respondents
3 years 1
4 years 2
11 years 1
12 years 1
15.5 years 1
18 years 1
20 years 1
22 years 1
Total 9

Question two was meant to see what motivates teachers to be in a profession working with
students.
Question #2: What about teaching is most motivational to you? The answers were coded to find
the most prevalent themes. The most dominant motivation was one of seeing students grow and
develop. Direct quotes from participants were;
• “Student-centered”
• “Student understanding”
• “Connection between the material and the student”
• “Student growth”
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 54

• “Putting the pieces together”
• “Student development”
• “Influencing”
• “Aha moment”
• “Light bulb moment”
• “Student progress”
• “Student problem solving”
Question #3: Tell me about your teaching style. How would you describe yourself as a teacher?
This question was asked to ascertain whether the motivation to teach (learner-centered) was
consistent with how professors taught. In other words, are the knowledge of the teachers
consistent with what motivates them to teach. Multiple answers were given by each interviewee
talking about personal teaching methods. Table # 15 illustrates the specific words, terms, and
phrases instructors used to identify their methods.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 55

Table 15
Descriptions of teaching styles

Type of
Teaching

Learner-Centered

Socratic
Questioning

Lecture

Miscellaneous

Guide on the Side
Hands on
Multiple formats
Student involvement
Participation
Interactive activities
Social learning
Groups
Learning styles
Guiding
questions
Discussion
Asking questions
Create big picture
Power Points
Didactic
Connect with
students
It depends
Create framework
Write
Create and
emotional
response

Question #4: Explain what you know about other types of teaching styles. Question Four was a
knowledge question to ascertain what types of teaching methods the instructors knew about. Six
out of nine instructors answered the question but also stated:
1. “I’m new to this so I am learning.”
2. “I don’t have a name for any of that.”
3. “I can’t remember all the different types.”
4. “I’m a trained clinician, not a trained educator.”
5. “We come to teaching with expertise but no teaching theory, practice, or education
classes.”
6. “I don’t know enough about it.”
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 56

This indicates a superficial understanding of “learner-center” teaching methods. The types of
methods instructors know something about are:
• Flipped Classroom
• Screen Cast
• Group activity
• Be more active
• Experiential learning
• Problem-based learning
• Hands on learning
• Collaboration
• Media
• Shared government of classroom
• Lecture and discussion
• Think-pair-share
• Drawing pictures
• Social learning
• Computer assisted instruction
• The 5 Whys method
Question #5: Describe a recent classroom lesson you gave that best illustrates your teaching
style. This question was asked to compare what the instructors indicated they taught and an
actual classroom experience. The question lent itself to the progression of a class from beginning
to end. Eight of nine instructors answered this question in terms of how they approach their
classes.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 57

Table 16
Class design

Class Begins With Class Body Class Ends With
Lecture Small groups, large groups Student reports
Reflection Lecture, questioning Reflection
Questioning Conversation Socratic questioning
Lecture, slides Small groups, brainstorm Teacher explanation
Lecture Practice Evaluation
Lecture Discussion, small groups Addressing issues
Lecture Collaborative learning, small
groups, computer tutorials
No answer
Interactive PowerPoint for clarification No answer

Question #6: What influences the teaching methods you employ? This question was meant to
isolate the instructor’s motivation to use the teaching methods that they do. The answers are
listed in order of most common reasons.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 58

Table 17
What influences teaching methods

Influencer Number of Responses
Student feedback 5
Workshop from expert 5
Supervisor and peers 4
Personal research 3
Personal expectation of student 1

Question # 7: Tell me about other teaching methods you would like to try. During coding it
became clear that most teaching methods fell into two categories, Learner-centered and
technology based, with a few needs of the instructor emerging.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 59

Table 18

Teaching methods instructors would like to employ

Learner-Centered Technology Based
Creating a hybrid course Creating a hybrid course
Flipped classroom Use of visuals
Group work in large classes Virtual reality
Concept mapping Simulation
Hands on 3-D
Interactive Electronic tools
Experiential learning
Care based learning
Students write more
Cahoots
Games based
Interactive elements
Puzzles and games

Emerging from question seven, instructors listed methods they would like to employ in the
classroom but do not have the ability to apply the methods. The statements that substantiated this
finding were:
• I need to know how to “write better exams.”
• Become “Better at evaluation and assessment.”
• Find “…efficient ways to grade.”
• “Collaborate with other faculty.”
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 60

Question #8: Tell me what you know about learner-centered teaching. Of the 23 comments that
fit into this category, 20 comments focused on learning that instructors felt would meet student
needs. The remaining two spoke of the need to “design” the experience by creating a community.
One comment suggested that “faculty {need} to work together.” Some of the most significant of
the comments in describing learner-centered teaching were:
1. “It means to customize the learning experience based on what they (students) know.”
2. “Meeting a student where their learning strengths are at.”
3. “Students are an active part of learning.”
Question #9: If learner-centered teaching methods were promoted on this campus, what type of
support would you need to implement it?

Figure 2. Support needed to implement learner-centered methods

It is evident that training is the biggest need of the instructors with time as a close second. In
question 10 there are additional time related concerns;
"Bring in an
expert."
"More training."
"Training and
resources"
Hands on tips
Observe others
Continuing
education
"How to" training
Professional
development
Learn from other
faculty
Training
"Time,time,time"
"Time away from
other
committments"
"Flexibility of
schedules"
"Support, like
assistants"
"Someone to
write courses."
Additional
"staffing"
Time
"Virtual reality."
"More technology.
"Videos."
"Manuals"
"Equipment."
Technology
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 61

• “Time is the limiting factor”, “It’s a time thing”, “Very few people have the time to do
the whole teaching class in this environment.”
Question #10 Describe what professional development is available to you. Question ten
prompted one comment only: “I don’t think we have a lot of resources.” Instructors also
reiterated that they need more training, e.g. “I need more training, I need experts.” And “I need
more guidance and more experience.” The probing question connected with question ten was, If
professional development were offered, on campus addressing learner-centered teaching
methods what topics would you recommend? This probe elicited a large number of responses.
The primary response centered on how to produce or deliver something.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 62

Table 19
Recommended professional development topics.

Question Response
How do I Build a syllabus
Figure out the classroom setting
Break up the time in class most effectively
Fine the best use of classroom time
Flip a classroom
Use one-minute papers
Write objectives to support learner-centered activities
Get to know my students and their individual needs
Use reflection
Create critical thinking rubrics
Help students think critically
Design curriculum
Use assessment
Use game-based learning
Write a test
Write rubrics based on content
Find new active learning strategies
Use virtual reality
Be fair
Get student engagement

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 63

Observation
Observations were conducted by both the primary investigator and a secondary
investigator who is a 35-year veteran of teaching and observing classrooms. The secondary
investigator regularly observes those he supervises for evaluation purposes. Six observations
were conducted by the primary investigator and two by the secondary investigator. Each class
was a total of 50-minutes with the exception of one three-hour class. Both investigators analyzed
the environment and amount of time that faculty spent employing six pre-identified categories.
Appendix C Both investigators completed a reflection after each observation.
The six categories were:
1. Lecture by the instructor
2. Group discussion/Q & A
3. Class activity
4. Film/video/etc.
5. Individual student practice/skill building
6. Other
The investigators observed their assigned instructors one time only. It was the original
intention to observe more than one class but the semester was ending and most classes were
utilizing the time for student presentations. It was also clear that the presence of the observer did
not undermine the participation of the students in class. A member check was completed to
verify whether the class behavior waivered from a regular session. Instructors did not notice a
difference. To compensate for the number of classes observed, observations were scheduled
within one to two days after the instructors agreed to the observation so there was little time to
change any teaching behaviors or lesson plans.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 64

One participant did not allow the investigator to use audio or video taping, which resulted in
hand written observations only. One observation was of a simulation which skews the results as
the instructor was “in character” 90% of the 50-minute session. One instructor was observed by
both investigators to ensure consistency in the observation. All observation summaries are as
follows:
Table 20
Instructor 1 Observation and reflection

Type of method used Frequency
Lecture by the instructor 35%
Group discussion/Q&A 20%
Class activity 20%
Film/video/etc. 15%
Individual student practice/skill building 0%
Other (Pair Share) 10%

Reflection
Instructor: Instructor started with student activity at beginning of class to get students engaged
in the topic and made connection with PowerPoint slide. Because students were sitting in back
of room the instructor left the podium and moved half way to the back to be closer to students.
Instructor fessed up to an error in handouts from previous week. Stayed engaged with students
throughout class. Promoted inclusion through tone of voice and physical actions.
Room Setting: Tables in standard three-person tables facing the front of the room. Ten tables
with no one sitting in the first three rows. Podium to extreme left of the room. Instructor used
only to set up PowerPoint.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 65

Environment: Cold room causing all students to keep outer wear on. All lights were on but
room was dim.

Table 21
Instructor 2 Observation and reflection

Type of method used Frequency
Lecture by the instructor 16%
Group discussion/Q&A 45%
Class activity 31%
Film/video/etc. 0%
Individual student practice/skill building 1%
Other 7% of time unaccounted for.

Reflection
Instructor: Instructor started by introducing observer and welcoming students back to class.
Students were reminded of upcoming schedules and upcoming class assignments. The
classroom had been flipped and students were called on to answer specific questions from
previously assigned reading and assignments. Instructors moved toward tables to be closer to
students.
Room Setting: Tables were in pods of four people. Podium was off to extreme left of room.
Environment: Cold, quiet, very bright. Window behind instructor caused some glare.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 66

Table 22
Instructor 3 Observation and reflection

Type of method used Frequency
Lecture by the instructor 0%
Group discussion/Q&A 10%
Class activity 0%
Film/video/etc. 0%
Individual student practice/skill building 90% through class activity
Other 0%

Reflection: This was difficult to code as the class activity was the same activity as the
individual student practice/skill building.
Instructor: Stayed in role of sick elder. At the end of the exercise the instructor broke from the
character and asked direct questions about the what students had learned and offered
suggestions.
Room Setting: Set as a personal bedroom of a sick elder. All details confirmed the illness and
style of an elderly person.
Environment: The room was cold with adequate lighting which made it conducive to student
learning through reading, writing, and observing.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 67

Table 23
Instructor 4 Observation and reflection

Type of method used Frequency
Lecture by the instructor 22%
Group discussion/Q&A 56%
Class activity 0%
Film/video/etc. 0%
Individual student practice/skill building 0%
Other: Left the room 6%

Reflection: Class was very informal. Students seemed engaged although only 3-4 out of 8
students responded to most questions.
Instructor: Cheerful, energetic, humorous. Continuously tried to keep students engaged. Used
personal stories related to the discussion.
Room Setting: Small table that didn’t accommodate all of the students. Three were outside of
the perimeter of the table. No podium. Large white board on one side of room. Full windows
on one side of room. Monitor at end of room so all students could view.
Environment: Very well lit. Two interruptions from other instructors.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 68

Table 24

Instructor 5 Observation and reflection

Type of method used Frequency
Lecture by the instructor 40%
Group discussion/Q&A 36%
Class activity 24%
Film/video/etc. 0%
Individual student practice/skill building 0%
Other: 0%

Reflection:
Instructor: Level tone of voice. Stayed at the podium. Students were taking notes with laptops.
Asked questions and called on people if there wasn’t enough response. Instructor listened to 3
- 4 answers and aggregated them for further explanation. There was a small-group exercise,
students stayed in their chairs and interacted only with one other student.
Room Setting: Large well-lit room with standard long rows of seating. Approximately 30
students with few sitting in the front two rows. Podium on far left of room with large screen at
the front of room.
Environment: Well-lit comfortable room.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 69

Table 25
Instructor 6 Observation and reflection

Type of method used Frequency
Lecture by the instructor 50%
Group discussion/Q&A 30%
Class activity 20%
Film/video/etc. 0%
Individual student practice/skill building 0%
Other: 0%

Reflection:
Instructor: Treated students with respect and encouragement. Questioning was used to monitor
student understanding.
Room Setting: Not recorded
Environment: Not recorded

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 70

Table 26
Instructor 7 Observation and reflection

Type of method used Frequency
Lecture by the instructor 2%
Group discussion/Q&A 31%
Class activity 36%
Film/video/etc. 0%
Individual student practice/skill building 31%
Other: 0%

Reflection: While watching a video of care being given questions and answers were actively
being given throughout. This was a three-hour class.
Instructor: Little lecture was directly given. Questions were asked and answered. Instructor
was able to keep students focused by questioning and having them write answers and
observations on a white board. When it was apparent the class would be running over the
allotted time the instructor asked additional questions to keep students engaged.
Room Setting: Small with an oval table and enough chairs to accommodate eight students, one
instructor, and the observer. Large video screen and white board. There was not a podium. The
instructor sat at the table with the students or wrote on the board.
Environment: Warm, bright with writing space for all students.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 71

Table 27
Instructor 8 Observation and reflection
Type of method used Frequency
Lecture by the instructor 50%
Group discussion/Q&A 10%
Class activity 30%
Film/video/etc. 5%
Individual student practice/skill building 0%
Other: 5%

Reflection:
Instructor: Instructor related the material to examples in students’ lives or their personal
experiences. Provided positive, specific feedback and prescriptive recommendations for
improving work.
Room Setting: Not recorded
Environment: Not recorded

Examples of Learner-Centered Teaching Methods
Following are two examples of learner-centered teaching to show how instructors used
these methods in their classrooms.
Progressive Design and Targeted Skill Development
The instructor spoke of her usual approach to teaching as a mixture of scaffolding and
student’s demonstrating skills. The instructor’s application was to first talk to the students about
the goals (lecture), write “scripts of what they will say to their clients” (critical thinking) and
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 72

practice skills they had learned, first by writing them out and second, by practicing them by
demonstrating for their peers. Third, they practice on each other and test each other with
comments from the instructor and the rest of the student group. They finally demonstrate their
skills with who they brought into the class for this purpose. Instructor one stated “that’s my
favorite teaching style” (personal communication, December 18, 2018). In her book on learner-
centered teaching, Maryellen Weimer (2013) describes these two approaches as “progressive
design” and “targeted skill development.”
The White Paper Exercise
During the observation of one instructor a learner-centered student activity started with a
video-about cancer diagnosis. The students then moved into groups of four and the instructor
challenged the students to answer three questions about cancer by “researching quickly,” and
organizing what they found. The students then worked together to illustrate their findings on
large white pieces of sticky paper that were taped around the room. This was a fairly quick and
fully active in-class assignment that promoted critical thinking, research skills, group interaction,
presentation skills, and problem solving. The instructor declared, “I learned that this deeper
learning is so much more of an important piece of it, I think that it has become more
motivational to me” (personal communication, November 29, 2018).
Summary
A small western university promotes itself as being a school that provided innovative
education. One of the most innovative approaches to teaching is the use of learner-centered
rather than teacher-centered teaching methods. This innovative study sought to understand what
types of teaching methods were being used, how much instructors knew about learner-centered
teaching methods, and whether or not the university was offering on-campus professional
development to promote this style of innovative teaching.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 73

Three sources of data were gathered through a survey (34 participants), one to one
interview (9 participants), and observation (8 participants) The instructors that were interviewed
and observed believed they were using learner-centered teaching methods but had little
confidence that they are using it to the fullest extent or correctly. Most felt there was little the
organization was doing to help promote it and made suggestions about topics they would like to
see as part of a professional development program. The most significant barrier to using
innovative teaching practices was the lack of time and resources to introduce more into their
classrooms. Results, conclusions, and recommendations will be made in Chapter 5.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 74

CHAPTER 5: RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction
Chapter 5 is a summary of the purpose of this study and its major findings. It outlines
research conclusions, implications, and recommendations for further study.
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study involves two major components. The first is to determine if the
instructional staff of a small western university understands and uses the methods of learner-
centered teaching. Part of this component required defining learner-centered teaching and
examining previous studies of this teaching strategy.
The second component of this study was to ascertain whether the university was
following its own strategic plan of innovative education. The questions that guided this study
were:
1. What are the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs necessary for
Mountain University to meet its strategic plan of innovative teaching?
2. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to
those needs?
To get to these conclusions, it was necessary to investigate what type of teaching was
taking place at the time of the study and to research what knowledge instructors had about
learner-centered teaching as an innovative teaching practice. It was also necessary to examine
whether instructors were motivated to engage in learner-centered teaching, and what the
organization was doing to meet its own strategic plan. Based upon the research,
recommendations were made as to how to reach the strategic goal.
The research began with a literature review showing that students who have experienced
learner-centered teaching are more highly motivated, learn more, and are better prepared for the
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 75

workforce (Avery & Bergsteiner, 2014; Chan & Lamb, 2005-2013; Prince, 2004; Weimer,
2003). Although this conclusion was not unanimous, support for learner-centered teaching was
overwhelming. With that conclusion in mind, this study looked at a group of instructors to
evaluate their knowledge and motivation to implement and learn about learner-centered teaching
methods. Without the commitment of instructors, this concept will not move the university to
realize its strategic plan. The following framework summarizes the necessary elements to make
this idea a reality.
Table 28
Summary of knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs.
Knowledge and Skills

Motivation Organization

Teachers need clear definition
of LCT to begin the
transition.

Utility Value

Teachers need to see the
value of student-centered vs
teacher-centered.

Faculty need time in order to
learn teaching methods.

Teachers need knowledge of
how research supports the
merits of LCT.

Self-Efficacy

Teachers need to believe they
are capable of implementing
and facilitating learner-
centered teaching.

Faculty need more
opportunities within the
school to help learn new LCT
methods.

Teachers need to know the
principles that guide
implementation of learner-
centered teaching.

Faculty need commitment
from leadership including
clearly articulated strategic
goals to support LCT.

The population of this study were 12 fulltime instructors who have worked in higher
education from 3 years to 22 years. The average length of teaching was 14 years. This is
significant because those who have taught this long have invariably formed a teaching
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 76

philosophy and established teaching methods. It therefore shows a commitment to a style, giving
the researcher a notion of preference. A flaw in this study was that not all of those interviewed
were observed in their teaching environment or the observed were not interviewed. Still the
numbers of responses gave a clear idea of types of teaching and knowledge spanning four
different and distinct programs of study.
Review of Methodology
The analysis of the research is of a “descriptive design” used to “describe the facts and
characteristics” of the data gathered (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Obtaining data from three
sources: survey, interview, and observation, allowed for triangulation of information for five of
the nine subjects. However, each methodology was analyzed separately as well.
Summary of Results
Survey
It is heartening that 33 of 34 instructors who responded to the initial survey were highly
experienced instructors. The conclusion here is that they know their own teaching styles with
88% of them reporting that their teaching methods depended on the type of class that was being
taught. It is disheartening that 65% of the respondents used lecture over 50% of the time. This
indicates that there is room for instructors to learn of the benefits and methods of teaching using
more student-centered practices.
The category asking what learner-centered methods were used showed that 19 instructors
used flipped classrooms and 31 used collaboration among student groups; however, the question
did not offer insight into how much of the time these two learner-centered methods were
employed. The one to one interviews and observations indicated that most were using some
learner-centered methods including Socratic questioning and self-identified learner-centered
teaching such as student participation, hands on activities, and interactive activities. It was the
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 77

first indication that instructors were aware of and employing innovative teaching methods. There
is clearly interest in learning more about learner-centered teaching methods as 24 of 34
respondents indicated they would like to learn more.
As indicated in Chapter 4, my assumption that those who had taught the longest would be
least likely to want to learn more about learner-centered teaching methods was erroneous. Forty-
seven percent of instructors who have been teaching nine years or over had interest in learning
more. This indicates that the university needs to provide professional development in the area of
active teaching methods.
Interviews
Poet William Butler Yeats (n.d.) has been credited with saying “Education is not the
filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire.” The interview questions confirmed that axiom as a
motivating factor for those interviewed. Interview questions were based upon the conceptual
framework of knowledge, skills, and motivation. Analysis of interviews and observations
indicated that the satisfaction of seeing students develop and apply concepts was the primary
reason and most identified motivating factor of why teachers teach. Motivation will be
instrumental for instructors who have limited time to learn how to apply the concepts of learner-
centered teaching. Instructors indicated a number of potential outcomes that were motivating and
the most dominant motivation was seeing students grow and develop.
Motivation is what drives us to achieve goals, but predictably, without knowledge and
skill to implement learner-centered methods, motivation alone is fragile. During interviews
instructors self-described their teaching methods as primarily, learner-centered and secondarily
as Socratic questioning. However, six of nine instructors added that they were experts in their
fields but not trained in education which illuminated their own self-efficacy. Although these
two concepts are entwined, the desire to achieve new teaching methods is insufficient if not
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 78

coupled with knowledge and skill. Without learning more about the concepts of design and
application, motivation may not be enough to move forward with new teaching methods.

Figure 3. Conceptual framework adapted from Clark & Estes (2008)

Another aspect of motivation came to light when instructors were asked directly what
motivates them. The top three answers were 1. student feedback, 2. workshop from an expert,
and 3. supervisor and peers. It is notable that an expert on learner-centered teaching methods was
on campus in 2014 which moved some instructors to implement the methods she described. The
training was only one- and one-half days long and although lit the fire of practicing learner-
centered teach methods it wasn’t long enough to offer all of the elements necessary to design,
implement, and evaluate the process. At this point we do not know how students feel about this
approach to their learning. An extension of this research would give more insight into what
students find valuable in learner-centered teaching. This researcher would suggest further study
in that area.
Comparing what instructors said they taught and their outlines of recent classes brings us
back to the fact that although instructors listed several learner-centered methods in their practice,
lecture was mentioned as a classroom approach in six of nine instances. In the observation phase
Knowledge & Skills
Factual Knowledge: Faculty
need a clear understanding of
what learner-centered teaching
methods are.

Conceptual Knowledge: Faculty
need training to apply skills
learned.
Procedural Knowledge: Faculty
need the knowledge of how to
design learner-centered teaching
methods.

Procedural Knowledge: Faculty
need the knowledge of how to
design learner-centered teaching
methods.

Motivation
Choice: Do faculty have the desire to
achieve a goal?
Persistence: Are faculty willing to continue
working at it?
Development: Do faculty have the will to put
effort into achieving it?

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 79

of data gathering five of eight instructors used lecture from 16% to 50% of the time. It leads this
researcher to believe that what is considered learner-centered is not entirely so. In one such
observation, group discussion and Q & A were primarily the instructor giving substantial
explanations of concepts after students answered questions. In future research a delineation of Q
& A should include how much of the time the instructor is commenting on student answers.
Perhaps that should be called a mini lecture.
Instructors in the study were asked what type of learner-centered teaching methods they
would like to employ. A majority of responses fell into the two categories of learner-centered
and technology based. During the coding process it was apparent that the technology-based
responses also fit into the learner-centered category. The significant component of this inquiry
was that faculty did not feel they had the ability to employ the methods they wished to use and
needed more help in “writing better exams.” “evaluating and assessing.” and finding ways to
grade more efficiently. They overwhelmingly discussed that time was an issue. The most
significant comment that encapsulated their thoughts was, “Very few people have the time to do
the whole teaching class in this (learner-centered) environment.” Instructors in this study also
reiterated that they need more training.
The final component of the interviews was a list of professional development topics that
would benefit them in utilizing more student-centered methods. This list did not lend itself to
further coding and can be seen in full below.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 80

Table 29
Recommended professional development topics.

Question Responses
How do I Build a syllabus
Figure out the classroom setting
Break up the time in class most effectively
Fine the best use of classroom time
Flip a classroom
Use one-minute papers
Write objectives to support learner-centered activities
Get to know my students and their individual needs
Use reflection
Create critical thinking rubrics
Help students think critically
Design curriculum
Use assessment
Use game-based learning
Write a test,
Write rubrics based on content
Find new active learning strategies
Use virtual reality
Be fair
Get student engagement

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 81

Observation
In researching learner-centered teaching there is no evidence that a certain amount of
time using those teaching methods transforms a classroom from teacher-centered to learner-
centered. It is more a philosophy of learning that is connected to the learning environment and or
learning community. According to one of the current central figures in student-learning,
Maryellen Weimer, the “key ingredients” are in part;
1. “It is teaching that engages students in the hard, messy work of learning.”
2. “It is teaching that motivates and empowers students by giving them some control
over learning processes.”
3. “It is teaching that encourages collaboration, acknowledging the classroom (be it
virtual or real) as a community where everyone shares the learning agenda.”
4. ” It is teaching that promotes students’ reflection about what they are learning and
how they are learning it.”
5. “It is teaching that includes explicit learning skills instruction” (Weimer, 2013, pg.
15).
These ingredients are difficult to measure but through interview and observation this
researcher will try to measure what instructors say they did and compare it to what they actually
did during the classroom observation. Only five of the instructors were both interviewed and
observed.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 82

Table 30
Comparison of proposed methods to actual methods

Interview Observation Percentage
Instructor one:
• Lecture
• Large and small group
activity

Lecture
Group discussion/Q&A
Class activity
Film/video/etc.
Individual student practice/skill building
Other
35%
20%
30%
15%
0%
0%
Instructor two:
• Engage with
conversation
• Reflection paper
• Lecture
• Final oral reflection
Lecture
Group discussion/Q&A
Class activity
Film/video/etc.
Individual student practice/skill building
Other (unaccounted for)
16%
45%
31%
0%
1%
7%
Instructor three:
• Simulation
• Lecture
• Collaboration
• Socratic questioning
Lecture
Group discussion/Q&A
Class activity
Film/video/etc.
Individual student practice/skill building
Other (left the room)
22%
56%
0%
0%
0%
6%
Instructor four:
• Shared learning
Lecture
Group discussion/Q&A
2%
31%
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 83

• Create experience Class activity
Film/video/etc.
Individual student practice/skill building
Other
36%
0%
31%
0%
Instructor five:
• Talk to them
• Student practice
• Observe
• Test
Lecture
Group discussion/Q&A
Class activity
Film/video/etc.
Individual student practice/skill building
Other
50%
10%
30%
5%
0%
5%

Of the five observations listed above there is a mix of lecture and student-centered
teaching with the bulk of it as a question and answer activity. It is this investigator’s belief that
much of what is labeled Q & A should be considered as lecture. It was observed that during the
Q & A portion of the class instructors “lectured” when a student answer was not in-depth or
veered off topic giving a skewed percentage of the amount of time lecture was being utilized.
One observation was an in-depth simulation with the instructor acting as an elderly
patient. Ninety percent of the 50-minute observation was “in character.” Ten percent of the time
was devoted to a question and answer session. This was the epitome of student-centered teaching
as the student was largely in control of the experience and decision making. The impracticability
of this scenario is of concern for most educational subjects being taught due to the space, time,
resources, and willingness of instructors to take on such a role. But the elements that make
learner-centered teaching methods so appealing is that students are able to learn in a real-life
setting.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 84

Some were unapologetic that lecture was used due to the nature of a course. In these
cases, it appears that more knowledge about the philosophy of learner-centered methods would
shed light on how to implement more student control in the learning environment. Again, this
researcher recommends another research project from the student’s point of view.
Learner-centered environments
One of the significant realizations during observations was that the physical layout of
most college classrooms are not conducive to learner-centered instruction. Most were set in
standard tables and chairs facing the front of the room with a view of the lectern, monitor, or
white board. In this environment students don’t see each other except the backs of heads. If
learner-centered teaching methods is to be defined as a learning community with student
interaction and multiple group work, it is hard to imagine a less appealing environment.
The rooms that were set with a circular table as the working space for the students were
too small, without space to take notes and move into dyads or triads. Nor was there adequate
space to keep small group discussions private. It seems that for some students who do not do
well in noisy environments this would be very challenging.
Student-centered philosophy is based on the notion that methods and environments
should add to the learning experience. This study did not consider the environment as part of the
learning experience but another research project to determine the effect of the physical
environment should be considered.
Findings and Conclusions
All phases of data gathering supported that faculty were using learner-centered methods.
This conclusion was reached by the use of triangulation of the survey, interviews and
observations. Data was validated by member checking and final data was displayed in a variety
of tables and figures.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 85

Most conclusions were a result of interviews and observations.
1. Of the nine people interviewed all described their teaching methods as learner-centered.
2. The knowledge of learner-centered teaching was from one on-campus professional
development workshop from four years ago. Some faculty accredited their knowledge
from education classes, personal research, and supervisor evaluations.
3. Nine of nine participants interviewed felt they needed more knowledge, skill
development, and organizational support to gain a higher level of understanding in order
to apply learner-centered methods to their classes.
4. Lecture is still used in classrooms at varying degrees from 2% to 50%. It is difficult to
determine the part lecture plays in the use of PowerPoints and question and answer
sessions.
Recommendations
It is clear from these findings that instructional staff at MU use some learner-
centered strategies but, 1) not as much as they think they do, 2) not as much as they
indicate they would like to do, and 3) not as much as necessary to achieve a truly student-
centered classroom.
It must be remarked that this was a limited study conducted on a single campus
and examining a small number of professors. Therefore, the first recommendation is that
this study be replicated on a larger scale with far more professors studied on at least
several diverse campuses.
Interviews suggested they would like to know more about learner-centered
teaching strategies. Therefore, the second recommendation is that the benefits and
strategies of learner-centered teaching be made much more widely available to
instructional staff nationally as well as, more specifically, to the staff at MU.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 86

This could be accomplished through additional, more extensive studies;
workshops conducted by “experts” in learner-centered teaching; and widely disseminated
written material. No doubt other recommendations could be made by proponents of this
teaching strategy. Although MU professors are using, in varying degrees, learner-
centered methods, they tend to be using only the more obvious strategies. Part of this
recommendation is that all of the recognized learner-centered strategies be included in
the dissemination of materials and instruction made available to instructional staff.
Interviewees also indicated that they felt the university was ill-prepared to help
them acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to use learner-centered strategies. The
third recommendation is that the university administration provide the time and resources
necessary to instruct teaching staff in the benefits and strategies of learner-centered
instructions.
This recommendation implies that the administration is committed to this teaching
strategy. The administration must therefore believe that its own goal of “innovative
teaching” will be accomplished, at least in part, by adapting learner-centered methods.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 87

References

Achen, R., Dodd, R., Lumpkin, A. (2015) Focusing teaching on students: Examining student
perceptions of learning strategies. Quest, 67:4 (p 352-366).
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M., Norman, M, 2010. How learning
works;
7 Research-based principles for smart teaching. (p 15). San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass.
An, Y. J., & Reigeluth, C. (2011). Creating technology-enhanced, learner-centered classrooms:
K-12 teachers ‘beliefs, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital Learning in
Technology Education, 28(2),
54-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2011.10784681.
Arnold, B., Derling, T., Ebert-May, D., Henkel, T., Middlemis Mayer, J., Morrisen, J., Passmore,
H. (2014). Breaking the cycle: Future faculty begin teaching with learner-centered
strategies after professional development. The American society for Cell Biology, 14(2)
doi: 10.1187cbe14-12-0222.
Avery, Gayle, C., Bergsteiner, Harald (20013). The twin-cycle experiential learning model:
Reconceptualizing Kolb’s theory, Studies in Continuing Education, 36(3), 257-274, doi:
10.1080/0158037X.2014.904782.
Baker, L. (2006). Metacognition. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/metacognition/.
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9, 75–78.
Bickel, Amelia, Morrison-Shetlar, Alison & Schneider, Kimberly R. (2015). Planning and
implementing a comprehensive student-centered research program for first-year STEM
undergraduates. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(3).
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 88

Blumberg, P. (2008). Developing learner-centered teachers: A practical guide for faculty. Sam
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blumberg, P. (2015). How critical reflection benefits faculty as they implement learner-centered
teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 144, 87-97. doi: 10.1002/t1.20165.
Bonwell, C. C., & Eison, J. A. (1991). Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom.
Washington, DC: George Washington University Press.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind". College
English, 46(7), 635-652.
Carlson, Julie A. & Wurdinger, Scott D. (2015). Experiential learning defined. Texas Learning
Sciences, 1-9. The University of Texas at Austin.
https://learningsciences.utexas.edu/teaching/engagement/experiential-learning/defined.
Chan, H.L. & Lam, B.H. (2005-2013), Experiential learning, The Active Classroom, 1-2.
http://www.ied.edu.hk/aclass/Theories/ExperientialLearning.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Collins, J. W. & O’Brien, N. P. (Eds). The greenwood dictionary of education (2003) (pg. 5).
Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
Concordia Online Education. Which is best: Teacher-centered or student-centered education?
http://education.cu-portland.edu/blog/classroom-resources/which-is-best-teacher-
centered-or-student-centered-education. Downloaded February 5, 2016.
Conry, John M. & See, Sharon (2014). Flip my class! A faculty development demonstration of a
flipped-classroom. Science Direct. http//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2014.03.003.
Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research. (3
rd
edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 89

Creswell, J.W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Los Angeles, CA. Sage.
Davidovitch, Nitza (2013). Learning-centered teaching and backward course design from
transferring knowledge to teaching skills. Journal of International Education Research,
9(4) 329-336.
Eddy, Sarah L., Freeman, Scott, Jordt, Hannah, McDonough, Miles, Okoroafor, Nnadozie,
Smith, Michelle K., & Wenderoth, Mary Pat (2014). Active learning increases student
performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. PNAC, 111(23), doi:
10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Faculty Handbook (2014). www.cu-portland.edu.
Gilboy, Mary Beth, Heinerichs, Scott, & Pazzaglia, Gina (2014). Enhancing student engagement
using the flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47(1) 109-
114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016j.jneb.2014.08.008.
Davidovitch, N. (2013). Learning-centered teaching and backward course design from
transferring knowledge to teaching skills. Journal of International Education Research,
9(4) 329-336.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education (pgs. 17-23). New York: Simon and Schuster.
Dochy, F., Segers, M., den Bossche, P.V. and Gijbels, D. “Effects of problem-based
learning: A meta-analysis.” Learning and Instruction, 2003, 13 (4).
Doyle, T. 2011. Learner-centered teaching: Putting the research on learning into practice.
Sterling, VA. Stylus.
Eccles, J. (2006). Expectancy value motivational theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/expectancy-value-motivational-theory/.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 90

Eddy, S.L., Freeman, S, Jordt, H., McDonough, M, Okoroafor, N, Smith, M. K., & Wenderoth,
M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and
mathematics. PNAC, 111(23), doi: 10.1073/pnas.1319030111.
Eggleton, P.J., (1992). Motivation: A key to effective teaching. The mathematics educator. 1992-
time journal.libs.uga.edu 3(2).
Ewert, A. & Sibthorp, J. (2009) Creating outcomes through experiential education: The
challenge of confounding variables. Journal of Experiential Education 31(3), 376-389.
Gilboy, M, Heinerichs, S, & Pazzaglia, G. (2014). Enhancing student engagement using the
flipped classroom. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 47(1) 109-114.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016j.jneb.2014.08.008.
Grossman, R. & Salas, E. (2011). The transfer of training: What really matters. International
Journal of Training and Development. 15(2), 103-120).
Gugliucci, R. &Weiner, A. (2013). Learning by living: Life-altering medical education through
nursing home-based experiential learning. Gerontology & Geriatrics Education, 34:1, 60-
77, doi: 10.1080/02701960.2013.749254
Hart Research Associates (2015) Falling short? College learning and career success.
Washington, DC: Association of American Colleges and Universities.
Henderson, C., Beach, A., Finkelstein, N. (2011). “Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM
instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature.” Journal of Research in
Science Teaching. Volume 48, Issue 8, October 2011, 952–984.
Karim, A. (2011). Book Review: How learning works: 7 research-based principles for smart
teaching by Susan A. Ambrose, Michael W. Bridges, Michele DiPietro, Marsha C.
Lovett, Marie K. Norman, and Richard E. Mayer. Journal of Food Science Education, 10
(3) 27-29, doi: 10.1111/j.1541-4329.2011.00127. x.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 91

Kayler, Mary A. "Teacher development and learner‐centered theory". Teacher Development 13.1
(2009): 57-69. doi: 10.2080/13664530902858501.
Krahenbuhl, Kevin S. “Student-centered education and constructivism: Challenges, concerns,
and clarity for teachers.” A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and ideas, 89, 98.
http://dx.doi.org.cupdx.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/00098655.2016.1191311
Kramer, M. (2017). “Sage on the stage or bore at the board?” Communication
Education, 66 (2).
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Lovett, Marie K. Mayer, Norman, and Richard. Journal of Food Science Education, 10 (3) 27-28,
doi: 10.1111/j.1541-4329.2011.00127.x.
Maxwell, J.A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles, CA.
Sage.
Merriam, S.B. & Tisdell, E.J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4
th
edition). San Francesco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Michael, J. (2006) “Where’s the evidence that active learning works?” Advances in Physiology
Education. 30(4), 159-167. DOI: 10.1152/advan.00053.2006.
Miettinen, F. (2000). The concept of experiential learning and John Dewey’s theory of reflective
thought and action, International Journal of Lifelong Education, 19:1, 54-72, DOI:
10.1080/026013700293458.
Polly, Drew; Hannafin, Michael J. (2011) Examining how learner-centered professional
development influences teachers espoused and enacted practices.
Journal of Educational Research, v104 (2) 1.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 92

Prince, Michael (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of
Engineering Education, 93(3), 223-231.
Prince, M.J. and Felder, R.M. “Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions,
comparisons, and research bases.” Journal of Engineering Education, 2006, 95(3), 223-
231.
Roberts, T. G. (2003). An Interpretation of Dewey's Experiential Learning Theory. ERIC
Processing and Reference Facility 4483-A Forbes Boulevard Lanham, Maryland-20706.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York, NY.
Teachers College Press.
Schein, E.H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. 4
th
ed. San Francisco, CA. Jossey-
Bass.
Schunk, D. H., (2008). Constructivist Theory. M. Harlan (Ed), Learning Theories: An
Educational Perspective (pp: 234-275). Columbus, OH, Merrill Prentice Hall.
Sterrett, W. (2015). Igniting teacher leadership: How do I empower my teachers to lead and
learn? Alexandria, Virginia: ASCD.
Vernon, D. T. A., & Blake, R. L. (1993). Does problem-based learning work? A metaanalysis of
evaluative research. Academic Medicine, 68, 550-563.
Vygotsky, L. 1978. Mind in society, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. 1
st
ed. San
Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. 2
nd
ed. San
Francisco, CA. Jossey-Bass.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 93

Weimer, Maryellen (2013). Research: Evidence that learner-centered approaches work. Learner-
Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice, 28-55. San Francisco, CA: Josey-
Boss.
Wieman, C. (2014). “Large-scale comparison of science teaching methods sends clear message”
PNAS 2014 111 (23) doi:10.1073/pnas.1407304111

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 94

Appendix A

Survey Items
Teaching Method Survey

1. I have been teaching in higher education
_____ years.
_____ 0-2
_____ 3-4
_____ 5-6
_____ 7-8
_____ 9 or more

2. My teaching methods are influenced by _____ Type of class I teach
_____ Personal philosophy of teaching
_____ I use the teaching method I was
taught in school
_____ I use the teaching method endorsed
by school leadership
_____ Other

3. My preferred teaching method is

Active student participation includes such
things as small group discussions,
students deciding on content, assignment
due dates, instructor as facilitator versus
lecturer.
_____ Lecture with 0% active student
participation
_____ Lecture with 25% active student
participation
_____ Lecture with 50% active student
participation
_____ Lecture with 75% active student
participation
_____ Lecture with over 75% active
student participation

4. I use learner-centered teaching methods. _____ Never
_____ Rarely
_____ Sometimes
_____ Most of the time
_____ Always

5. I apply these learner-centered teaching
methods in my classroom. (Check all that
apply.)
_____ Flipped classrooms
_____ Collaboration among student
groups
_____ Students making decisions about
curriculum
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 95

_____ Hands on projects and assignments
_____ Student reflection
_____ None

6. I use these learner-centered teaching
methods. (Please describe methods that are
not listed above.)

7. Would you be interested in learning more
about learner-centered teaching methods?
_____ Yes
_____ No

8. Would you be interested in allowing your
class to be observed to assess your learner-
centered teaching methods?

_____ Yes
_____ No

9. Would you be interested in taking part in a
30-minute interview to learn more about
your teaching methods?

_____ Yes
_____ No

10. Would you be interested in taking part in a
1-hour focus group to learn more about your
approach to learner-centered teaching?
_____ Yes
_____ No

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 96

Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Research Questions
Introduction
Thank you for taking the time to talk to me about your thoughts about teaching and your
teaching style. I will be using a set of questions that are meant to explore your practices and
insights about teaching but other concepts may arise that we will explore. No answers are too
long.
Interview Questions
1. How long have you been teaching in higher education? (Organizational)
2. What about teaching is most motivational to you? (Motivation)
3. Tell me about your teaching style. How would you describe yourself as a teacher?
(Knowledge & Motivational)
4. Explain what you know about other types of teaching styles. (Knowledge)
5. Describe a recent classroom lesson you gave that best illustrates your teaching style.
(Knowledge)
6. What influences the teaching methods you employ? (Knowledge & Motivation)
7. Tell me about other teaching methods you would like to try? (Motivation)
8. Tell me what you know about the term “learner-centered” teaching. (Knowledge)
9. If learner-centered teaching methods were promoted on this campus, what types of
support would you need to implement methods? (Organization)
Probe: Tell me about what organizational support you feel you need? (Organizational)
Probe: Tell me about teaching materials you feel you need? (Organizational)
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 97

10. Describe what professional development is available to you. (Knowledge &
Organizational)
Probe: If professional development were offered on campus, addressing learner-centered
teaching methods, what topics would you recommend? (Knowledge)

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 98

Appendix C
Observation Protocol

Observation Protocol
Setting:
All three observations will take place in the participant’s (instructors) customary classroom.
The classroom setting will remain in the customary configuration normally used by the
participant. The video and sound equipment will be placed in the back of the room at an angle
so the entire room can be filmed without interruption. The recording equipment will be placed
at the side of the room so it is less obtrusive but some faces can be viewed for reactions to
classroom activities. The researcher will be seated 3/4s to the front of the room so reactions
not covered by video can be observed.

Researchers Observation Observers Comments
This section will be used to record any observations of the
room, activities, instructor’s verbal and non-verbal actions,
student verbal and non-verbal actions and responses to the
teaching plan.

It is important that the observations relate to whether or not
there are learner-centered teaching methods being employed.

Be cognizant and define whether observations are direct
quotes or paraphrased.

This section is for extraneous
activities that take place in the
environment that do not fit in
any other category.
Reflection
This section will be used immediately after the observation to document researcher’s
emotions, thoughts, further questions, and any conclusions that can be reached or surmised.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 99

Appendix D
Informed Consent/Information Sheet
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

(LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING METHODS IN HIGHER EDUCATION)

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Mary A. Amick, MEd and
Lawrence Picus, PhD, at the University of Southern California, because you are a professor who
has been teaching for five years in a university setting. Your participation is voluntary. You should
read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before
deciding whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form.
You may also decide to discuss participation with your family or friends. If you decide to
participate, you will be asked to sign this form. You will be given a copy of this form.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The study is designed to identify higher education professors who are using learner-centered
teaching methods that will meet the stated strategic goal of Mountain University of innovative
teaching.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete the following
survey:
Complete a 10-question on-line survey to be completed five days after receipt.
Sample Question: Do you consider yourself a teacher who uses learner-centered teaching
methods?

One on One Interviews
One 30-minute interview that will be scheduled at the convenience of the volunteer.

Teaching Observation:
One 50-minute classroom observation.
Classroom observations will be both video and audio taped. In order to be a part of this
study teachers must agree to both types of taping.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated physical or emotional risks involved in this study.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The anticipated benefits of this study are:
1. Acquiring a minimum of 10 learner-centered teaching method worksheets, and
2. Two free professional development classes.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 100

PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not receive compensation for this study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team, the funding agency and the University of Southern California’s Human
Subjects Protection Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors
research studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.

All written and video data will be stored in Portland, Oregon on two thumb drives, one original,
and one back-up which will be housed in a locked cabinet in the researcher’s office at Mountain
University. Hand written information including observation notes, field notes, and data analysis
will be kept in the same locked file. Each participant has the right to review the video-recordings
and/or transcripts at any time during or after the interviews and taping. All data will be maintained
by the researcher indefinitely and will not be shared with anyone except the individual participants.
Confidentiality will be maintained by using pseudonyms for each participant and the university
where they teach. Video tapes will not be shared with anyone other than individual participants.
No participant will be allowed to view another participant’s footage. The researcher will be
transcribing all data. No personnel besides the researcher will have access to the locked storage
cabinet. IRB requires that data be kept for three years, however, the researcher will keep the data
for seven years at which time it will be destroyed.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY

Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential,
except if necessary to protect your rights or welfare (for example, if you are injured and need
emergency care). A Certificate of Confidentiality has been obtained from the federal government
for this study to help protect your privacy. This certificate means that the researchers can resist
the release of information about your participation to people who are not connected with the study,
including courts. The Certificate of Confidentiality will not be used to prevent disclosure to local
authorities of child abuse and neglect, or harm to self or others.

When the results of the research are published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable
information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies
because of your participation in this research study. You may be asked to withdraw if you leave
your teaching post or are unable to meet the timelines and interview sessions.

ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Whether or not you volunteer to be in the study you may join the professional development
following this study.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 101

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact Mary Amick
Principle Investigator, Faculty Sponsor is Dr. Lawrence Picus.

Mary A. Amick
P. O. Box 193
Scotts Mills, Oregon 97375
(503) 873-6294
mamick@usc.edu

Larry Picus
University of Southern California, Rossier
University of Southern California
WPH 602!
Los Angeles, CA 90089
213-740-2175
lpicus@usc.edu

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT

I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO/VIDEO/PHOTOGRAPHS (If this is not applicable to your study and/or if
participants do not have a choice of being audio/video-recorded or photographed, delete this
section.)

□ I agree to be audio/video-recorded /photographed

□ I do not want to be audio/video-recorded /photographed

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 102

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This is a study of the use of learner-centered strategies in a small, western university. A review of the literature revealed that learner-centered methods engage students more than traditional lecture methods, create a higher level of retention, and better prepare students for the rigors of employment. The researcher developed a strategy to discover if instructors at the university of study were knowledgeable of learner-centered strategies, utilized them in the classroom, and if the university was meeting its goal of “innovative teaching.” This was accomplished by means of a written survey distributed to all full-time faculty, in-person interviews with nine of the respondents, and classroom observations of eight of the interviewees. The results of the study were that 1) faculty are not well-informed about all the facets of learner-centered teaching methods and 2) faculty used those methods in the classroom less than they think they do or as much as they would like to. The researcher also found that faculty would like to learn more about learner-centered strategies if they were provided with the time and resources to accomplish that objective. Based on these results, it was recommended that this study be replicated on a larger scale to be able to generalize the results more broadly and that the university provide the time and expert instruction to help faculty provide a more learner-centered environment in their classrooms.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Learner-centered teaching in Uganda: an analysis of continuing educational needs

PDF

Competency in a blended workforce: an evaluation study of contracted labor development challenges

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

PDF

Maximizing English learners' success in higher education with differentiated instruction

PDF

Underrepresentation of African American faculty in higher education: an improvement model dissertation

PDF

Managing successful organizational change for faculty in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Reconstructing the literary canon: an innovation study

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Raising women leaders of Christian higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Full-time distance education faculty perspectives on web accessibility in online instructional content in a California community college context: an evaluation study

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

Modern corporate learning requires a modern design methodology: an innovation study

PDF

An evaluation study: quality contextual professional development

PDF

Graduation rates in college of students with disabilities: an innovation study

PDF

The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study

PDF

The perception of teachers’ pedagogy of technology integration: a case study of second‐grade teachers

PDF

Principal leadership for diffusing innovation across an established, high-performing K-12 school system

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

Creating effective online educational content: an evaluation study of the influences affecting course developers’ abilities to create online content with engaging learning strategies

PDF

The issue of remediation as it relates to high attrition rates among Latino students in higher education: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Amick, Mary Ann (author)

Core Title The dearth of learner-centered teaching methods in higher education: an innovation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 03/11/2019

Defense Date 01/17/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag higher education teaching,innovative teaching,KMO framework,learner centered education,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional development,teaching methods

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Picus, Lawrence O. (committee chair), Branch, Oralee (committee member), Tobey, Patricia (committee member)

Creator Email mamick@cu-portland.edu,mamick@usd.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-131337

Unique identifier UC11676947

Identifier etd-AmickMaryA-7148.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-131337 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-AmickMaryA-7148.pdf

Dmrecord 131337

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Amick, Mary Ann

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA