University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 1

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING IN UGANDA: AN ANALYSIS OF CONTINUING
EDUCATIONAL NEEDS

by

Jane Frances Nakato

A Dissertation Proposal 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

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Jane F. Nakato

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 2

DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my mother, Mrs. Drolence Nnalongo Kyambadde, whose
strength, prayers and support have been a constant in my life. Mummy showed me the value of
education and sacrificed so much that we, her children, got a good education. Thank you
mummy. I love you very much.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
“Praise be to the name of God for ever and ever; wisdom and power are his.” Daniel 2:20

I give thanks to the Lord, my God, for He led me to, and through this program, guided me
when I felt lost, provided for me, when I was in need and lent me the wisdom to successfully
complete this program. Thank you, Lord!
My sincere gratitude goes to my dissertation Chair, Dr. Cathy Krop. I do not have the
right words to express my appreciation to you! Always very encouraging, your expertise,
insights constantly amazed me. In a few, short words you seemed to unfold words and ideas I
struggled for hours to express in my dissertation, and yet you did it with grace, love and
devotion. You showed me different perspectives that not only enriched my study but will remain
with me when I continue with this journey. You made me feel I could do better, even when I felt
I could not. Thank you, Dr. Krop for showing me it could be done!
My dissertation committee members, Dr. Larry Picus and Dr. Anthony Maddox, I will
always treasure your advice during my defense. Dr. Mark Robison, your attention to detail
pushed me to begin “unpacking” my thought process.
The faculty, Drs: Tambascia, Chung, Seli, Weinman, Adolph, Samkian and all guest
speakers that opened up your worlds of experience for us to extract and make our own stories,
thank you. I appreciate the time I spent learning from and with you. Dr. Sabrina Chong and
Vanessa Ault, for always responding in the quickest possible time when I reached out to you.
Thank you.
My lovely children: Gabriella, Joel and Sara, and my nieces Connie and Emily, you are
my heroes. You encouraged me to go for this program and supported me all through my studies;
always assured me that I would succeed and ensured the noise was kept to the minimum. You
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 4

held me accountable, and I needed to be a good example to you all. I will never forget how you
cheered me up when I was admitted to USC. Jamawa, thank you for constantly making sure I
was comfortable. The cups of tea, coffee and snacks you availed me, pushed me through when I
was constantly burning the midnight oil.
My dearest friend Josephine Nazziwa, how can I ever re-pay you for your love, kindness,
support and encouragement? You opened your doors for me and your home in the USA became
my second home. The quiet, peaceful moments I enjoyed in the comfort of your home can never
be taken for granted. I cannot thank you enough. Thank you for loving me!
My workmates at KinderKare Schools, you ably held the fort during my absence, gave
me space and time to read and took on most of my professional burdens. Thank you all.
My dear friends, Dr. Alice Nakaggwa, Dr. Alice Nkore, and Dr. Joshua Rubongoya, you
were the PhDs that I constantly consulted. When I thought a doctoral degree was too big for me,
you made it seem doable. You were right!
My friends and sisters Joy Bagyenda and Margaret Naka, you were there, when it all
began, and supported me throughout the journey. My siblings, friends from the “Sitting Room”
and Readers’ Table and Rotary, you kept me sane when the going got tough. The twins - Paula
Babirye and Valentine Nakato, together with Flavia Nakayima and my Christ The King
community, your constant prayers and support paid off! To everyone who, in any way assisted
and encouraged me, thank you very much and may God bless you abundantly.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... 2
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................... 3
List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 7
Chapter One: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 9
Background of the Problem ...................................................................................................... 11
Importance of Addressing the Problem .................................................................................... 15
Organizational Context and Mission ........................................................................................ 17
Organizational Performance Status ........................................................................................... 18
Organizational Performance Goal ............................................................................................. 18
Description of Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................................... 19
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals ............................................................................................. 20
Stakeholder Group for the Study .............................................................................................. 20
Purpose of the Project and Questions ....................................................................................... 21
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ............................................................................ 21
Organization of the Project ....................................................................................................... 22
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 23
Learner-Centered Teaching ...................................................................................................... 23
The Changing 21st Century Workplaces .................................................................................. 28
Teaching in Learner-Centered Classrooms ............................................................................... 31
Teachers’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences on Performance ............... 38
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 50
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 51
Participating Stakeholders ........................................................................................................ 51
Observation and Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale .................................................. 52
Observation and Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale ................................................. 53
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale .......................................................... 54
Data Collection and Instrumentation ........................................................................................ 54
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 57
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 58
Ethics ......................................................................................................................................... 59
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................... 60
Chapter Four: Results and Findings .............................................................................................. 63
Participants ................................................................................................................................ 64
Observations and Document Analysis ...................................................................................... 65
Findings for Assumed Knowledge Influences .......................................................................... 65
Factual Knowledge ............................................................................................................... 68
Conceptual Knowledge ......................................................................................................... 72
Procedural Knowledge .......................................................................................................... 74
Metacognitive Knowledge .................................................................................................... 78
Findings for Motivation Influences .......................................................................................... 80
Utility Value .......................................................................................................................... 81
Attributions ........................................................................................................................... 85
Self-Efficacy ......................................................................................................................... 87
Findings for Organizational Influences .................................................................................... 88
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 6

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 95
Chapter Five: Solutions, Implementation and Evaluation ............................................................ 98
Teacher Continuing Needs Related to LCT .............................................................................. 99
Proposed Recommendations ................................................................................................... 100
Capacity and Resource Requirements .................................................................................... 108
Timeframe ............................................................................................................................... 109
Evaluation Plan ....................................................................................................................... 110
Level One: Reaction ........................................................................................................... 114
Level Two: Learning ........................................................................................................... 114
Level Three: Transfer ......................................................................................................... 115
Level Four: Impact .............................................................................................................. 116
Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 117
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 118
References ................................................................................................................................... 120
Appendix A Observation Guideline ............................................................................................ 143
Appendix B Teacher Interview Protocol .................................................................................... 144

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals 20
Table 2. Assumed Teacher Knowledge Influences 42
Table 3. Assumed Teacher Motivation Influences 45
Table 4. Assumed Organizational Influences 49
Table 5. Demographic Composition of Teachers Interviewed (N=15) 64
Table 6. Assumed Teacher Knowledge Findings 67
Table 7. LCT as Defined by Teachers 69
Table 8. Overview of Teachers' Daily Lesson Activities 71
Table 9. Features of LCT Strategies Applied in Classrooms 72
Table 10. Essentials of a Lesson Plan: Teachers' Responses 76
Table 11. Summary of Findings from Teachers' Lesson Plans 77
Table 12. Classroom Set Up 77
Table 13. What Some Teachers Say About Their Ability to Self-Reflect on Their Teaching
Methods 79
Table 14. Assumed Teacher Motivation Findings 81
Table 15. Teachers’ Reasons why LCT Strategies are Beneficial to Learners 82
Table 16. Why Some Teachers Do Not Use LCT in Their Classrooms 84
Table 17. Assumed Organizational Findings 90
Table 18. Summary of Findings 96
Table 19. Continuing Needs 99
Table 20. Summary Action Steps for Communicating LCT to the Staff and Parents of IPS 101
Table 21. Summary Action Steps for Goal Setting in LCT Strategies 102
Table 22. Summary Action Steps for Professional Development in LCT Strategies 104
Table 23. Summary Action Steps for Professional Development In Incorporating LCT Strategies
In Lesson Plans 105
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 8

Table 24. Summary Action Steps for Training Supervisors the Value of LCT Strategies 107
Table 25. Evaluation Plan 111

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 9

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
The problem of practice addressed by this dissertation is low teacher engagement in
learner-centered teaching (LCT), specifically in Uganda (Akello, Timmerman, & Namusisi,
2016). In a three-year study conducted on pedagogical renewal in three Northern Uganda
primary schools, it was observed that classroom activities in primary schools were teacher
dominated, characterized with rote learning and memorization with minimal attention to LCT.
Classroom displays were also inadequate and inappropriate for the learners; teaching aids and
textbooks under-utilized (Akello et al., 2016; Altinyelken, 2010a). Akello et al. (2016)
describes LCT as a process where pedagogical practice is done at individual and group levels,
using suitable teaching aids while evaluating students now and then to gauge their understanding
of what is being taught. LCT encourages learners to actively participate in classroom activities,
develop their thinking skills, engage in group activities, improve interactions with each other and
their teachers and improve their learning through physical interaction with the learning materials
(Akello et al., 2016; Hara, 1995; Paris & Gespass, 2001; Sikoyo, 2010). Applying this teaching
practice is a challenge in Uganda, as learning still hinges on the teachers as facilitators. The
learners still need prompting to ask and answer questions independently. The teaching aids are
old and not up to date with what is current (Akello et al., 2016).
This problem is not limited to Uganda, or even to East Africa, and has been difficult to
solve. In South Africa, for example, despite the country-wide teacher training in Outcomes
Based Education (OBE) – a system that introduced LCT, teachers continued instructing in the
traditional rote system (Alexander et al., 2010). Another study conducted on students in the
University of Western Cape revealed that 40% of the students were memorizing their notes and
took pride in writing them down from memory – a method used to ensure they pass exams and
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 10

demonstrated a lack of conceptualizing the problems (Linder & Hillhouse, 1996). A more recent
study revealed that OBE is still not implemented in many South African schools due to poor
communication about its inception; teacher-centered teaching is still predominant in South
African schools at lower and higher levels (Kola, 2018). In other parts of the world such as
Malaysia, skilling for future employment and economic growth focuses on competencies in
creative thinking, analysis, decision making and logical reasoning – these competencies
constituting the 21st century workplace skills (Fong, Sidhu, Gurnam, & Fook, 2014). Yet, a
study exploring 21st century skills among Malaysian post-graduate students indicated a general
lack of skills such as creativity and inquiry among the students. Their limited conceptualization
of ideas needed for 21st century employment was largely due to their earlier teacher-centered
learning and focus on passing examinations (Fong et al., 2014). Likewise, in Pakistan, teaching
multi-level science is largely done by rote memorization of what the teacher shares. Much of
what they cannot memorize is lost by the learners, and this has long-term negative effects on
learning (Safdar, 2013). In Pakistan, teachers have recognized the need to move away from
teacher-centered teaching, gradually letting the learners direct their own learning (Yasmin et al.,
2017). In Bulgaria, both teachers and learners resist applying LCT autonomy, a fact that may be
attributed to their cultural beliefs (Boyadzhieva, 2016).
If classrooms continue to emphasize rote memorization and teacher-centered teaching,
the learners’ ability to conceptualize what is taught will be limited, as knowledge is directly
consumed from teacher or textbook to learners (Lithner, 2008). In pursuit of the short-term goal
of passing exams, the learners will not develop the competences for deeper thinking, analysis and
conceptualization of problems. This would result in long-term challenges in knowledge
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 11

application and a heavy reliance on instructions rather than problem-solving skills that are
important for the 21st century workforce (Lithner, 2008; Safdar, 2013; Sikoyo, 2010).
Background of the Problem
The Importance of Learner-Centered Teaching
The problem investigated is related to Uganda’s larger national issue of producing a
future generation without the attributes needed in future workplaces, including critical thinking
and problem-solving skills, due to the lack of classroom environments developing and modeling
these attributes (Sikoyo, 2010). The concept of LCT dates as far back as the 20
th
century, with
educators and psychologists such as John Dewey, Jean Piaget, B.F. Skinner, and William
Chandler advocating for learner-centered education to nurture cognitive development (Ediger,
2012). To borrow from the experience of America, Cohen (1998) elaborates the dangers of rote
learning and mentions Dewey’s efforts in advocating for progressive learning in America.
Despite Dewey’s support for LCT, he was concerned with the bigger picture that had emerged as
a result of the existing education system that created social, political and economic inequalities,
fueled by industrial capitalism (Papong, 2014). Dewey’s concern highlights how a lack of LCT
practices could affect a country’s social, economic and political stratus. Dewey believed in
education encompassing the need for inquiry-based learning (Papong, 2014; Stoller, 2018).
Uganda’s thematic curriculum, which was designed to focus on the learner, has numerous
challenges including inadequate teacher training, cultural correctness, large teacher-pupil ratios,
an examination-based system, few teaching aids, and low teacher morale (Altinyelken, 2010).
Although these challenges exist, some education stakeholders believe Uganda’s curriculum has
numerous good ideas and is well-intentioned (Altinyelken, 2010). LCT does not only favor the
learners, it also gives the teachers the autonomy to develop and control their own teaching. This
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 12

makes teaching easier as teachers apply their own methods in their own timing, while
maintaining the official curriculum (Jeffrey & Woods, 2009). In applying the learner-centered
approach to teaching, the learners’ intellectual development is stimulated, social, emotional
development enhanced, while maintaining mutual respect between teachers and learners (Woods
& Jeffrey, 1996).
Globally, there is increased focus on moving classrooms away from teacher-centered
learning and toward learner-centered teaching. In South Africa, for example, the post-apartheid
regime realized the importance of reducing education inequalities through improvement of the
existing education system. The introduction of the OBE within the national curriculum
promoted learner-centered pedagogy that would recognize the learners’ individual needs and the
necessity for them to succeed at different stages (Alexander et al., 2010). In Iraq, the shift from
the traditional teacher centered to LCT is viewed as a modern-day educational practice believed
to portray learners and teachers as communicators. Learners are exposed to the building of
knowledge and the processes of developing cognitive abilities through observations and
reflections (Muna Mohammed, 2017). At the same time, in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, the
move towards LCT revealed the need to train teachers to be able to apply learner-centered
pedagogies in their classrooms (Hardman, Ackers, Abrishamian, & O'Sullivan,, 2011). Without
this training, few changes were seen in actual classroom practices. For example, the seven-day
training time for teachers in LCT in Uganda was too short to make any lasting impact on the
teachers (Hardman et al., 2011). All of these are indicative that teacher-centered teaching and
learning is still prevalent despite widespread efforts to move toward more learner-centered
teaching (Agrahari, 2016; Broadhead, 2001; Sikoyo, 2010).
Changing Workplaces and Workplace Needs
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 13

Driver’s (2001) study on developing creative workplace environments indicates that
learners are encouraged to demonstrate creative behaviors through deliberate stimulation and
development of these behaviors. This may be done through instructional methods and
integration of creative ideas in the curriculum. Learners exposed to such curricula are more
likely to continue applying creative ideas at the workplace. Likewise, Sias et al. (2017) and
McKenna (2014) suggest that today’s students need to be equipped with the skills to understand
complex subjects and be able to adapt to the new technology. The 21st century workforce
demands the ability to conceptualize questions and discussions. This requires learners to listen,
ask relevant questions, negotiate and work together with the teachers to explore and find
solutions to complex problems (Ackers & Hardman, 2001).
Allowing learners the proficiency of analyzing multifaceted problems is part of life and is
an on-going process that should be embraced and encouraged in order to obtain meaningful
education and the transformation of who we are (Stoller, 2018). The 21st century educators are
preparing learners through allowing collaboration, teamwork and knowledge sharing – all of
which are relevant to today’s workplace environments and augment creativity (Turnbull,
Littlejohn, & Allan, 2012). Designing applicable valid learning activities could encourage
learners to embrace positive attitudes towards teamwork and sharing of knowledge at the
workplace (Turnbull et al., 2012).
Teacher-Centered Teaching as an Ongoing Concern
In Kenyan schools studied, Rowell (1995) found evidence indicating the prevalence of
teacher-centered teaching, rote learning and memorization. During classroom instruction of
English, mathematics and science in grades 3 and 6, teacher-directed forms of teaching were
prevalent in those schools. These findings were replicated in other developing countries such as
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 14

Namibia and Southern Africa (Rowell, 1995). In South Africa, studies reveal that the traditional
rote teaching system still prevails over the OBE and teachers need to be trained and empowered
to deliver the new curriculum (Alexander et al., 2010). The studies also suggest that the teacher-
dominated teaching stifles creative thinking among students (Rowell, 1995).
A study of Ethiopia’s kindergartens reveals that despite the use of terminologies such as
“learner-centered”, “playful”, and “nurturing”; some schools did not adhere to the learner-
centered philosophy and practice. The reasons varied between parents’ pressure for academic
excellence, lack of awareness or unqualified trainers (Tigistu, 2013). In Senegal, despite the
significant progress in the education system, rote teaching is still prevalent. Learners’
international assessments indicate no improvement in performance since 1996 and that teachers
are still grappling with understanding the mathematics and science contents of the learner-
centered system (Miyazaki, 2016). The parent-triggered pressure was also found to be
significant, with parents wanting to ensure that academic performance precedes learner-centered
pedagogies and learning through play. Teachers are, therefore, left with minimal options for
LCT if they must meet the parents’ expectations (Tigistu, 2013).
In Uganda, the introduction of thematic learning at the lower primary level was an
exciting change for the teachers and learners (Altinyelken, 2010). However, a number of
challenges ranging from overcrowded classrooms, insufficient textbooks and learning aids, and
low teacher motivation, ensued. The demand on teachers to apply learner-centered methods
amidst a class of over 70 learners was overwhelming. It was inevitable that rote teaching would
remain the best option under the circumstances and, today, is still prevalent (Altinyelken, 2010,
2012). Even countries from the more developed world, such as Norway, have struggled with the
new elementary (6-9 years) and intermediary (10-12 years) curriculum integration of thematic,
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 15

active learning and project work. This new curriculum encouraged more engagement with the
environment in teaching and more students’ engagement and leadership in classroom activities.
However, it was a challenge for teachers to implement this curriculum and be able to complete
their required syllabus in time (Broadhead, 2001).
Teachers who lack qualifications to deliver LCT are usually seen to use rote teaching in
their classrooms. They struggle with understanding and teaching complex material and may
often blame their ineffectiveness on their students (Darling-Hammond, 1996). LCT brings
schools closer to the real world and real problems are solved collaboratively (Ediger, 2012).
Students who are taught through the teacher-centered way may achieve academic success, but
they ultimately struggle in analyzing complex issues at the workplace, lack problem-solving
skills and initiative, and struggle in finding well-paying jobs (Caron, 2007; Darling-Hammond,
1996; Ediger, 2012). Teacher-centered teaching is not effective in that it is difficult to tell what
students have actually learnt. The rote memorization targets short-term test results, but the actual
learning takes place with deeper, thoughtful analysis that takes place through LCT and
discussions (Norman & Spohrer, 1996). In order for systems of education to move toward an
LCT approach, teachers and building their capacity need to be at the center of the reform efforts.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
The problem of practice of reliance on teacher-centered teaching in Uganda is important
to solve for a number of reasons. Researchers have advocated for LCT as the core of critical
thinking and collaborative practices that would help learners think and develop the skills and
competencies they will need as professionals at future workplaces (Thompson, Licklider, &
Jungst, 2003). LCT can foster growth and critical thinking skills that learners could
continuously apply to consolidate and retain important knowledge. Learners’ metacognitive
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 16

abilities would be enhanced so that they would eventually not need to apply as much effort in
solving complex problem at their workplaces (Thompson et al., 2003). LCT has been found to
be effective at all levels of learning, be it K-12 or higher education, because as students learn
collaboratively, their fear of being judged reduces, and their confidence increases as they become
better problem-solvers. They learn to filter information, build on what they already know, and
continue to apply those practices in their day-to-day environments (Megwalu, 2014).
Teacher-centered teaching, on the other hand, as is prevalent in Uganda, presupposes that
the teacher is the custodian of information and the learner is the consumer of the information
(Boyadzhieva, 2016; Fahraeus, 2013; Megwalu, 2014). The process of consuming knowledge
without much contribution negates the ability for learners to be motivated and own their thinking
and learning process. LCT enhances motivation among learners as they get autonomy in
consuming and disseminating knowledge. Students develop confidence in themselves and a
better understanding of themselves and their ability to make choices; contributing towards
problem-solving and life-long learning (Boyadzhieva, 2016; Fahraeus, 2013). As students
become active contributors to classroom discussions, they develop the life-long competence to
reflect on what they are learning, and own their thinking process (Fahraeus, 2013).
Schools are under immense pressure to support students’ learning to meet the 21st
century skills required for the “intellectually and interpersonally demanding jobs for the new
economy” that require creativity and critical thinking (Darling-Hammond, 1996, p. 6). The act
of delivering instruction in classrooms, without ensuring that learning is taking place, has been
challenged. Teaching to dispense information and attain grades will be replaced by focusing on
the students’ needs, demands and learning techniques, which requires a different kind of teacher
– one who is flexible, knowledgeable and skilled in delivering such pedagogy. The pressure for
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 17

schools to meet the new challenges is on – advocating for talent development and intellectual
stimulation (Darling-Hammond, 1996).
The challenge for some schools in Uganda to handle learner-centered pedagogy through
the thematic curriculum is exacerbated by a lack of teacher preparation, lack of resources and
overcrowded classrooms (Altinyelken, 2010b; Ssewamala, Wang, Karimli, & Nabunya, 2011),
with some classroom average sizes as high as 92 pupils (Akello et al., 2016). It is important that
the lack of LCT practices is addressed in Uganda to enhance the learners’ ability to acquire the
21st century skills such as problem solving, cooperation and autonomous learning needed at the
workplace and to enhance economic, political, and social development (Agrahari, 2016). The
2016 / 2017 Uganda Bureau of Statistics reported the unemployment rate at 9.7 million, out of
the working population of 18.8 million people. Uganda’s population was at 37.7 million at that
time (Uganda Bureau of Statistics, 2018). With such a high unemployment rate, it is important
to re-visit pedagogic practices to see how new approaches to teaching and learning can positively
affect the future working generation.
Organizational Context and Mission
Imeri Primary School (IPS; a pseudonym) is a private day school, located in Makindye
Division - Kampala, the capital city of Uganda in East Africa. The school is fairly new, having
been established in 2010. The school’s Mission is to use learner-centered pedagogy in educating
their learners, to maximize their full potential (school website). The current school enrolment is
at 380, with learners aged from 6 to 12 years, which constitute grade one to grade seven.
Imeri Primary School currently employs 32 teaching staff. The teachers’ academic
qualifications vary between Masters, Bachelors, Diplomas, and Grade 5 and 3 teaching
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 18

certificates. The primary role of staff members in each department is assisting the children, staff
and parents to achieve their primary objectives, in line with the school’s Mission.
Organizational Performance Status
The organizational performance problem at the root of this study is a lack of LCT
practices in Imeri Primary School classrooms. Rote teaching super cedes any other way of
teaching, with learners asked to repeat after the teacher or memorize in order to recall and be
able to answer the questions according to the teachers’ preference. This way of teaching has
hampered the ability for learners to think for themselves and to create new ideas beyond what the
teacher feeds them in the classroom environment (Fahraeus, 2013; Paris & Gespass, 2001).
Moreover, some activities that may require experiences beyond the classrooms, such as
exploring nature, feeling and touching things in their natural settings beyond classrooms, using
technology, and individual research may not be stimulated in many classrooms where learners’
thoughts and responses are guided by what the teachers know, as teachers continue to lecture
without stimulating the learners’ thinking capacity (Dezure, 2004; Fahraeus, 2013). In order to
fulfil the organization’s mission of providing learner-centered pedagogy, it is crucial to
understand why teachers do not use LCT methods in class. If LCT methods of teaching are
applied, the school will likely enrich their students in real life skills in critical thinking,
creativity, problem-solving, and collaboration, which would positively affect their lives and
future opportunities at the workplace (McKenna, 2014).
Organizational Performance Goal
The organizational performance goal is that by February 2022, IPS will execute a
coordinated curriculum across grade levels that will incorporate LCT practices in and outside the
classroom. This goal was set by the IPS administrative team, together with the teaching staff,
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 19

during their goal-setting retreat in January 2019. The teachers will all be assessed partly
through classroom observations where teachers’ and learners’ engagement, collaborative LCT,
decision making in classrooms, creation and use of classroom props and other resources will be
observed. Findings from the observations will be shared with each teacher on a termly basis as
well as continuously discussed on a weekly basis, through the subject teams. LCT guidelines will
be shared and discussed with teachers prior to the beginning of each term. It is believed that
with continuous guidance and support, teachers will be able to attain this organizational
performance goal.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
The following stakeholders directly contribute towards achieving the organization’s
performance goal.
1. School Administrators: This stakeholder group provides the leadership, guidance,
mentoring and assistance to staff members and ensures that the teachers and other staff
members have the resources required to do their jobs ably and professionally.
2. Parents: The parents share expectations, especially in the learner-centered area. These
ideas need to be incorporated in the teachers’ workplans and curriculum to ensure that
they are applied in and outside the classrooms. Parents also participate in school
activities to guide their children in home assignments. That way, they are kept informed
about what their children are doing at school and take an active role in their children’s
school progress.
3. Teachers: The teachers are the primary implementors of the LCT curriculum. They carry
the biggest responsibility of planning and executing the new curriculum. They need to
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 20

engage with their learners, peers, parents and administrators in the planning process to
ensure all stakeholders are on the same page.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Table 1
Organizational Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
To use learner-centered pedagogy in educating their learners, to maximize their full potential
Organizational Performance Goal
By February 2022, Imeri Primary School will execute a coordinated curriculum across grade levels that
incorporates LCT practices in and outside of the classroom.

School Administration Parents Teachers
By August 2021, school
administration will
create and communicate
a vision for LCT
practices.
By October 2021,
parents will engage in
discussions with the
school around learner-
centered experiences
they would like to see
incorporated into their
children’s learning.
By December 2021,
each teacher will develop
and implement LCT in
their curriculum.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although the three main stakeholders are important for the achievement of the
organizational performance goal, the main focus of this study was on the teaching staff, who will
be directly implementing the stated goal of applying LCT methods in and out of the classrooms.
The teachers are the primary implementors of the curriculum and will be assessed based on their
use of the new curriculum. Although the school administrators, parents, and teachers will
together be involved in the formulation of the new curriculum, teachers will ultimately be the
ones who need support, guidance and supervision in its implementation. If the intended goal is
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 21

not achieved, the school risks graduating learners who lack critical thinking skills and may
struggle fitting into the 21st century job market.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a gap analysis to examine the root causes of
the organizational problem, lack of LCT in and out of the classrooms. While a complete gap
analysis would focus on all IPS stakeholders, for practical purposes the stakeholders focused on
in this analysis were the teaching staff. The analysis focused on causes of this problem due to
gaps in the areas of teachers’ knowledge and skill, motivation, and organizational resources. The
analysis began by generating a list of possible or assumed influences that were then examined
systematically to focus on actual or validated causes.
As such, the following questions guided this study:
1. What is the teacher knowledge and motivation related to LCT?
2. How do the school policies and culture support or hinder knowledge and motivation in
LCT?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and organization
solutions?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization, was implemented as the conceptual framework. The
methodological framework was a qualitative case study with descriptive statistics. Assumed
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences that interfere with organizational goal
achievement were generated based on personal knowledge and related literature. These
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 22

influences were then assessed by using document analysis, interviews, observation, literature
review and content analysis. Research-based solutions were recommended and evaluated in a
comprehensive manner. This research sought to allow for improvement in practice related to
LCT.
Organization of the Project
Five chapters are used to organize this study. Chapter One provides the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about using LCT in classrooms.
The organization’s mission, goals and stakeholders as well as the initial concepts of gap analysis
were introduced. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature surrounding the scope of
the study. Topics of creativity, pedagogy, technology, and funding are addressed. Chapter Three
details the assumed interfering elements as well as methodology when it comes to the choice of
participants, data collection and analysis. In Chapter Four, the data and results are assessed and
analyzed. Chapter Five provides solutions, based on data and literature, for closing the perceived
gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 23

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter examines literature on Learner-Centered Teaching (LCT) in Uganda and
other parts of the world. The subject of learner-centered teaching, also commonly referred to as
“child-centered learning” (Norman & Spohrer, 1996), was widely discussed as early as the 20
th

century and before. Leaders such as John Dewey (1859-1952), William Chandler Bagley (1874-
1946), and Jean Piaget (1896-1980) shared their views on LCT and its effects to the present-day
workplace (Ediger, 2012). This chapter delves deeper into learner-centered pedagogy – what it
is and why it is important for this study. Discussions include what the literature says about LCT,
especially in Uganda, and how teachers apply their teaching strategies in Uganda and beyond.
General insights into the benefits and challenges teachers face in applying LCT and the teachers’
role in applying learner-centered strategies in their curriculum are presented. Literature is
reviewed for insights on how LCT affects the 21st century workplace. In addition, teachers’
ability to implement learner-centered pedagogy is discussed using Clark and Estes (2008)’s Gap
Analytic Conceptual Framework, examining the knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences on teachers at Imeri Primary School in Uganda using Learner-Centered Practices.
Learner-Centered Teaching
The Meaning of Learner- Centered Teaching
While different researchers, scholars, teachers and authors have come up with several
ways of defining LCT, their concepts on the subject seem to be in general agreement. Agrahari
(2016) refers to LCT as an environment where teachers need to control the need to be the
custodians of all the information and involve their students in the process of information-sharing.
However, several researchers also define learner centered as a learning experience where
attention is focused more on students, their choice of what to learn, and where students interact
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 24

more with each other, usually collaborating in groups and undertaking self-regulated learning
(Pierce & Kalkman, 2003). While the students interact with teachers, they also interact with
fellow students and their engagement is more dominant than the teacher instruction (Lattimer,
2015; Minter, 2011; Norman & Spohrer, 1996; Pierce & Kalkman, 2003).
LCT gives attention to students’ talents and abilities. Their needs are prioritized, and
individual problems are given attention, which gives learners a sense of accomplishment as they
take control of how they learn. LCT recognizes learners as the focus in the classroom, instead of
teachers (Agrahari, 2016; Fung, 2015; Sikoyo, 2010; Treesuwan & Tanitteerapan, 2016). The
following themes have emerged and have been repeatedly used to define, describe and discuss
learner-centered practices. A summary of these practices is listed below, and these will be used
to guide this study into what is considered as LCT (Lerkkanen, 2016; Perry, 2007; Brough, 2008;
Sikoyo, 2010; Altinyelken, 2010a; Altinyelken, 2010b, Fung, 2015; De Bilde et al., 2015).
(a) The learners are considered as the knowledge constructors and the teacher has a guiding
role; will give emotional support; stimulate conversation and action. The learners have
the right to influence the direction of the lesson.
(b) Learners are divided into small, manageable groups. A lot of learning takes place within
group activities.
(c) A lot of collaboration among the group members. The teacher checks to see how learners
are progressing.
(d) Learners are involved in the classroom decision-making.
(e) Activities are organized around a variety of learning aids such as number, word and
picture flash cards, readers, children’s own work, group work and other tools they may
choose to use. They explore, observe and practice using the learning aids.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 25

Learner-Centered Teaching in Uganda
Uganda’s population was approximately 34.6 million people in 2014 (UBOS, 2014) and
by 2016, it had increased to 41.4 million (World Bank, 2019). Of this population, approximately
20 million (58%) were students aged 5 to 29 years, the majority of whom were school- going
age. In 2016, government (public) primary school enrolment was 7.1 million and private
primary school enrolment was 1.5 million students (Ministry of Education and Sports, 2019).
The introduction of the Universal Primary Education (UPE) system in 1997 saw the primary
school enrolment dramatically increase from 2.6 million in 1996 to 7.5 million in 2008
(Altinyelken, 2010a; Altinyelken, 2010b; Ssewamala et al., 2011). The average teacher-student
ratio for primary schools also increased as the gross enrolment ratio shot up to 113.1 percent and
the net ratio to 93.3 percent (Aguti & Fraser, 2005; Akello et al., 2016). The large classroom
sizes were not easy to handle by the teachers, and they were a big challenge in resource
distribution as well (Akello et al., 2016; Munde & Njage-Rwito, 2018).
Although LCT was perceived as a more effective way of teaching, several reports
suggested teaching challenges characterized by lack of preparedness, lack of teaching materials,
teacher-centered instruction dominance, and budget cuts resulted in poor education quality
(Altinyelken, 2010b; Ejuu, 2012; Ssewamala et al., 2011; Tembe, 2006). In addition, LCT in
Africa is difficult to achieve due to lack of qualified human resources, teaching aids and
curriculum design (Akello et al., 2016). More challenges lie in teachers’ perceptions about the
learner-centered curriculum, how it is implemented, teacher training duration and what they
think students should be learning and cultural perceptions (Altinyelken, 2010a; Lattimer, 2015).
Teacher training in Uganda is done through various institutions, where teachers earn
basic certificates, grade three and grade five certificates, diplomas, degrees, post graduated
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 26

diplomas and post graduate degrees (Ejuu, 2012). While Uganda’s education budget has been
increasing over the years (Ushs 2.7 billion in 2016/2017; 2.8 billion 2017/2018 and 3.1 billion
2018/2019), only 16 percent of the overall 2018 / 2019 budget was allocated for primary
education (Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development, 2019). Teacher training
is also inadequately financed and a number of schools, especially public schools, are poorly
funded and cannot afford good, well-trained teachers (Ejuu, 2012, 2014; Lattimer, 2015). In a
study conducted on Early Childhood Development (ECD) teacher training in Uganda, only 46
percent of the trainers held a bachelor’s degree, and all these had no ECD teacher training
qualifications (Ejuu, 2012). Of the trainers with ECD experience, only 14.3 percent held ECD
diplomas, and 3.8 percent held a master’s in ECD. The rest of the trainers were diploma and
certificate holders – signifying a big gap in the quality of the general ECD program (Ejuu, 2012).
Most of the primary school teachers in Uganda are grade three certificate holders, with a
minimum entry requirement of O-Level certificate (Aguti & Fraser, 2005).
In a study conducted on neighboring Kenya, eight of the 41 head teachers had qualified
through Teacher Training Colleges and 33 had university degrees. The level of teacher
qualification was significantly higher in Kenya than Uganda. These statistics imply a significant
qualification gap in Uganda, in teaching and implementing new policies such as learner-centered
pedagogy in ECD and primary schools (Carnoy, Ngware & Oketch, 2015; Ejuu, 2012). Besides
the large classroom sizes with students ranging between 50 to 200 per stream (Akello et al.,
2016; Munde & Njage-Rwito, 2018), it is difficult for teachers to pay attention to students’
individual needs and focus is basically on rote teaching, as is the case in a number of African
countries (Altinyelken, 2010b). The need to train more teachers – new and old is imminent.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 27

Uganda has suffered conflicts and wars in the late 1960’s and mid-1980’s (Altinyelken,
2010a). The effect of these wars in many parts of Uganda, including destruction of schools, lack
of books and instructional materials, and untrained and underpaid teachers, all reduced the
quality of education in Uganda (Altinyelken, 2010a, Altinyelken, 2014). Policy changes such as
use of local languages in implementing the thematic curriculum were protested by teachers and
parents for fear of affecting performance in higher classes (Altinyelken et al., 2014). Through
observations, it was noticed that teachers’ interpretation of LCT differed from the policy makers’
intentions. Inadequate teacher training, large class sizes, lack of teaching aids and text books,
low teacher morale, and time-planning challenges all affected successful implementation of LCT
in Uganda (Altinyelken, 2010a).
While LCT faced challenges in Uganda, it became a critical focus of education reforms,
such as changing to thematic curriculum (Akello et al., 2016; Altinyelken, 2010) and the plans to
achieve the Millennium Development Goal of attaining universal primary education by 2015
(Higgins & Rwanyange, 2005). The education curriculum reform in Uganda was implemented
in February 2007, with the intention to improve student performance in numeracy, literacy and
life skills (Altinyelken, 2010) through the thematic curriculum. However, there was skepticism
over the adoption and implementation of the thematic curriculum by the teachers (Altinyelken,
2010a), and it faced more challenges in the early 2000s, with the failure of Uganda’s Ministry of
Education to endorse it for its lack of attention to social subjects such as reading, listening,
speaking and writing - subjects that the LCT advocates for (Penny et al., 2008). With its focus
on the core subjects such as Mathematics, English, Science and Social Studies and inadequate
teacher training in LCT, implementing the new thematic curriculum was going to be very costly;
learning aids were insufficient and nobody was accountable to move it forward since it was not
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 28

particularly assigned to any department (Penny et al., 2008). These curriculum reforms with their
greater emphasis on LCT, as originally designed, were intended to address the changing 21st
century workplace and position Uganda’s youth to succeed.
The Changing 21st Century Workplaces
How Workplaces are Changing
There has been considerable transformation at the workplace in the last 50 years.
Educators are recognizing the need to engage their students to attain self-directed actions in
using technology, collaboration, creativity and imagination to be able to fit in the 21st century
workplace’s changing dynamics (Holt & Brockett, 2012). Countries and institutions must invest
in more people and equip them with the 21st century skills to bridge the skilled employment gap
and promote economic growth (O’Lawrence, 2017). Even with such suggestions, it is not easy
to really know what future workplaces will look like, especially in the world of fast
computerization and robotics, where creativity is an on-going everyday phenomenon (Benedikt
& Osborne, 2017). However, it is estimated that about 47 percent of jobs in America, for
example, fall in the high-risk category of getting automatable (Benedikt & Osborne, 2017), and,
as a result, students must be equipped to solve complex problems with minimal supervision – a
competence that will be needed at the workplace (O’Lawrence, 2017).
The skills and competencies, such as socialization and self-efficacy, research calls for in
changing workplaces can be nurtured through LCT practices. Learner-centered practices
encourage creativity during the learning process, which in turn enhances learning (Edmond,
Neville & Khalil, 2016). Group learning, a strong learning style in learner-centered teaching,
enhances social skills and information sharing, thus improving learning and collaboration. These
same competences are encouraged in today’s workplace (Al Achkar & Davies, 2016).
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 29

The Importance of LCT in Changing Workplaces
Workplace expectations of 19
th
and 20
th
centuries often required minimal decision-
making skills. Schools and workplaces looked to produce workers for growing industrialism, as
manufacturing and factories called for workers suitable for taking orders and doing as told, and
in turn earned minimally. In the United States in the early 1990s, The US Department of Labor
Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS) turned to investigate the skills
students needed to ably join the workforce in the future (Anonymous, 1992). They concluded
that competences and foundation were the most crucial skills needed (Anonymous, 1992).
Foundation skills such as reading, writing and speaking; arithmetic and science, listening,
communication and quick thinking; social skills such as integrity, honesty, responsibility,
accountability; problem-solving, computation, and leadership were all part of what was thought
important for students to acquire as they joined the job market (Anonymous, 1992; Marshak,
1992). LCT as earlier defined encompasses those skills and if practiced on a daily basis in the
school set-up would allow students to easily integrate into the workplace (Anonymous, 1992;
Marshak, 1992).
Because LCT emphasizes working in groups and problem-solving, it has the potential to
provide a bridge between systems of education and the workplaces of the future they will need to
support (O’Lawrence, 2017). A need exists to focus on supporting students to fit into the 21st
century workforce through deliberately changing the education system from being exam-oriented
and individualistic to all-encompassing classroom arrangements - equipping teachers to carry out
learner-centered strategies that will prepare students to be imaginative, creative, better
communicators and better technologically advanced (O’Lawrence, 2017; Schleicher, 2011;
Smith-Adcock, Shin, & Pereira, 2015). Integrating creative environments in the classrooms is a
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 30

good way to inculcate workforce creativity through application of the same competences (Driver,
2001). A study on creative classroom environments revealed that as organizations become
proficient in creative abilities, students are increasingly stimulated into demonstrating more
creative behaviors in the classrooms (Driver, 2001; Smith-Adcock et al., 2015), which in turn
benefits the organizations. Preparations to build students as problem-solvers should begin right
from kindergarten and continue through primary and into higher education to promote their
collaborations and independence; motivating them to solve complex problems in subjects such as
science, technology, engineering and math. Learner-centered classrooms hold the potential to do
this (Sias, Nadelson, & Seifert, 2017).
There is a tendency for traditional schools to focus on literacy – writing and reading, at
the expense of listening, speaking and effective communication (Falk, 2011; Marshak, 1992).
Traditional schools are content that what is taught would most likely not change much – a fact
that the fast-growing technological changes such as the internet, has disputed (Schleicher, 2011).
LCT, by definition, is modeled to equip students with needed skills and competencies in
changing workplaces. The 21st century workplace demands employees to be effective
communicators, collaborators, and have the ability to understand and organize data. Abilities to
understand their personal strengths, weaknesses, learning styles and personal organizational
skills are also valued. Time management skills, keeping an organized schedule and general
personal management skills are all workplace competences that LCT can effectively equip
students with (Marshak, 1992; Nadelson & Seifert, 2017). Ensuring learners perform well and
move on to good universities can no longer promise a good career (Tumuheki et al., 2016). 21st
century education is not about what teachers teach, but how learners use what they have learned
to create new ideas (Schleicher, 2011). Therefore, the need is to focus on teaching strategies that
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 31

encompass the learners’ growth in all areas of their lives – economic, social, and physical; which
requires a different kind of education (Tumuheki et al., 2016).
Teaching in Learner-Centered Classrooms
The Role of Teachers in Learner-Centered Teaching
LCT has been promoted by different education psychologists such as Dewey, Piaget and
Vygotsky, dating as far back as the 20
th
century (Winsler & Carlton, 2003). One of the biggest
challenges of the 21st century teacher is the need to strike a balance between giving students the
autonomy to self-direct their learning and how much the teachers should intervene in order to
maintain the LCT (Winsler & Carlton, 2003). A learner-centered curriculum puts the child’s
needs first and focuses on individuality (Altinyelken, 2010; Izumi-Taylor & Rogers, 2016;
Lattimer, 2015; Winsler & Carlton, 2003). It is believed that the child’s full development is
enhanced by a curriculum designed to meet their developmental needs (Fung, 2015). There are a
number of ways teachers can use instructional delivery in creative, learner-centered ways,
benefiting both the teacher and students. The use of learning materials such as books, flash
cards, pictures – even technology such as online learning – can empower students to study at
their own pace, practice concepts on their own, be accountable and consult their teachers in case
they need assistance (Agrahari, 2016). The use of online syllabuses by teachers may also help
students to get organized – a skill that is required at the 21st century workplace (Agrahari, 2016;
Pierce & Kalkman 2003).
In a learner-centered classroom, collaborative learning and knowledge sharing is
increasingly being used by teachers (Turnbull et al., 2012). In a study of design students, for
instance, students who shared knowledge with others yielded better creative results than the
individualistic students (Turnbull et al., 2012). Teachers could, therefore, apply student
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 32

collaborative methods to generate better results in classrooms, which skills would ultimately be
transferred to the workplace. Teachers have the ability to boost their students’ progress when
they believe in the students’ abilities (De Bilde et al., 2015; Sorhagen, 2013). LCT calls for self-
motivation of students combined with active monitoring. The opposite effect may happen,
hampering students’ progress, when teachers dampen their students’ spirits by planting doubt in
their intelligence. These beliefs may go on with the students to adulthood and may affect their
performance throughout life (Sorhagen, 2013).
In LCT, teachers can assume the role of mentor and advisor to the students (Ortiz-
Marrero & Sumaryono, 2010). In a school that exhibits independent functions, the children and
teachers are bound to behave democratically by working with their teachers and together agree
about their learning needs (Gwaltney et al., 1998). If students are left to use the language of
choice, for instance, free writing devoid of tests, judgments and corrections, their
communication, critical thinking, reading and writing skills can be enhanced (Ortiz-Marrero &
Sumaryono, 2010). Whereas the teacher’s role in delivering a learner-centered curriculum is
crucial and can enhance the learner’s freedom, it can also threaten the freedom to learn if it is
controlling (Fang, 2015). When teachers apply creative ways of enhancing learning rather than
enforcing rote teaching, the effects have long-lasting impact (Thomas, 2007). In addition to
ensuring that their students learn, teachers in LCT environments are tasked with giving equal
opportunity to all students, understanding and respecting their feelings, respecting differences
and catering to moral issues as they offer classroom instruction (Mangubhai, 20017). All these
are embedded in the LCT ideology.
Some scholars believe that LCT pedagogical changes are difficult to implement for a
variety of reasons, including a lack of necessary teacher knowledge to implement LCT
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 33

(Altinyelken, 2010) and sometimes teachers’ resistance toward adopting them (Fahraeus, 2013;
Weimar, 2013). This results in a gap between policy and implementation of LCT in classrooms.
In Namibia and South Africa, for instance, LCT was adopted to counter pre-independence
inequalities. It was believed that LCT would improve peoples’ social status from being
predominantly agricultural-based to modern knowledge-based (Chisholm & Leyendecker, 2008).
Teachers are tasked to change their teaching strategies from knowledge-based delivery and adopt
strategies suitable for jobs that have not been created yet, which require creative, motivated and
unforeseen skills (Schleicher, 2011).
Challenges to Teaching in Learner-Centered Practices
The teachers’ will to deliver LCT is sometimes affected by other competing expectations.
Sometimes teachers’ perceptions of what is “learner-centered” may vary between teachers and
schools (Izumi-Taylor & Rogers, 2016). Some teachers perceive LCT as a way of setting up a
conducive classroom environment with minimal interference and letting the students take the
lead in their learning (Winsley & Carlton, 2003). This can meet reluctance from teachers to give
up their autonomy in the classroom and has also come up as a major factor hindering LCT
(Butler, 2012; Paris & Gespass, 2001).
In Uganda, in particular, learner-centered practices were marred by inadequate teacher
training (Altinyelken, 2010; Vavrus, 2009), lack of materials and teaching aids (Hardman et al.,
2011; Mobegi et al., 2010; Ssewamala et al., 2011), unqualified trainers, inadequate monitoring
time and personnel, large class sizes (Sweisfurth, 2015), English as a medium of instruction, and
student absenteeism (Altinyelken, 2010). In addition, schools are constantly under pressure from
parents and administrators to achieve high scores in final examinations (Ballou & Springer,
2015; Lattimer, 2015; Sweisfurth, 2013; Vavrus, 2009). The pressure on teachers to complete
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 34

the syllabus and focus on revisions to perform well on exams is usually demonstrated through
teachers’ pre-occupation with the chalkboards and writing of notes to complete the curriculum
(Lattimer, 2015; Vavrus, 2009). More noticeable is when co-curricular activities are removed
from school programs and more time is allocated to mainstream subjects, tests, revision and
remedial time. Due to the pressure to deliver good test results, some teachers have turned to
egregious ways of cheating, such as changing students answer sheets and coaching students
during testing season (Ballou & Springer, 2015). In Namibia, implementation of LCT was
affected by local and cultural existences that were under-estimated by policy makers who, in
some cases, advocated for LCT without learning what it was about (Chisholm & Leyendecker,
2008).
In Uganda, LCT practices are further challenged by inexperienced teachers, students’ fear
to speak up and ask questions or challenge the status-quo, low student engagement in classroom
activities, absenteeism, lack of flexible programing of lessons at school, and lack of self-drive
from the students and teachers (Nakabugo et al., 2007). Uganda is not alone in the concentration
on standardized test scores and the struggle to raise test scores. In the United States, many
school districts have come up with ideas to improve students’ test scores such as after-school
programs in math and other subjects to help improve performance (Ballou & Springer, 2015).
Teachers, administrators and researchers are devising ways to improve students’ performance in
standardized tests. Teachers know the value of LCT but sometimes do not put that knowledge to
good use when it comes to practice, because they are focusing on tests and scores (Izumi-Taylor
& Rogers, 2016).
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 35

The following sections discuss three specific teacher-related challenges in implementing
LCT practices, including teacher training, parent pressure, and particular challenges in the
context of Uganda.
Teacher training. Teachers often do not receive the needed training to change
curriculum to enrich its learner-centeredness (Izumi-Taylor & Rogers, 2016; Vavrus, 2009).
When teachers do not conceptualize what it takes to deliver learner-centered pedagogy within the
curriculum, they may interpret it to be entertainment rather than play that enhances the children’s
development (Izumi-Taylor & Rogers, 2016; Lattimer, 2015). In America, despite the long-term
commitments by districts to train teachers and university tutors in learner-centered pedagogy
(Baker & Clendaniel, 2006), some teachers are more comfortable using the same traditional
teaching methods. Reasons range between the teachers’ past successes in teaching in their own
way, or because the teachers were taught in the same way (Sias et al., 2017). Critiques of the
LCT are mainly concerned that teachers are not equipped enough to implement the LCT
practices (Lattimer, 2015; Rogan & Grayson, 2003). In addition to implementation challenges,
there are general divergent views on what leaner-centered means (Bovill, 2015; Lattimer, 2015),
depending on different countries and schools of thought (Bovill, 2015).
One of Uganda’s challenges, especially in government primary schools, is the lack of
well-trained professional teachers (Altinyelken, 2010). However, some effort has been made to
train existing and new teachers in order to fill the big gap created by the increment in enrolment
(Aguti & Fraser, 2005; Higgins & Rwanyange, 2005). A number of teacher training programs
were established in the 1990’s, some of which are distance learning programs such as the
Mubende Integrated Teacher Education Project (MITEP), the Northern Integrated Teacher
Education Project (NITEP), Teacher Development and Management System (TDMS), and
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 36

Diploma in Primary Education (DPEE; Aguti & Fraser, 2005). Although these programs
registered some successes, they encountered a number of challenges such as high teacher failure
rates in the MITEP, 306 (35.4%) out of 900 teachers passed, while 384 (42.7%) failed and 197
(21.9%) did not complete the program (Robinson & Murphy, 1996). Other challenges like
program sustainability and quality of the program delivered also affected the effectiveness of the
program (Aguti & Fraser, 2005). Teacher training to implement LCT practices remains a
challenge in many global contexts, including Uganda.
Parent pressures. In many global contexts, parents are under pressure to ensure their
children score highly in order to get enrolled into the top schools. In Singapore, the preparation
time for the Primary School Leaving Examinations (PSLE), just like Uganda’s Primary Leaving
Examinations (PLE), is one filled with tension for students, teachers and parents (Usiskin, 2012).
The final results will determine which child is taken in which schools. Performance, therefore, is
very significant (Usiskin, 2012). For Singaporean parents to ensure their children attain high
scores, additional after school classes and individual tutoring take place at the parents’ cost
(Usiskin, 2012). In addition, Parents are under pressure to have their children learn a language in
order to score high in the standardized tests (Ortiz-Marrero & Sumaryono, 2010). In China,
parental expectations are not much different from Singaporean parents. The pressure to get their
children in good colleges, high career aspirations, especially in science and the prestige that
comes with getting into a good college – all these factors contribute to exerting pressure on
learners to perform well (Hou & Leung, 2011; Usiskin, 2012). In China, a number of learning
strategies, such as memorization or rote learning, are used to ensure learners recall what they
studied and answer accordingly (Cai & Zhu, 2017). The pressure to pass the Gaokao
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 37

examinations in China is real and teachers resist the government policy to adopt LCT because
they are assessed according to how their students pass examinations (Yan, 2015).
Ugandan parents and teachers are not much different when it comes to performance
expectations from their children. The pressure on schools to cover the syllabus quickly and
embark on revisions in order to register first grades, super cedes the teachers’ commitments to
deliver learner-centered pedagogy (Nakabugo et al., 2007). Secondary schools and universities
in Uganda consider academic performance and entry examinations over other competences such
as sports and other co-curricular activities to enroll new students (Kyoshaba, 2009). Attention is
therefore taken away from other social, psychological needs and other approaches to learning to
meet the demands of academic improvement (Nakabugo et al., 2007).
Challenges of practicing learner-centered teaching in Uganda.
Teaching LCT is still a challenge facing teachers in many Ugandan schools. For
instance, in teaching local languages in Uganda, the learner-centered pedagogy was a challenge
to the teachers. To register considerable improvement, more use of instructional materials and
continuous small group assessments were needed (Akello et al., 2016). Continuous assessment
is a challenge because of the high average teacher – pupil ratio of 1:95 (Akello et al., 2016;
Ministry of Education and Sports, 1995). There is need for continued teacher training and
professional development for successful implementation of the learner-centered program (Aguti
& Fraser, 2005). Teachers still maintain center stage in classrooms, even where LCT was
introduced. There is also a need to replace old learning materials to reflect current issues that
learners can relate (Akello et al., 2016).
A number of researchers have advocated for LCT as a way to shape learners into
problem-solvers and collaborators to encourage genuine learning, rather than memorization
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 38

(Dezure, 2004; Falk, 2011; Katsuko, 1995; Weatherholz, 2003,). Teachers are tasked to attend to
their learners’ individual needs, social interactions and less on cognitive abilities in classrooms.
The teacher’s main role is to guide the learners while giving them autonomy to be in charge of
their own learning, while balancing power between them and the learners and creating a learning
environment conducive to the learners’ needs (Dezure, 2004; Weatherholz, 2003). The biggest
challenge in effecting the learner-centered curriculum has been training, motivating and
supporting teachers to improve their skills and do a professional job. When changes are made,
such as the introduction of Universal Primary Education in Uganda and the National Assessment
of Progress in Education (NAPE) test results declined, most of the blame in any perceived
negative outcomes is thrown to the teachers (Penny et al., 2008). The lack of training and support
combined with blame for any perceived negative outcomes presents challenges to teaching
learning-centered practices.
Teachers’ Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences on Performance
This study employed Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to delve deeper into
the influences affecting the problem of practice. Specifically, the study examined the teachers’
knowledge, motivation and their organizational influences to deliver LCT in Imeri Primary
School. Under the knowledge influences, the study focused on the teachers’ factual, procedural
and metacognitive abilities to deliver LCT. Teacher motivation was evaluated through utility
value, attributions and self-efficacy; while the organizational influences were evaluated through
the cultural set up of the school. The school’s ability to communicate, facilitate professional
development, set measurable goals and give rewards to excellent performers were examined in
relation to delivery of LCT in IPS. A more detailed review of these influences follows.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 39

Knowledge and Skills
The following literature focuses on knowledge-related influences that are important to the
development of learner-centered teaching in teachers’ curricula. Better skills in reading, math,
and child development are associated with learner-centered teaching; while teacher-centered
skills are known to have the reverse effect (Lerkkanen et al., 2016). While teacher-centered
learning aims at inculcating knowledge in the learners in a uniform way, it tends to ignore
independent learning among children. Learner-centered teaching focuses on nurturing the
child’s thinking capacity (Katsuko, 1995). It is therefore important to examine teachers’
knowledge in designing and implementing a learner-centered curriculum.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) suggests four different knowledge types: factual,
conceptual, procedural and metacognitive. The definition of factual knowledge is the
understanding of definitions and terms. Conceptual knowledge is knowledge pertaining to
relationships, processes, and categories. Procedural knowledge is "how to" steps and
strategies, whereas metacognitive describes one’s action of self-assessing or self-monitoring.
For teachers to effectively implement learner-centered teaching, it is important to amplify the
key features (Ambrose et al., 2010) of a learner-centered curriculum (factual); methods of
creating a learner-centered curriculum (conceptual); steps necessary and how to incorporate
strategies of learner-centered teaching in lesson plans (procedural); and teachers’ self-
reflection on adjusting their teaching to maximize learner-centered teaching (metacognitive)
as elaborated below.
Knowledge of the key features of learner-centered teaching versus traditional,
teacher-centered teaching. In the teacher-centered teaching approach, the teacher’s main focus
is to ensure the curriculum content is mastered and the students score highly (Katsuko, 1995),
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 40

while the learner-centered teacher aims to ensure that individual skills develop, needs are met
and diverse learning takes place (Katsuko, 1995; Lerkkanen et al., 2016). This literature
supports the importance of teachers’ knowledge and understanding of the difference between
delivering learner-centered versus teacher-centered teaching. This study specifically explored the
teachers’ factual knowledge about learner-centered approaches to teaching before turning to how
teachers apply this knowledge in their daily teaching activities.
Knowledge of how to develop learner-centered teaching practices. In addition to
knowing the benefits of learner-centered and the disadvantages of teacher-centered teaching,
educators need to engage in learner-centered practices that will effectively stimulate growth,
creativity and self-worth among the students. Stipek et al. (1998) observed that teacher emphasis
on students’ intellectual, social and emotional needs, rather than skills, improved their learning
outcomes. As discussed by Brough (2008), “Teachers need to determine when to ask questions
to extend ideas, when to stand back, when to intervene and when to teach new strategies, skills
and knowledge” (p. 12). Results from a study in Finland on first year students’ math and reading
skills revealed that those associated with child-centered learning performed much better than the
teacher-centered students. The students exposed to teacher-centered practices registered no
positive effects on academic development (Lerkkanen et al., 2016). This study, therefore,
examined IPS teachers’ knowledge of how to develop learner-centered teaching practices.
Knowledge of how to incorporate strategies of learner-centered teaching into all
subjects’ lesson plans. Incorporating learner-centered teaching in the lesson planning makes
teaching easier and gives the teacher opportunity to focus on the teaching goals (Amini, 2011).
In order to facilitate independence, teachers need to know how to implement some of the
following strategies. During class time teachers should (a) put their students at the center of
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 41

learning so they can take an active role in decision-making (Brough, 2008); (b) encourage small
group activities; (c) be cognizant of what is occurring in class and should consider students’
individual problems; and (d) observe students’ problem-solving skills (Amini, 2011; Perry et al.,
2007). Rufo’s (2013) classroom study, for instance, revealed his fourth graders’ independence
and self-reliance when they were left to explore on their own, which rendered the teachers as
supporters, rather than the knowledge custodians and authority figures. This is revealed as an
exciting time of classroom teaching, which teachers need to embrace, learn and incorporate in
their lesson plans (Amini, 2011). This study examined the extent to which teachers have
knowledge on how to incorporate strategies of learner-centered teaching into their lesson plans.
Self-reflective practice to adjust teaching to maximize learner-centered teaching. In
order to improve in implementing a learner-centered curriculum, teachers need to exercise self-
reflection to determine their strengths and areas of improvement. For instance, self-reflective
practice was demonstrated in a study where teachers developed self-awareness skills and
knowledge about learner-centered learning processes and hands-on activities (Goldman &
Grimbeek, 2015; Kirpalani, 2017). The ability of teachers to assess themselves and act on self-
improvement strategies reveals a maturity in developing counseling skills within the teaching
profession (Goldman & Grimbeek, 2015; Schreurs & Dumbraveanu, 2014; Smith-Adock et al.,
2015).
Table 2 summarizes the different knowledge influences and types that may affect the
achievement of the teachers’ goal of developing and implementing learner-centered teaching in
their curriculum.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 42

Table 2
Assumed Teacher Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge Influences Knowledge Type
Knowledge of key features of learner-centered teaching
versus traditional, teacher-centered teaching.
Declarative (Factual)
Knowledge of the methods of creating a curriculum based on
learner-centered teaching.
Declarative (Conceptual)
Knowledge of how to incorporate strategies of learner-
centered teaching into all subjects’ lesson plans.
Procedural

Knowledge of how to reflect on their own effectiveness in
implementing learner-centered instruction in the classroom.
Metacognitive

Motivation
In addition to knowledge, motivation is a key influence on performance. Behaviors give a
reliable indication of how motivated people are: when they start, persist and invest mental effort
in their given tasks (Dembo & Seli, 2016). Schunk, Pintrich, and Meece (2008) define
motivation as the initiation and maintenance of targeted activities while Maehr & Meyer (1997)
refer to motivation as an individual’s personal investment in reaching a desired goal. Knowing
how to do a task does not mean people necessarily want to (Rueda, 2011). This fact is true of
teachers, who are as affected by motivational issues as are their students and administrators
(Rueda, 2011). In the realm of education, motivation for teachers, students and administrators is
the heart of teaching and learning (Maehr & Meyer, 1997).
Dembo and Seli’s (2016) motivation theories such as self-efficacy, utility value and
attributions will give more insights into how motivation influences behavior. Self-efficacy is the
belief in personal capabilities, and is mostly associated with past successes (Bandura, 1995;
Dembo & Seli, 2016; van Dinther, Dochy, & Segers, 2015). Teachers with high self-efficacy are
more likely to embrace LCT strategies and apply them, than those with low self-efficacy. In
addition, utility value as a motivation theory is the kind of significance one attaches to learning
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 43

(Dembo & Seli, 2016). This means that the choice of activities will be as a result of the value
teachers attach to these activities. Attributions as another form of motivation, are the perceptions
people have of the causes of success or failure in an activity (Bandura, 1995; Dembo & Seli,
2016). Teachers should attribute their learners’ success to their efforts in applying LCT
strategies. The following sections apply some of the motivation theories such as self-efficacy,
value and attribution theories to teacher motivation to implement LCT at Imeri Primary School.
These factors help explain motivated behaviors of choice, persistence and investment of mental
effort.
Teacher value for learner-centered teaching in supporting the student learning and
performance. Teachers need to see the value of their effort in applying learner-centered
teaching. Ambrose et al. (2010) affirms the importance for students to see value in learning. If
students are engaged in multiple activities, they will opt for those that seem most valuable to
them and leave the least valuable out. This same principle applies with teachers as they plan and
implement their teaching strategies in the classrooms. If they do not see any value in learner-
centered teaching, they will not be motivated to use learner-centered teaching methods. This
study, therefore, examined the perceived value by IPS teachers in implementing learner-centered
teaching practices.
Teacher attributions for student academic, social and skills development. Teachers
need to feel that their students’ success is as a result of their own efforts as instructors, rather
than students’ abilities or inabilities to learn. Educators should foster change in learners through
employing effective teaching methods (Mayer, 2011). If students’ progress is made through
effective learner-centered teaching approaches, teachers would likely be motivated to follow
through with what works for them for effective teaching. Mayer (2011) submits that students are
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 44

motivated to work harder when they attribute their successes or failures to their personal efforts.
This theory applies to teachers as well, as they get motivated in knowing that their students have
succeeded largely due to their efforts. This study examined the extent to which teachers attribute
student academic, social and skills development to learner-centered teaching methods.
Teacher efficacy for effectively implementing learner-centered teaching. Teacher-
efficacy may be described as the teachers’ judgment of their competence to successfully
accomplish a task (Bandura, 1995). Individuals who believe in their competence in certain areas,
who have higher expectancy in positive outcomes, are more motivated to persist in the tasks they
perform (Rueda, 2011). For teachers to employ learner-centered teaching, they will likely need
to have high self-efficacy in implementing learner-centered teaching programs. A high self-
efficacy would likely be translated in positive outcomes in terms of the effort they invest in their
teaching practices. A teacher’s perception of his or her effort and ability to successfully perform
may also motivate students to believing they can succeed and to ultimately performing well in
the subject (Ambrose et al., 2010). The more efficacy people feel about themselves, the more
accomplished they are likely to be in their efforts (Bandura, 1982). Teachers need to feel
confident in delivering learner-centered pedagogy, subsequently motivating their students and
leading to better performance.
Table 3 presents the assumed motivation influences that affect the achievement of the IPS
teachers’ goal of developing and implementing learner-centered teaching in their curriculum.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 45

Table 3
Assumed Teacher Motivation Influences
Motivation Construct Assumed Motivation Influence
Utility Value Utility Value – Teachers need to see the value of learner-
centered teaching in supporting student learning and
performance.

Attributions Attributions – Teachers should see that students’ academic
and social development skills are directly related to their
efforts in learner-centered teaching.

Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy – Teachers need to believe they are capable of
effectively implementing learner-centered teaching.

Organizational Influences
In addition to knowledge and motivation, organizational influences will affect
performance of teachers in implementing learner-centered teaching. Motivation and skills are
not enough to ensure that work is effectively done. Material resources and organizational
processes are key in determining performance in any organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). This
principle is applicable to educational institutions. In addition, the interaction of different people
with each other in the school setting creates a mix of multifaceted behaviors, which ought to be
kept in mind (Rueda, 2011).
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) categorize two organizational influences: cultural
models and cultural settings. Cultural models are the environmental and societal norms that
define how things are, or should be, in particular settings (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001).
Cultural models are usually invisible, taken for granted, and only noticeable when something
considered out of the norm happens. Cultural settings are defined as the practices, policies or
structures in a community – real life, everyday occurrences such as policies within a community
(Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural settings are easier to change than cultural models.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 46

This study, in particular, reviewed the cultural settings of IPS. According to Gallimore and
Goldenberg (2001), cultural settings are the spaces where people come together to undertake
activities that are of significance to them. With that in mind, this study reviewed the following
organizational settings and their influence on teachers’ learner-centered teaching practices: (a)
the role of communicating the importance of learner-centered teaching to the teachers; (b) the
provision of opportunities for professional growth in learner-centered teaching; (c) setting of
clear, measurable and achievable goals to incorporate learner-centered strategies in the lesson
plans and classrooms; and (d) mechanisms designed to recognize or reward staff achievements in
learner-centered teaching.
School communication about the importance of learner-centered teaching. The
students’ success highly depends on the teachers and their supervisors’ performance and the
cooperation between the teachers and the school management (Aslanargun, 2015).
Organizational culture and processes need to be effectively managed to achieve effective
performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). The IPS school management needs to clearly communicate
their expectations in delivering LCT to the teachers, the benefits of using LCT and guide them
on using learner-centered teaching methods. Supervisors need to ensure that all teachers
understand what is required of them to teach effectively and teachers need to consult their
supervisors whenever there is a communication gap. Poor school communication in learner-
centered teaching policies would most likely lead to ineffective teacher performance and
ultimately negatively affect students’ performance. This study looked at the types and frequency
of communication about the importance of LCT to teachers at IPS.
School provision of opportunities for professional development in learner-centered
teaching. Rueda (2011) argues that professionalizing teachers would boost the quality of
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 47

students and education. Team members need to understand that each one of them would
uniquely contribute to the growth of the organization (Clark & Estes, 2008). Teacher beliefs
affect their future actions (Dunn & Rakes, 2010) and so teachers need to believe in the benefits
of LCT, thus the need to align, motivate and provide training in LCT to teachers to ensure they
are on the same page. Teachers, like any other employees, need to be skilled in the LCT
strategies for successful and positive change (Schreurs & Dumbraveanu, 2014). Even when
teacher training opportunities are available, teachers sometimes want to stick to what they know
and feel disempowered if their tailored, structured way of teaching is disrupted, rendering
implementation of LCT a challenge (Schreurs & Dumbraveanu, 2014; Dunn & Rakes, 2010).
For many teachers, the lack of training in LCT limits implementation and effectiveness of LCT
(Sikoyo, 2010; Ssewamala et al., 2011) and ultimately negatively affects students’ performance.
Effective teacher development in LCT will provide teaching strategies that will ensure all
students’ individual needs are met, students develop analytical skills and a sense of responsibility
(Dunn & Rakes, 2010). This study examined the types of professional development teachers at
IPS have received related to learner-centered teaching practices as well as additional professional
development that might be helpful to implement these practices in their curricula.
Setting of clear, measurable and achievable goals to incorporate learner-centered
strategies in the lesson plans and classrooms. Setting clear goals and implementing them leads
to success (Rader, 2005). When teachers set goals, they get a sense of direction, bring meaning
to their instruction as they guide students and achieve professional growth (Rader, 2005; Camp,
2017). When teachers encourage students to set goals, students are inspired to assess their own
dreams, learning techniques and get guidance from teachers (Rader, 2005). The knowledge and
motivation influences as previously discussed would be attained better if the organization’s goals
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 48

and practices in LCT were set (Clark & Estes, 2008). Setting clear and achievable school goals
in learner-centered teaching and communicating them to the teachers would ensure teachers
focus on teaching according to the school policies. The student-teacher relationship would
improve. Teacher and students’ self-efficacy would also improve and ultimately successful
teaching and learning would be achieved (Camp, 2017; Rader, 2005). This study examined how
the school administrators and teachers set goals that are geared towards learner-centered
practices in IPS.
School recognition and rewarding of staff achievements in learner-centered
teaching. A study on the reward system introduced in a university in Sweden suggested that
rewarding of teaching staff generally yielded positive results. More reflective teaching on both
the professors and students was observed (Olsson & Roxå, 2013). Rewarding could be
scaffolded in several layers, such as professional development, teacher autonomy and mastery,
consultative support and other improvement plans (Olsson & Roxå, 2013). Teachers experience
many changes as they perform different roles such as instruction, innovation, mentoring,
curriculum development, personal and professional development, friendship – which may be
difficult to evaluate, but ought to be rewarded or recognized (Irby & O’Sullivan, 2018). In order
to encourage teachers to embrace LCT, rewards must be beneficial to the teachers and the
institution (Azumi & Lerman, 1987). The school must be cognizant of different teacher needs
such as financial, peer recognition, authority (Azumi & Lerman, 1987). The recognition and
rewarding of teachers who have demonstrated use of learner-centered teaching methods could
lead to improvement in student performance through improved teacher performance and
retention (Azumi & Lerman, 1987). This study assessed how often teachers are rewarded or
recognized for implementing learner-centered teaching in IPS.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 49

Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences
Organizational Influence Category Assumed Organizational Influence
Cultural Setting Influence 1 The school needs to communicate the importance
of learner-centered teaching.

Cultural Setting Influence 2 The school needs to provide opportunities for
professional development in learner-centered
teaching.

Cultural Setting Influence 3 The school needs to set clear, measurable and
achievable goals to incorporate learner-centered
strategies in the lesson plans and classrooms.
Cultural Setting Influence 4 The school needs to recognize or reward staff
achievements in learner-centered teaching

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 50

Conclusion
The literature presented in this chapter examined the factors influencing LCT
implementation globally, with a focus on Uganda’s experiences. The chapter discussed changing
21st century workplaces and the importance of LCT in this context. The chapter also discussed
the role of teachers in a LCT environment and challenges and opportunities facing teachers
developing and implementing LCT instruction. The chapter then turned to Clark and Este’s
(2008) conceptual framework for examining Imeri Primary School teachers’ assumed
knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on developing and implementing learner-
centered teaching in their curriculum. Chapter three discusses the methodological approach that
was employed in this study to understand these assumed teachers’ knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences toward improving LCT practices in Imeri Primary School.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 51

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This study explored teacher engagement in learner-centered teaching (LCT) in a primary
(elementary) school in Uganda. This chapter presents the research design and methods for data
collection and analysis, and the following questions guided the research.
1. What is the teacher knowledge and motivation related to LCT?
2. How do the school policies and culture support or hinder knowledge and motivation
in LCT?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation and organization
solutions?
A qualitative study was conducted in a primary school in Kampala through classroom
observations and interviews. This study design was selected because LCT practices can best be
investigated through probing and triangulation with interviews, observations and document
analysis to have a deeper understanding of the responses and reduce biases that may arise with a
single research method (Maxwell, 2013). This chapter discusses teachers as key stakeholders in
this study, the data collection strategy, reasons for the choice of this strategy, how data analysis
was carried out, credibility and trustworthiness, ethics, and limitations and delimitations.
Participating Stakeholders
Becoming an effective teacher takes considerable time – often at least three years or more
(Ambrose et al., 2010). This study targeted full-time teachers of IPS with teaching experience of
at least two years. The study assumed that teachers with at least two years of teaching
experience would be well conversant with LCT practices at IPS. In addition, newer teachers
would most likely not have learnt the school policies and culture to respond with confidence to
questions about the organizational policies and culture. At the time of the study, all participants
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 52

were teaching at IPS. The planned sample size was a minimum of seven teachers (one teacher
per class) up to 14 teachers (two teachers per class) until saturation. This was representative of
one to two teachers per class, from Primary One (P.1) to Primary Seven (P.7). As discussed
below, 16 teachers were interviewed and 15 were observed. One of the teachers was conducting
Grade Seven examinations throughout the research period, so they were not observed. Grade
Seven learners were also not observed for the same reason. For purposes of maintaining a
balanced study, this teacher’s interview was not included in the study.
Observation and Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Teachers were observed first before being interviewed. This is because observing them
limited biases in teachers’ instruction that could arise out of the interview questions if teachers
were interviewed first. All observed teachers were interviewed. This helped in data
triangulation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Maxwell, 2013) and was convenient in terms of time
and cost. The strategy was to observe up to two teachers per class from P.1 to P.7 to bring the
sample size to a maximum of 14 teachers who were meant to represent all seven classes in the
school. However, in actual fact, 16 teachers were interviewed and 15 were observed. The
selection of participants was done by one of the lead teachers, who randomly selected names,
coming up with 16 choices. All classes were represented from the samples, with at least two
teachers per class. All of the teachers who were observed were also interviewed, except one of
the P.7 teachers who was interviewed but was not observed as mentioned under the participating
stakeholders’ section above. For purposes of balancing the study, this teacher’s interview was
not used in the findings.
Observing and interviewing teachers from all seven classes was meant to narrow down
the possibility of biases that could result from interviewing teachers with lower (P.1 to P.3),
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 53

middle (P.4 to P.5) or upper grade (P.6 to P.7) teaching experience. For instance, if the lower
primary teachers were stronger in applying LCT strategies, limiting interviews to them could
have swayed the study results in one direction if the upper primary teachers were not
interviewed. The study targeted teachers with a minimum of two years teaching experience at
IPS. However, some of the teachers had spent less than two years – some two terms or slightly
more, which was still ample time to have learnt the school’s policies in LCT. Additionally, all
participants had teaching experience of five to fifteen years. Fifteen teachers were observed in
nine classrooms (P.1 to P.6) and teachers from all the grades (P.1 to P.7) were represented. In
some instances, the same classes were observed, but different teachers were teaching.
Observation and Interview Sampling Criterion and Rationale
Since the same teachers were observed and interviewed, the criterion did not change
between interview and observation.
Criterion 1. The participants were full time teachers of Imeri Primary School. The full-
time experience put these teachers in a better position than part-timers to get familiar with and
experience the full school schedule and calendar, culture and norms. They were in a good
position to know about the learner-centered programs organized by the school.
Criterion 2. To ensure that the teachers interviewed were familiar with the school
culture, policies and politics - experience needed to inform this study’s research questions, the
participants should have worked for two years or more at Imeri Primary School. This criterion
was not fully followed because according to the list of the teachers available, a number of them
were relatively new. Some of them had spent two three terms in IPS. The researcher went ahead
to interview these teachers because of their overall teaching experience, which ranged between
five to 15 years. In addition to observing the teachers’ actions, teaching styles and their
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 54

involvement with the students, the researcher observed the classroom set-up (including the
displays), handouts or teaching aids used, lesson plans and lesson notes, number of children and
teachers in the classroom, number of supporting staff and any other occurrences going on in the
classroom at the time.
Observation Sampling (Access) Strategy and Rationale
With official permission from the administrative staff, the researcher briefly met with the
Head Teacher, who introduced the researcher to the participants. The aim for the meeting was to
explain the purpose of conducting the study and to get prior permission to observe and interview
the teachers. The meeting served the purpose of establishing initial contact with the participants
and created a relaxed atmosphere before joining them in the class as a student researcher. After
making acquaintances, the researcher scheduled appointments with participants for conducting
observations and interviews. All observations were conducted inside classrooms, during class
time. Interviews were mainly carried out in the school library, but a few were conducted from
classrooms. Observations of all teachers and document analysis took place before conducting
interviews. During observations, the teachers were not privy to what the researcher was looking
for, which minimized some biases that could have resulted if interviews were conducted prior to
observations.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Data collection was done through observations, interviews and document analysis.

Observations

Using literature suggesting some of the learner-centered approaches to teaching,
the researcher observed 15 teachers as they conducted their lessons. Since most of the primary
school periods run between 45 minutes to one hour, each observation did not exceed one hour.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 55

Although there was an option to return to the same class if there was need for additional time,
this did not happen. Altogether, the researcher collected around 15 hours of observational data.
The observations mainly focused on how the teachers were applying LCT methods
during lessons, how they portrayed what they knew about LCT, how their school facilitated them
to apply LCT strategies and how they applied their own creativity in teaching. The researcher
used previous research to come up with the LCT definition and guidelines described in Chapter
Two (Lerkkanen, 2016; Perry, 2007; Brough, 2008; Sikoyo, 2010; Altinyelken, 2010a;
Altinyelken, 2010b; Fung, 2015; De Bilde et al., 2015; Perry et al., 2007; Brough, 2008) that
were used as a basis for the study. Prior to the observations, a priori codes for LCT were
generated to guide the observations. These codes helped in maintaining uniformity in the areas
that were being observed. Additional codes were generated during the transcription and analysis
process. Some of the key concepts observed included: (a) small group activities; (b) teacher
checking students for comprehension; (c) teacher observing students tackling tasks and only
intervening when required; (d) teacher paying attention to personal challenges, (e) students
making decisions; (f) teacher always in charge of the class and intervening when necessary; and
(g) teacher focusing on students during learning. These observations mainly informed the
assumed knowledge influences of the study. Observations and interviews were completed in one
week.
Interviews
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), people are interviewed because it is difficult to
tell what they feel, think and plan to do. This is why interviews were chosen over surveys for
this study, to be able to probe into the teachers’ knowledge, motivation and organizational
supports in the application of LCT and read their body language as well. Participants were
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 56

interviewed once, with an option to return to them in case there was need for further
clarifications (Weiss, 1994). Altogether 16 participants were interviewed, one participant was
dropped because they did not participate in observations.
The interviews had a mix of formality (in trying to extricate relevant and focused
responses) and informality (in maintaining open-ended questions and dress code, which was
business casual). As an instrument herself (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), the researcher applied her
role as a researcher to infer, probe and make sense of the information gathered to determine the
participant’s knowledge of LCT, especially the techniques, methods and benefits of LCT.
Although guiding questions were used for interviewing, the interviews sometimes took an
informal path, allowing probes, examples and any other ways to stimulate conversation and
additional information. Permission was granted in all cases to use audio recording to ensure that
everything discussed was retained (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Apart from one, all interviews
were conducted in the school library, away from occupied classrooms and a noisy and busy
environment. The advantage of staying in the school environment allowed for easy appointment
scheduling and access to the participants’ documents for further analysis. In fact, the overall
interview time was reduced to one week because the participants were very cooperative and
easily accessible during their break times.
All interviews were conducted in English, which is the formal and official language of
instruction of the school. The participants were recorded on audio using a cellular phone, while
key points were also taken down in a notebook. Notes were also taken of the environment,
including what was seen, the mood, relevant notices, observer’s comments, non-verbal cues,
facial expressions, body language, and classroom occurrences and environment (Maxwell, 2013;
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 57

Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A person was initially hired to transcribe the interviews, but in the
end the researcher had to re-do the transcription. ATLAS.ti was used for coding the interviews.
A pilot interview was conducted in a different school to determine the time each
interview would take and to get a feel of the flow of the interview. Field notes were documented
immediately after interviews in order to capture as much as possible close to real interview time.
Three to four participants were interviewed a day – each one individually.
Documents and Artifacts
Teachers’ schemes of work and lesson plans were reviewed and analyzed to help
triangulate information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Teachers were also requested to share what
they had as additional data. Lesson notes, and other teaching aids distributed in class were also
analyzed for any connection to the assumed knowledge influences of the study. Lesson plans
and notes were, for instance, analyzed to see if teaching methodologies and action plans reflected
learner-centered, rather than teacher-centered, teaching methods.
Data Analysis
“One of the most common problems in qualitative studies is letting your unanalyzed field
notes and transcripts pile up, making the task of final analysis much more difficult and
discouraging” (Maxwell, 2013, p.104), and so data analysis was planned to begin during data
collection. Unfortunately, this did not happen as planned because due to the school scheduling,
more participants were interviewed in a day than initially planned. It was not possible to catch
up with the daily transcripts. A priori codes were used and were built upon as the interviews and
observations progressed (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This
continued all through the data analysis stage, as new codes kept coming up. Basing on pre-
defined areas of LCT, the researcher documented her thoughts, concerns, and initial conclusions
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 58

about the data in relation to the conceptual framework and research questions (Creswell, 2018).
After leaving the field, interviews were transcribed and coded. In the first phase of analysis, a
priori codes from the conceptual framework were used. In the second phase of analysis,
empirical and a priori codes were aggregated into analytic/axial codes. In the third phase of data
analysis, pattern codes and themes were generated in relation to the conceptual framework and
study questions. Teachers’ lesson plans and schemes of work were analyzed for evidence
consistent with the concepts in the conceptual framework (Creswell, 2018; Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All this was analyzed in connection to the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational assumed influences on performance, as discussed in Chapter 2.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
As a researcher who is also involved in education, there is a likelihood to come with
biased views about the teaching methods, classroom set up, and what is consider as LCT. To
counter this, the researcher used other researchers’ literature and interview protocols to guide the
interview and answer the research questions. To increase credibility and trustworthiness to the
study, questions were focused on the conceptual framework. The data was triangulated with
interviews, observations and document viewing and analysis to ensure that what was mentioned
in the interviews was also evidenced in more ways than one (Maxwell, 2013). Documents such
as lesson plans, schemes of work, lesson notes, and classroom hand-outs were reviewed and
recorded after every interview and observation. Numbers were also used to quantify the times a
phenomenon was mentioned or observed (Maxwell, 2013). Member checking (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016), as well as re-visiting recorded data, helped in addressing reflexivity and
researcher bias.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 59

Ethics
This was a qualitative study, interviewing teachers and observing them during class time.
All interviews and observations were exclusively conducted by the researcher. Having gone
through training prior to the interviews, the researcher was in a better position to ask the right
questions, reduce biases, and be aware of, and avoid, unprofessional conduct and unforeseen
unethical behavior that other interviewers could assume during observations and interviews.
Prior to conducting the study, there was a requirement by the University of Southern California
to obtain the Institutional Review Board approval to carry out the research. This request was
approved. The researcher acquired a letter that identified her as a student from the University of
Southern California, which was shown – first to the institution leadership, then later shared with
the respondents before conducting the classroom observations and interviews. The letter
strengthened credibility before the school administration and the study participants and
ultimately reduced participants’ biases and fears. The voluntary nature of participating in the
study was also discussed with the participants (Glesne, 2011). The nature of this study was such
that the researcher could not fully disclose the real reason for the study without biasing the
teachers’ responses. However, the participants were assured that the study would not endanger
their positions as teachers in any way. Together with the teachers, the interview schedule was set.
Participants were notified that if there was need to change anything, guidance or permission
would be sought from them to adjust the program.
Before each session, the researcher requested permission to note down key information
and for the interview to be recorded. They were notified that if any information was shared off-
record, it would not be included in the research without their consent. The researcher also
respected the respondents’ time and space and adhered to the participants’ preferences. The
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 60

identity of the institution and respondents were kept confidential, and they were guaranteed their
right to privacy (Glesne, 2011; Maxwell, 2013). Pseudonyms were used where applicable and
nowhere in the study did people, place or institutions’ actual names appear. Respondents were
not put in any unnecessary risk or danger – be it physical, emotional or related to job loss.
Although some data had identifying information such as the participant mentioning their own
name, or the institution, this information was not included in the transcriptions. In addition, all
audio data was deleted from the phone, and stored on a password-protected computer.
According to Rubin and Rubin (2012), respondents should not be pressured into
answering questions they are not comfortable responding to. Respondents were not put under
any pressure to answer questions, and they were informed about the option to decline from
answering certain questions or withdrawal from the study. They were assured that nothing
would happen as a result of their withdrawal from the study.
Although no monetary rewards were given to the participants, the researcher planned to
send a note of appreciation to the school for allowing the study to take place, and the researcher
planned to share the final results with the institution as a sign of appreciation, bearing in mind
that teachers’ anonymity would be protected. The researcher was conscious of any personal
relationship with the respondents as they shared information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) to ensure
maintenance of a professional and ethical relationship. Sometimes researchers find themselves
in an unpredictable role that may cause them worry about the course of action (Glesne, 2011).
However, no such dilemma presented itself during the research period.
Limitations and Delimitations
As with all studies, there are limitations and delimitations in the research design.
According to Ellis and Levy (2009), limitations are the factors outside the researcher’s control.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 61

One of this study’s limitations was the possibility of participants changing their minds about
taking part in the study. However, this did not happen. Although observations were conducted
before interviews, there was a possibility that teachers could adjust their usual way of teaching to
influence the researcher in a certain way. In addition, there was a possibility for participants to
respond according to what sounded or made them look good when being observed as they
conducted their classes, rather than how they normally practiced. However, with probing and
triangulation, the responses were verified for accuracy. In addition, there was a likelihood for
participants to share their interview and observation experiences with others, causing a certain
awareness and biases in the subsequent interviews. For instance, in two instances, participants
shared their lesson plans with the researcher, before they were asked. This indicated that
participants had shared their experiences with others.
The decision to make an audio recording could limit the participant’s ability to open up
freely (Weiss, 1994). However, the reason for the recording was explained clearly, and the
researcher was able to gain the participants’ trust. Another possible limitation was the
researcher’s acquaintance with the school director, which was likely to bias the participants’
responses to the interview questions to reflect mostly positive outcomes. To mitigate this, the
researcher’s relationship with the director was not mentioned.
Delimitations are the constructs over which the researcher has control and are
intentionally left out of the study (Ellis & Levy, 2009). One of this study’s delimitations was the
selection to interview teachers with two or more years of teaching experience at IPS. This
choice was guided by the assumption that teachers with less than two years teaching experience
in IPS would not have mastered the school’s culture and teaching practices. In addition,
although only one interview was held with each teacher, sometimes it takes more than one or two
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 62

interviews for some participants to open up and give you the real information that would enrich
your data (Weiss, 1994). Another delimitation was that each observation and interview was
limited to one hour, maximum, which is the time it takes to conduct a lesson in the school. This
was mitigated by requesting for additional observation and interview schedules if the need arose.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 63

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study, as described in Chapter One, was to determine teachers’
engagement in learner centered teaching (LCT) in and outside of the classroom environment in
Uganda. It was assumed that teachers need particular knowledge, motivation and organizational
capacity to actively engage their learners using LCT methods in classrooms. Results and
findings of teachers’ knowledge, motivation and organizational preparedness to use LCT are
discussed in Chapter Four. To attain the workplace set goals, employees have to be skilled in the
knowledge of their jobs, be motivated in working and have to be supported by their organization
in achieving their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). The purpose of Chapter Four is to analyze the
findings from the assumed IPS teachers’ knowledge, motivation and organizational influences on
effectively engaging in LCT. Findings from the interviews are analyzed alongside the findings
from observations and documents. Chapter Five will discuss the suggested solutions and
recommendations in areas of continuing IPS teacher knowledge, motivation, and organizational
needs to effectively implement learner centered instruction.
This research was guided by three main questions:
1. What is the teacher knowledge and motivation related to LCT?
2. How do the school policies and culture support or hinder knowledge and
motivation in LCT?
3. What are the recommended knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organization solutions?
Qualitative data collection methods were used to investigate the validity of LCT in the
classrooms.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 64

Participants
Qualitative interviews were used to investigate LCT implementation in elementary school
classrooms at Imeri Primary School (IPS), from Grade One to Grade Six. Altogether, 16
participants were selected, invited, and agreed to participate in the study. Selection was done by
purposely picking teachers’ names from all grades (one to seven), folded the names and final
selection was made by a teacher, in the presence of the interviewer. The study targeted teachers
who had spent at least two years in the school. However, five of the participants had spent less
than one year (almost three terms) and two of the participants had spent one year or more, but
less than two years. It was assumed that although some of the teachers had spent less than two
years in IPS, their overall teaching experience would provide the knowledge that the study was
seeking. All of the teachers had teaching experience of five years up to 15 years. Table 5 shows
the demographic composition of the teachers.
Table 5
Demographic Composition of Teachers Interviewed (N=15)
Pseudonym
Age Range Gender Time Spent at
IPS
Teaching
Experience
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
35-39
25-29
30-34
40-44
35-39
24-29
20-24
30-34
25-29
30-34
30-34
40-44
40-44
35-39
40-44
Female
Male
Male
Female
Male
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Female
Male
Male
Female
Female
2.5 Terms
2.5 Terms
4 Years
3 Years
2 Years
1.9 Years
1 Year
4 Years
2 Years
2.5 Terms
4 Years
2 Terms
2 Years
3 Years
2.5 Terms
15 Years
5 Years
4 Years
20 Years
16 Years
6 Years
5 Years
10 Years
8 Years
10 Years
13 Years
10 Years
14 Years
13 Years
10 Years

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 65

Observations and Document Analysis
In addition to interviews, observations and document analysis were used to provide
additional information on the teachers’ assumed knowledge, motivation and organizational
influences on LCT strategies. Through classroom observations, the interviewer intended to
understand what LCT methods were being applied by the teachers in classrooms in real time. At
the same time, the teachers’ documents, such as lesson plans, lesson notes, teaching aids and
props, were analyzed for learner centered approaches and features in the planning process.
Classes in the lower primary section (P.1 to P.3) were observed for 45 minutes, and the upper
section (P.4 to P.6) were observed for one hour. Four classes (P.1S, P.2S, P.5S and P.6T) were
observed twice, but with different teachers, while (P.2T, P.2 combined, P.3S, P.4S, P.4T, P.5T
and P.6S) were observed once.
Findings for Assumed Knowledge Influences
Knowledge is pertinent to achieving success in job performance. Employees need to be
skilled, informed and trained in order to perform well (Clark & Estes, 2008). Six questions were
asked to better understand the teachers’ knowledge in LCT. These included three factual, one
conceptual, one procedural and one metacognitive knowledge enquiry. These questions intended
to understand the teachers’ knowledge about LCT practices –including how they defined and
perceived LCT. Through observations, interviews and document analysis, validation of LCT
practices was determined using the following features as guidelines:
(a) The learners taking leadership in the direction of the lesson and actively
engaging, as the teacher takes the guiding role.
(b) Learning being conducted in small groups in, or outside of, the classroom.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 66

(c) Collaboration among the group members, while the teacher monitors
progress and guides the learning process.
(d) Learners are involved in the classroom decision-making.
(e) Active use of learning aids such as a variety of flash cards, real life tools
and props, children’s own work and any other tools they may choose to use (Perry, 2007;
Brough, 2008; Sikoyo, 2010; Altinyelken, 2010a; Altinyelken, 2010b; de Bilde, 2015;
Lerkkanen, 2016).
Below were the knowledge questions asked to better understand teachers’ knowledge
related to these features:
1. Can you walk me through your normal lesson activities?
2. I had the opportunity to observe you teach the other day. On any other
day, if I walked into your classroom in the middle of your lesson, what will I most likely
see?
3. How many learners do you have in class? Do you think this is a
manageable class size? How does the class size affect the types of lesson activities you
include in your classroom, if at all?
4. What do you understand by the term “Learner Centered Teaching”?
(Factual).
5. Walk me through your procedure of drafting a lesson plan. (Conceptual).
6. In your opinion, as you draft your lesson plan, what elements of your
lesson plan(s) are a must? (Procedural)
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 67

7. Tell me about the last time you reflected (if at all), on your methodology
in teaching your subject in class. Probe: What changes did you make based on that
reflection, if any? (Metacognitive).
Table 6 presents a summary of the knowledge findings.
Table 6
Assumed Teacher Knowledge Findings
Knowledge
Type
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Instrument Result Explanation
Declarative
(Factual)
Knowledge of key features
of learner-centered teaching
versus traditional, teacher-
centered teaching.
Interview Continuing
Knowledge
Need
Only 40% of the
teachers were able to
mention some features
of learner-centered
teaching.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Knowledge of the methods
of creating a curriculum
based on learner-centered
teaching.
Interview Continuing
Knowledge
Need
Only 7% of the
teachers demonstrated
knowledge of methods
of creating a
curriculum based on
LCT.
Procedural

Knowledge of how to
incorporate strategies of
learner-centered teaching
into all subjects’ lesson
plans.
Interview

Document
Analysis
Continuing
Knowledge
Need

Continuing
Knowledge
Need
Only 13% of the
teachers demonstrated
the ability to
incorporate learner-
centered strategies in
their lesson plans.
Only 20% of the
teachers included LCT
strategies in their
lesson plans.
Metacognitive

Knowledge of how to reflect
on their own effectiveness in
implementing learner-
centered instruction in the
classroom.
Interview Current
Knowledge
Asset
80% described their
ability to reflect on
effectively using
learner-centered
strategies in the
classroom.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 68

Factual Knowledge
According to Brucks (1985), factual knowledge is relevant information that a person can
understand and recall. Through three questions on factual knowledge about LCT, assessment
was made to understand teachers' factual knowledge through their application of LCT methods in
their classrooms.
Knowledge of the Key Features of Learner-Centered Teaching Versus Traditional,
Teacher-Centered Teaching
Teachers were interviewed to determine what strategies they usually apply in their
classrooms and to see if these align with key features of LCT. The findings determined that of
the 15 participants, only six indicated use of LCT in the classroom during lesson activities. When
requested to give a definition of LCT, the findings revealed that only Teacher L was able to give
more than one LCT feature according to this study’s provision and definition of LCT practices.
The features Teacher L mentioned were the learners taking the lead in classroom activities and
the grouping of learners during classroom activities. The rest (11 out of 15) of the teachers only
defined LCT by one feature - the learners taking lead in the lesson or classroom activities with
the teacher’s guidance. However, on further probing, two more features (differentiation and
small class size) were revealed by two different teachers. Generally, the findings revealed that
most of the teachers did not have adequate factual knowledge of the meaning of LCT, other than
knowing that the learners are more involved in the teaching process. Some teachers gave vague
definitions such as, “Child centered teaching means that a lot of work concerning learning is
basically done by a child. Most of the time is given to the child,” or, “LCT is whereby teachers
give most of the work to the learners.” One of the interview participants, Teacher L, had the
following description of LCT:
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 69

For example, you have introduced the topic, you have given them some hints and you
find that there are some things you have not really exposed to them. You involve them;
you call them in the lesson. Sometimes you can ask a child to talk more about the lesson
and you find that the learners talk more. In fact, in LCT the teacher speaks less, his work
is to guide, but the lesson involves children.
While this teacher’s submission indicated features of LCT, the statement implies that the
teacher’s involvement seems to supersede that of the learners, and that ultimately teachers take
center stage in directing the lesson, while involving the learners in giving responses. Table 7
shows the teachers’ definitions of LCT.
Table 7
LCT as Defined by Teachers
Definition Teacher
1. LCT is whereby teachers give most of the work to the learners.
A
2. I feel it is just that aspect where a child is fully involved in the learning-teaching
process, A child is the one to facilitate the learning not the teacher.
B
3. I’ve never heard about LCT
C
4. Child centered teaching is when you give the learners themselves to own the lessons. It
is not me a teacher who is the source of knowledge.
D
5. Of course, learner centered is giving the children themselves to handle some of these
concepts and explain the best way they understand. The teacher limits his involvement
but guides on how to use it.
E
6. Me I think, like when you allow children to participate, not to feed them all the time as
the teacher but you allow them also to participate in the lesson.
F
7. To me it means making children more involved in the lesson that the teacher. Children
more active than the teacher.
G
8. To me, Child Centered Learning, is to make sure that I involve the children in the whole
lesson. From the beginning to the end, I have to give a chance to the children to make
sure that they are participating with me, I don’t need to just stand there and talk to them,
feed them. I have to give them a chance to tell me what they know, to ask me what they
don’t know, and we interact with each other.
H

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 70

Table 7, continued
Definition Teacher
9. Child centered learning is maybe when you're able to share with children and they are
able to give you the feedback, you guide them, they give you the feedback and not you
giving them the answers, direct. That one now means you’re the one feeding them,
you’re not getting their ideas. It means they are not learning. That one becomes child
the centered. It is a lesson where children are more involved in participation than the
teacher.

I
10. It is like when you bring the topic and let the children bring out their views. For you
participate little but most of the participation is from them
J
11. What I basically understand with such teaching is that the aim of that method is putting
the child at the center of learning. Actually, the child should be the teacher and the
teacher a facilitator.
K
12. Child centered learning is when you involve children in the lesson.
L
13. Child centered teaching, I think simply means that a lot of work concerning learning is
basically done by a child. Most of the time is given to the child. So, for me as a teacher,
I simply provide the child with learning materials and then I give the child the guidance.
So, I think then the child goes home to do the work. With my supervision, with my
guidance, I would have given the child the instructions, so I keep monitoring and
guiding.
M
14. Much of the work is done by children. You just explain and they do, then you
summarize. You need to first give them attention, learning materials, you interact with
them. We normally carry out the experimentation instead of children, you know when
you carry it out all of them are going to observe. But if you allow all of them to do,
they take their time, and you don’t use one child you have to use different. So Leaner
Centered Teaching is very good, but it consumes time.
O

The teachers’ definitions indicated a general limitation in knowledge of LCT to one area.
Most of them stated that LCT is when classroom activities and information is more generated
from learners than from teachers. For instance, when asked about the value of using LCT,
Teacher F shared the following:
Child centered learning helps these children express themselves. Wherever you give them
a chance, they express their feelings, they express their ideas, before you feed them [with
information]. Those are the values that I have got from them. Because sometimes you
think that they don’t know, and yet they know. Sometimes they even know better than
what you are going to give them, and when they participate, they don’t forget.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 71

Like most of the other teachers, Teacher F’s focus on LCT was centered around what the
learners thought or contributed, and other LCT features were not discussed.
To find out the LCT features used in the classrooms, teachers were asked to give a
recount of their routine lesson activities. Table 8 below gives an overview of the daily lesson
activities as narrated by teachers.
Table 8
Overview of Teachers' Daily Lesson Activities
Lesson Activities Frequency in Mentions
Greeting / welcoming
Ice breaker
Review of previous lesson
Activity / assignment
Introduction of new concepts
Marking (checking) of assignments
Starting with weak learners
Roll call (check attendance)
Corrections
Notes taking
Question and answer session
Guided discussions
Evaluations
2 times
10 times
7 times
8 times
13 times
6 times
1 time
2 times
1 time
3 times
4 times
3 times
3 times

In describing their lesson activities, some of the features of LCT emerged. Table 9
summarizes the key features of LCT that were mentioned by the teachers.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 72

Table 9
Features of LCT Strategies Applied in Classrooms
LCT Feature Frequency in Mentions
(out of 15 participants)
Explanation
Differentiation 2 times Teachers are able to pay attention to all learners –
weak and strong.
Class size 15 times Small class size is more manageable in order to
cater for all learners’ needs.
Grouping of learners 2 times Learners can teach each other in case some have
not understood (peer teaching).
Learners taking charge of the
lesson
13 times Learners can take the lead in explaining what they
know; learners can take charge of their learning.

The number of mentions in the above table presents teachers’ insights of what transpires
in their classrooms. The findings in the table show that the teachers’ general focus is on lesson
delivery and key LCT strategies such as grouping the learners, learning aids, checking learners
for comprehension, and differentiation are given minimal attention. There was little mention of
learners’ engagement and taking charge of their lesson in the teachers’ definitions of LCT. All
the teachers said that a small class size was key for successful lesson delivery. Ten teachers out
of 15 (67%) said they were very comfortable with the current class sizes.
This evidence taken together suggests that there are continuing teacher factual knowledge
needs around LCT to improve practice.
Conceptual Knowledge
“In the learner-centered approach to teaching and learning, it is a necessity to equip the
learning process with meaningful activities, strategies, techniques, and/or methods so that the
ground for intrinsic motivation and motivators is created, and learners are encouraged to practice
what they need for their current and future endeavors” (Amini, 2011, p. 10). In the context of
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 73

IPS, teachers need to know how to include LCT strategies in their curriculum in order to ensure
that LCT approaches are used in the classrooms.
Knowledge of the Methods of Creating a Curriculum Based on LCT
Teachers operating in a LCT environment need to know how to stimulate the learners’
engagement and let the learners take the lead in their own learning, with the teachers acting as
facilitators and not just as custodians of knowledge. This requires teachers to conceptualize the
methods of creating a curriculum based on LCT practices. Tanner (1980) defines a curriculum
as the methodic restoration of expert knowledge planned for learners’ growth and social ability,
under the schools’ influence and guidance. A curriculum provides a holistic overview of the
learning road map and is not usually specific to individual teachers. A LCT based curriculum
encompasses LCT strategies in a broad way, with the learners’ needs taking center stage
(Spangler, 1997). Participants were asked to describe their methods of drafting their lesson
plans, from which the interviewer derived the LCT classroom practices. While most participants
mentioned the basic techniques of drafting lesson plans, such as timing (duration of the lesson),
date, theme, and reviewing the previous lesson, their processes did not indicate knowledge and
intention of creating learner centered strategies during lesson planning. Responses from 93% of
the teachers did not include LCT strategies in the lesson plans. Their description of the lesson
planning process was more teacher dominated – the teacher taking the lead in controlling all
classroom activities. Only one teacher gave an indication of using LCT by including teaching
aids in the planning process. Teacher L’s response below represents a number of others, whose
lesson planning methods were similar to this:
Of course, you go to the table where you are supposed to write the date, the classroom
you’re going to teach, the time [duration], the number of children. Then from there you
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 74

have to go back to your scheme of work. What is in your scheme of work is what you
transfer to your lesson plan.
The findings revealed that 93% of the teachers did not incorporate LCT methods in their
lesson planning. This was verified through document analysis of the teachers’ lesson plans,
where only 7% of the teachers incorporated LCT methods in their lesson plans. The rest of the
teachers either did not have lesson plans, or their lesson plans were not current, and no LCT
methods were included in the planning. Teacher O had this to say about lesson planning:
Now days lesson plans are for formality. It is here that I was given different classes, but I
have been teaching P.5 for a long time. [Now] there’s no need for a plan because I’m
used … I know the content, it is here, I’m not going to say I have forgotten. We are
making lesson plans for formality because there are supervisors who come, they require
them, so, we just put them there for formality. The many years I’ve taught I don’t use a
lesson plan.
Overall, most of the teachers did not include LCT methods in their lesson plans. The
focus was mainly on the actual lesson and what is expected from the syllabus, which was mostly
academics. Most of the lesson plans lacked details about how the lesson would be delivered,
who would take charge, and what learning aids were required.
Procedural Knowledge
Procedural knowledge is the ability to do something, or the skills to inquire, perform and
know how to perform something (Rueda, 2011). Related to LCT, procedural knowledge includes
knowing how to apply LCT strategies in the lesson planning so that in turn, these methods are
used in the classrooms (Rueda, 2011).

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 75

Knowledge of how to Incorporate Strategies of LCT into all Subjects’ Lesson Plans
Amini (2011) emphasized the need for teachers to put the learners at the center of
learning, letting them take the lead and own their learning process, especially if grouped in small,
manageable numbers. A LCT lesson plan is a detailed, descriptive, individual course, describing
the teacher’s method of teaching, learning aids and reference material (Amini, 2011). The
participants were asked to mention the most important elements they considered in drafting their
lesson plans. Ninety-three percent of the participants focused their lesson planning strategies on
duration, introduction of the lesson, giving activities or lesson notes and ensuring that they
delivered a successful lesson as they checked the learners’ written assignments or activities.
Only one teacher gave some semblance of planning the lesson with some learner centered
strategies, such as using the learning aids. Teacher centered strategies came out strongly in the
lesson planning process. For instance, one teacher had this to say about the lesson planning
strategies:
… You divide the time accordingly…maybe five minutes depending on the lesson,
maybe building of the lesson, in 20 minutes you’re introducing a new concept, you’re
teaching the children, they are learning, they are listening to you; in that table you
consider the time indicated, the teacher’s activity, the learners’ activity.
The teacher’s submission above on their lesson planning strategy leaves little planning
for the learner to take charge. Below, in Table 10, is a summary of responses about the
procedure of drafting a lesson plan.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 76

Table 10
Essentials of a Lesson Plan: Teachers' Responses
Lesson Plan Components Frequency in Mentions
Date
Lesson duration
Assessment
Activity
Ice breaker
No. of learners
Objectives
Skills
Questions and answers
Method
Content
References
Differentiation
Review (corrections)
Flexible plan
2 times
3 times
3 times
6 times
1 time
1 time
1 time
1 time
1 time
1 time
2 times
1 time
1 time
2 times
1 time

The above components of lesson planning were the most frequently referred to by the
teachers. Most of lesson plans as described did not incorporate LCT strategies, such as grouping
the learners or using teaching aids. The elements above indicate that more focus was given to
“activity” or assigning class work, and less on how the lesson would be conducted. Out of 15
teachers, only three incorporated LCT methods in the lesson plans, five did not incorporate LCT
methods and seven lesson plans were not available, yet most teachers agreed that they use lesson
plans every day.
From the observations, while most of the teachers (60%) had lesson plans, some of the
lesson plans (33%) were not up to date and went as far back as one week. Sixty-seven percent of
the lesson plans reflected the correct date, but some of them did not reflect what was taught for
the day’s observed lesson. Others were up to date but did not indicate any LCT planning. Some
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 77

teachers carried lesson notes and no lesson plans. Only three teachers had lesson plans that were
current and reflected what was taught on the day that observations were made. Forty percent of
the teachers had no lesson plans at all. Table 11 summarizes the findings about teachers’ lesson
plans.
Table 11
Summary of Findings from Teachers' Lesson Plans
Lesson Plans that were up to date
Lesson Plans that were not up to date
No Lesson Plans
6 out of 15
3 out of 15
6 out of 15

Table 12 demonstrates some of the LCT features observed in the classroom set up.
Pseudonyms were used for the class number in the table.
Table 12. Classroom Set Up
Class New Charts Collaborative Sitting
Arrangement
Learners’ Work
Displayed
Small Class Size
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
✔
✖
✖
✔
✔
✖
✔
✔
✔
✔

✔
✔
✖
✔
✖
✖
✖
✖
✖
✔

✔
✖
✖
✔
✖
✖
✖
✖
✖
✔

✔
✖
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
70% of the
classrooms had
new charts.
Current Asset
40%
of the classrooms had
collaborative sitting
space.
Continuing Need
30%
of the classrooms with
learners’ displayed
work.
Continuing Need
93%
of the classrooms had
between 19 to 35
learners.
Current Asset

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 78

Results from interviews, lesson plan documents, and observations revealed that most
teachers did not use LCT strategies in their lesson planning. Most of the descriptions given by
the teachers revealed that they were more focused on delivering the lessons in the given time.
The descriptions were also weak on revealing how the day’s lesson was assessed, or how they
treated individual learners’ challenges. Findings from observations confirmed what the findings
from interviews revealed on how to incorporate LCT strategies in classrooms. There is a
continuing need for teachers to improve the practice of incorporating LCT strategies in their
curriculum .
Metacognitive Knowledge
Rueda (2011) describes metacognitive knowledge as one’s ability to comprehend what
they see, think or do and be able to contextualize or solve given problems as a result. Teachers
need to apply metacognitive processes to reflect on their practices to deliver successful LCT
lessons. They need to know when and why they should or should not use certain LCT practices,
which practices would work in certain circumstances and which would not (Rueda, 2011).
Knowledge of how to Reflect on their own Effectiveness in Implementing Learner Centered
Instruction in the Classroom
Teachers need to exercise self-reflection during and after conducting a lesson to develop
self-awareness in applying LCT strategies and be able to change accordingly (Goldman &
Grimbeek, 2015). It was assumed that teachers knew how to reflect on their effectiveness in
implementing LCT. Eighty percent of the teachers believed that they practiced self-reflection,
especially after conducting a lesson. On asking them about the last time they reflected (if at all)
about their teaching methodology, below are some of their responses in Table 13 below.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 79

Table 13
What Some Teachers Say About Their Ability to Self-Reflect on Their Teaching Methods
Teacher A
Actually, I found these children couldn’t read. I struggled to make all my lessons reading lessons.
Whatever we put on the board we first read through without writing. It was quite hard for me during my
lessons, children didn’t know the tenses, so, I brought a new method. I’d tell them to circle the directive
verb, to run and dress the main verb. If a question is in past simple tense; “Why did Ann go to school?”
Circle the word “did” tell them it is a directive verb, they mastered it that this one is now past, it is a
directive verb. What is it telling you to do? To go and change the main verb, “go” to past simple tense,
which is “went”. When I changed to that method, it worked.”

Teacher G
If I teach without using teaching objects or teaching aids and give theory, and I see the children aren't
getting what I’m doing, that forces me next time to get something tangible.
Teacher F
There was one day – it was question and answer it did not work for me well, so I decided to go to group
discussion. Whenever you go to group discussion it helps a lot because these children discuss, and they
have different ideas.
Teacher H
I think I have always done that every after a lesson. I have to first sit and see. I think this one hasn't been
successful. If most of the learners have failed what I have taught, or if I ask sample questions and all of
them aren't getting what I have taught, then I have to make sure that I reflect back what I have delivered.
Teacher G
I normally do that every day when I mark my papers or when I give them exams, or a test and they fail.
Then, I’m like, is it me with a problem? Or what was the problem? Then I come back and give them the
same very work in form of revision and homework. Sometimes I even go back to my co-teachers and
discuss the work – if the content was heavy, how can I simplify the language?
Teacher J
I remember one time I was teaching about common diseases, so, I used to explain and there was no way I
could explain to them and I could not demonstrate the disease; I could see they were eager to know the
disease, then I could see they had not understood me at all. So, they just knew this is measles, whooping
cough, tuberculosis, but they needed to know what these diseases were about. I had to get someone to
draw but the pictures were also not enough. They needed to see and if it was possible, maybe go to a
nearby hospital. But because children are not allowed in hospitals, we just drew pictures on the chart.

Whereas findings indicated that teachers practice self-reflection on their teaching
methodology, their self-reflection is not particularly on LCT practices. There is, therefore, a
continuing need for teachers to reflect on their effectiveness to implement LCT in the
classrooms.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 80

Summary of Results and Findings for Knowledge Influences
In summary, most of the teachers mentioned that LCT involves the learners during
lessons, but they could not actually identify other key features of LCT in depth. There is still a
continuing need for teachers to learn how to create a curriculum based on LCT strategies. The
absence of LCT strategies in the lesson plans was also noticed in the document analysis.
Although most of the teachers established that they practiced self-reflection, most of them did
not acknowledge reflecting on using LCT in classrooms. Of all the assumed Knowledge
influences, teachers’ ability to create a curriculum based on LCT came up as the biggest
challenge.
Findings for Motivation Influences
Dembo & Seli (2016) emphasize the importance of motivation for excellent performance
at the workplace, citing self-efficacy, utility value and attributions as key motivation theories that
influence behavior. These motivation theories were applied to probe how teachers’ behavior
related to LCT instruction was influenced by motivation. The assumption was that teachers’
motivation would be higher if teachers were able to see the value of LCT in supporting learning;
saw their learners’ social and academic development as a result of their (teachers’) direct efforts
in using LCT strategies and believed in their capability of teaching using LCT strategies. To
better understand teachers’ motivation related to LCT, three questions were asked:
1. Could you tell me about your reasons for applying the teaching method
you just described above? Do you see the value of LCT in your classroom? Do you
think LCT supports learning and performance? (Utility value)
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 81

2. What do you believe are the reasons for your students’ performance
outcomes? Probe: Do you think they are directly related to your efforts in LCT – why or
why not? (Attribution).
3. How do you feel about your ability to use LCT strategies in your
classroom? (Self-efficacy).
Table 14 summarizes the findings of the assumed motivation influences.
Table 14
Assumed Teacher Motivation Findings
Motivation
Construct
Assumed Teacher Motivation
Influences
Result Explanation
Utility Value Teachers need to see the value of learner-
centered teaching in supporting student
learning and performance.

Current
Motivation
Asset
100% of the teachers
acknowledged that LCT is a
very good method to use in
teaching and learning.
Attributions Teachers should see that students’
academic and social development skills
are directly related to their efforts in
learner-centered teaching.

Continuing
Motivation
Need
Only 33% of the teachers
believed that learners’ social
and academic development
was due to the teachers’
efforts in using LCT.
Self-Efficacy

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

Continuing
Motivation
Need
47% of the teachers
expressed comfort in their
ability to use LCT in their
classrooms.

Utility Value
Utility value suggests that people are motivated when they see the worth or value of what
they are engaged in and focus on the ultimate benefits they are likely to get out of doing
something (Rueda, 2011). Related to teachers and LCT, teachers need to know how useful LCT
is to the learners, teachers, parents and ultimately to the larger family in the schools and beyond.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 82

Teachers Need to See the Value in LCT in Supporting the Students’ Learning and
Performance
As teachers described their teaching methods, all of them discussed using both LCT and
teacher centered teaching in their classrooms. From the description of their daily lesson
activities, it was evident that most of them were more inclined towards teacher centered teaching.
However, despite this inclination, 100% of the teachers submitted that it was more valuable to
use LCT and that LCT supports learning more than teacher centered teaching. Various benefits
of using LCT emerged, such as better understanding of the concepts taught as learners deeply
engage in the learning process; the benefits of peer teaching because learners obtain insights
better from each other; the learners get motivated because they have been given a chance to
speak out - building their confidence levels; learners retain information better when they are
involved in the process of teaching and learning; and grouping children according to abilities
helps them learn at their own pace. The benefits of using LCT strategies in classrooms, as
emerged from the teachers at IPS, are summarized in Table 15 below.
Table 15. Teachers’ Reasons why LCT Strategies are Beneficial to Learners
Reason Frequency in Mentions
(out of 15 participants)
Explanation
Enhance learners’ self-esteem
enhanced
6 times When learners are individually
selected/encouraged in the learning
process their confidence levels rise as
they are continuously engaged.
Long term memory and better
performance
7 times Learners are able to retain what they
learnt for a long time if they are in
charge of their lessons.
Peer teaching re-enforced 8 times Leaners understand better from their
peers and are not as shy as when they are
learning from adults. Grouping by ability
ensures they learn at their pace.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 83

Table 15, continued
Reason Frequency in Mentions
(out of 15 participants)
Explanation
Enhances love for school and
teachers
3 times When learners are engaged, they build
better relationships with their teachers
and enjoy the lesson better.
Learners’ independence 1 time They learn to make decisions on their
own.
Intrinsic pride and value 1 time Learners feel good because of what they
are able to do on their own.
Holistic education 1 time In addition to academics, learners
develop social, creative and other skills.

However, teachers said that while they recognize the benefits of LCT, the pressure to
complete the syllabus and deliver high academic scores forces them to abandon the LCT
strategies and resort to the teacher centered way of teaching. They said that the LCT takes time
because they have to focus on individual abilities before they proceed with the next lesson.
Teacher F had this to say:
I have met some teachers in many schools who have told me… we write these lesson
plans for inspection because inspectors could come and ask us to produce our lesson
plans. But when it comes to actual implementation, we don't. Why? Because there is no
time, you know, the teachers have all sorts of reasons.
Teacher D furthered this as said:
I think sometimes the way we are, sometimes teachers still believe that the information
comes from the teacher, one way, so, you come give, give and that’s it. So, it is going to
take a while for teachers to accept that children could actually have more information
than they do. I think it also depends on the training the teachers have had before, teaching
training …that is how the system is. The teacher thinks its them who have done the
research – not knowing that the children also do research.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 84

Teacher F and some other teachers felt that in order to achieve high academic scores,
teachers have to be in charge of the lessons, especially since they have limited class time for
teaching. Teachers cited the following reasons for resorting to teacher centered teaching, as
shown in Table 16 below.
Table 16
Why Some Teachers Do Not Use LCT in Their Classrooms
Reason
Teacher M
There is a challenge. Looking at the 40 minutes and what you have to cover, sometimes you
prefer moving with them [learners] as a group because now if you leave them, they might not do
what you want, and the coverage might be slow.
Teacher E
I do it regularly, only that sometimes when we are beginning, you have a lot of pressure on the
work to cover, so you may not use it [LCT]so much. You want to be the one dominating then
after dominating, I tell them so and so will handle this topic.
Teacher O
Now, about learner centered as I have said it is good, only that it needs more time. If they
introduce and say that we should all use learner centered methods…but it cannot be because of
the syllabus content. You find that this term is too short. If you’re to apply that method, you
can’t even finish a half of the work you’re supposed to cover.
Teacher B
It does happen. Because one of the factors that dictate that [using LCT] is time. You may look
at the time you have and what you want to teach, and if you want to use the LCT you find that it
will take you a lot of time and at the end of the day, no work has been done. So, you end up
doing it differently.
Teacher K
The 40 [class size] affects in a way that it also dictates the methodology. We can’t group them
because we shall have many groups which will not be in position to present within the shortest
time possible. It even has a demand in terms of preparation if you are to plan a practical lesson,
you have to take a little more time and have more materials. In this setting, we are more into
business oriented and it may not be easy for the school to provide each and everything like it
would for a smaller number.

The above explanations may clarify the mis-match between what teachers said about
LCT (100% agreed it was the best method to use), what was actually observed (only 7% of the
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 85

teachers were applying LCT during their lesson), and what was documented (only 13% of the
teachers incorporate LCT methods in their lesson planning).
In summary, teachers appear to be motivated in, and understand the value of, using LCT
in the classrooms. However, from their submissions, teachers are bogged down by the need to
complete syllabuses in time. They feel that LCT strategies take time to apply during class time
since they require meeting each child’s needs and the 40-minute lessons are too short to make
that happen. They also felt that their organization needs to support them in LCT through keeping
class sizes low, providing resources, and training them in how to apply LCT methods in the
classrooms.
While constraints to using LCT exist, teachers see the value in this method of instruction
and this utility value serves as a current motivational asset.
Attributions
According to Rueda (2011), attributions are one’s opinions about the reasons something
has been accomplished. It is not enough for teachers to use LCT strategies in classrooms, but to
continue to be motivated to use them, they need to connect their application to how learners are
progressing. When this is achieved, teachers would be able to attribute their learners’
accomplishments to the use of LCT in classrooms.
Teachers Need to See Students’ Academic and Social Development Skills as Directly
Related to their Efforts in LCT
It was assumed that if teachers believed their learners’ performance outcomes were
attributed to teachers’ efforts in using LCT in classrooms, teachers at IPS would be motivated to
implement LCT instruction. According to the findings, only 33% of the teachers believed that
their efforts in LCT strategies contributed to their learners’ social and academic success and 20%
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 86

believed that success is a combined effort of the learners, teachers and their parents. Some of the
teachers believed that success was entirely due to the learners, and some believed it was due to
parents. However, those varied attributions to the three parties (teachers, learners and parents)
were not specific to LCT strategies, but to the general efforts of either party in ensuring that
learning takes place. When asked about the reasons for their learners’ performance outcomes, a
teacher who attributed the success to their efforts had this to say:
I attribute that to the teacher. Because the way I found them, they had teachers, they had
parents, but the results were not coming out. But because of my effort, in trying to do A-
B-C, encouraging them all the time, I think that has helped them (Teacher A).
Teacher D said:
The relationship. How free I am with them and they believe I’m not a problem to them
and they feel they shouldn’t annoy me. So, when I’m with them, they feel that “our
friend is here”. We move on. That is how they get to that – the freedom they have with
me. They know I’m not that kind of rough teacher. When they need something, I’m
always here for them. And I keep appreciating even the little that they do.
Teacher K said:
Yes. I would attribute it to the methods we are using. I have a thinking that wherever
they came from, the teachers had already painted a picture that this one can’t learn. When
they came here and we started teaching them as individuals, we saw that one who came
with 08% now has 13%, 20% now has 40%. To us, that is a step ahead and good
performance because it is relative. Even the longest journey starts with a step so I would
attribute it to that.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 87

While these responses indicate how the teachers feel about their contributions towards the
learners’ achievements, their attributions are not specific to LCT methods. Teachers were then
specifically asked if they attributed their learners’ success to using LCT strategies in the
classrooms, and five out of 15 attributed the learners’ success to the teachers’ efforts in using
LCT. Although some of them attributed the success to teachers’ efforts, they did not consider
that their efforts in using LCT positively impacted the learners’ social and academic progress. In
conclusion, there in a continuing motivation need for teachers to see their learners’ academic and
social progress as directly related to their efforts in LCT.
Self-Efficacy
According to Bandura (1994), self-efficacy is one’s belief about their potential to
effectively perform or carry out activities that influence their lives. Teachers at IPS need to
believe in their abilities to use LCT in their classrooms to positively impact and motivate them to
use this type of teaching with their learners.
Teachers Need to Believe they are Capable of Effectively Implementing LCT
It was assumed that to be motivated to implement LCT, teachers would need to believe
they are capable of implementing LCT strategies. The findings revealed that while 47% were
comfortable using LCT in their classrooms, teachers were generally uneasy about their own
abilities to effectively deliver a LCT curriculum. Several reasons for self-doubt were brought up,
including time management, syllabus coverage, and lack of teaching aids. One teacher shared
that her ability to use LCT in class is hampered by time. When asked if she was comfortable
using LCT, she stated:
Not all the time because, sometimes when you also use that all the time you find that on
the side of syllabus coverage, they are pressing you so much. You feel like you should
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 88

explain things faster. You should not involve the learners all that because involving the
learners means you have to give them ample time. So you find that it is pressing in
syllabus coverage, you’re delayed because you want to get ideas from different corners.
Syllabus coverage was cited by several teachers as a deterrent to using LCT. Other
participants perceived LCT challenges in view of the nature of learners they taught, the lack of
teaching aids and school support. However, some of the teachers felt very comfortable using
LCT in their classrooms. For example, Teacher D stated:
I feel very comfortable about it. Very. I don’t have any challenge with it, and it is even
very easy when I let them [learners] own it, it becomes easy for me to move around in the
lesson…and it also depends on the individual teachers, because we are all different. But
for me I feel very comfortable using LCT method.
In summary, to encourage teachers to use LCT in their classrooms, for many, there is a
continuing need to enhance their self-efficacy related to implementing LCT.
Summary of Results and Findings for Motivation Influences
According to the findings, all IPS teachers see the value of using LCT in their
classrooms. However, there is a continuing need for most of them to believe in their abilities to
apply LCT in the classrooms and attribute their learners’ success to their efforts in applying LCT
strategies in the classrooms.
Findings for Organizational Influences
Organizations have various ways of conducting business. Even if these organizations
were involved in the same trade or services, their day-to-day organizational systems differ, and
evolve over time. This is what may be known as organizational culture. Organizational culture
is what people are all about – what they do, how they do it, what systems are in place and
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 89

ultimately how their service or product is processed and delivered (Clark & Estes, 2008). This
study sought to determine how IPS enabled their teachers to apply LCT strategies in their
classrooms. To better understand this, five questions, below, were asked of the teachers.
1. How has your school provided you (if at all), information about LCT?
How, if at all, has it communicated with you its importance?
2. What kind of facilitation (if at all) has the school availed you to practice
LCT teaching in your classroom?
3. What training opportunities (if at all) in LCT have been availed by the
school to the teachers? Probe: What other training opportunities would be
helpful to you, if any?
4. What are your thoughts about the school’s goals on LCT? Probe: Has the
school set clear, measurable and achievable goals for you to incorporate
LCT into your classroom?
5. How has the school recognized or rewarded (if at all), the teachers using
LCT?
A summary of the findings for organizational influences appears in Table 17.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 90

Table 17
Assumed Organizational Findings
Organizational
Influence
Category
Assumed Organizational
Influence
Result Explanation
Cultural Setting
Influence 1
The school needs to communicate
the importance of learner-centered
teaching.

Continuing
Organizational
Need
Only 33% of the teachers
acknowledged that the
school has communicated
the importance of LCT.
Cultural Setting
Influence 2
The school needs to provide
opportunities for professional
development in learner-centered
teaching.

Continuing
Organizational
Need

Only 33% mentioned that
the training received was
in LCT strategies.

Cultural Setting
Influence 3
The school needs to set clear,
measurable and achievable goals to
incorporate learner-centered
strategies in the lesson plans and
classrooms.
Continuing
Organizational
Need
All teachers (100%) said
the school had never set
any clear, measurable
goals in LCT.
Cultural Setting
Influence 4
The school needs to recognize or
reward staff achievements in
learner-centered teaching
Continuing
Organizational
Need
Only 27% of the teachers
recall any sort of
recognition or reward to
teachers for using LCT in
classrooms.

The School Needs to Communicate the Importance of LCT
It was assumed that to encourage the use of LCT practices, the school would need to
provide information on LCT strategies and communicate how important LCT was to teaching
and learning. Only 33% of the teachers said that the school had provided information about LCT
– including communicating use of LCT in the school’s mission and through workshops. Teacher
K - one of the teachers who suggested the school had provided LCT communication - stated:
It [the school] has done it and we commend them because every first week before the
term starts, we normally have workshops and during those workshops they take us
through customer care and the methods of teaching. This school advocates for the learner
centered way of teaching and that is why you see in our classes you find corners for the
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 91

learners’ work. We believe in them, we believe in the talent and that is why each time we
are to report, we are called back for the workshop.
In addition, teacher M said:
…Here, teachers are encouraged to have children in groups. If you went to most of the
classes, you will see how the sitting arrangement is made. It is mostly in such a way that
children sit at a round table. The reason is usually to try and encourage that we have
learners in their group so that it is easy for them to have a discussion as a group.
The majority of the teachers, on the other hand, suggested that the school does not
communicate the importance of LCT in any systematic way.
For example, Teacher E stated:
What I discovered the school does not have much information about that. They assume
that all the teachers know it, but I discovered that many people do not know it. But I
think some of the meetings we have had, the headmaster does not put much emphasis on
that. I think he assumes people know and they do it.
Further, Teacher A said:
Not direct [communication]. But the way they communicate it to the teachers cannot
cause an impact to the learners. It [the school] has brought us workshops, but the
challenge we have in these workshops, [laughs], as they are training us, they don’t
encourage the teachers that things have changed. We are now in another world. What
somebody learnt in the 80s is what they still bring.
Based on the evidence given by teachers, organizational communication about the
importance of LCT is minimal. There is continuing organizational need to effectively
communicate the importance of LCT to the teachers so that it is applied in classrooms.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 92

The School Needs to Provide Opportunities for Professional Development in LCT
It was assumed that to effectively implement LCT in the classroom, teachers would need
to receive professional development and some facilitation in implementing LCT. Teachers were
asked to share what kind of facilitation and learning opportunities the school provided in order to
practice LCT.
To understand this assumed influence on performance better, two questions were asked.
The first question was: 1) What kind of facilitation (if at all) has the school availed you to
practice LCT in your classroom? In response, 47% of the teachers mentioned that the school had
provided some kind of facilitation, such as computers, WIFI, a projector, television and
scholastic materials like crayons, paper and flash cards for purposes of teaching, but none of the
teachers related those items to professional development. Some teachers indicated that they
rarely used some of these items, such as the computers, projectors and television, and they were
not used for research or professional development opportunities related to LCT.
To the second question: 2) What training opportunities (if at all) in LCT have been
availed by the school to the teachers?, 53% of the participants acknowledged receiving some
training at least once during their tenure at the school. Some of them mentioned that the training
varied between customer care, financial management, LCT and other topics – it was not always
about LCT. However, only 33% of the teachers mentioned that the training received was in LCT
methods. In response to what training teachers had received, Teacher I stated:
I remember in second term there’s a certain facilitator they brought… you know these
children enjoy teaching mostly when it is more interesting, so they brought us facilitation
on how to make learners enjoy your lesson. They taught us different games you can
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 93

apply, even if it is primary six or primary seven, and children can enjoy the lesson. They
demonstrated, we did some of them and enjoyed some of them.
In conclusion, IPS periodically carries out professional development in various
disciplines. However, according to the teachers’ responses about training in LCT, it is quite
limited, and there is still a continuing organizational need to carry out professional development
in LCT methods.
The School Needs to Set Clear, Measurable and Achievable Goals to Incorporate LCT
Strategies in Lesson Plans and Classrooms
In the absence of clear and measurable goals, employees are free to set their own goals,
which may not be aligned with the organization’s goals and needs (Clarke & Estes, 2008). It
was assumed that IPS needs clear, measurable goals about LCT for teachers to effectively
implement LCT in their classrooms. The findings determined that although LCT was sometimes
mentioned in meetings and workshops, none of the teachers had been involved in discussions or
received any clearly written, measurable goals to incorporate LCT in classrooms. There was no
deliberate effort to write or monitor clear goals surrounding LCT. When asked if the school set
clear, measurable goals related to LCT, Teacher K said, “No, it has not happened. If they speak
about it, when the time for implementation comes, they do not follow up.”
All teachers answered “no” in response to whether the school set clear, measurable and
achievable goals to incorporate LCT in their lesson plans. Some teachers stated that “maybe” the
goals were mentioned in passing, but they all did not recall seeing any written goals. IPS,
therefore, has a continuing organizational need to set clear, measurable and achievable goals to
incorporate LCT strategies in the lesson plans and classrooms.
The School Needs to Recognize or Reward Staff Achievements in LCT
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 94

Throughout the interviews, it was apparent that the school had paid minimal attention to
recognizing or rewarding implementation of LCT practices. In response to the question: “How
has the school recognized or rewarded (if at all) the teachers using learner centered teaching?”
only 27% of the teachers recalled some form of recognition or award to a teacher for specifically
using LCT in the classrooms. Three of the four participants who responded in affirmation to this
question recalled that one of the teachers was awarded for using ICT in the classroom to teach
Social Studies. Some teachers were skeptical about the idea of rewards and when asked if the
school had awarded any teacher for using LCT, this is what Teacher E had to say:
Nothing yet because there is no clear direction towards that [awarding] … last year they
had an envelope [cash award] for best teacher, but people were found grumbling that
what was the criteria used? If it was communicated it would mean that someone should
regularly visit to find out and there should be written reports on using LCT. It was not
communicated.
Similarly, Teacher K said:
No. But actually they recognize for calling beyond duty as a teacher, but even the criteria
that was used, I hear people were not comfortable. Teachers were given papers to vote
but they did not, because they thought it was useless as they [management] already knew
the people they would appoint.
This sort of skepticism was voiced by several teachers, who thought that the process of
awarding teachers in general could be biased. While there is a continuing organizational need to
recognize or award teachers who use LCT in their classrooms, the school needs to carefully
design such a system that would be acceptable to the teachers.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 95

Summary of Results and Findings for Organizational Influences on Performance
In order to create more awareness and appreciation for LCT in IPS, there is a continuing
need for the school to set clear, measurable goals to incorporate LCT in the school curriculum
and communicate these goals to the teachers. In addition, IPS needs to make provision for
continuous professional development in LCT strategies for teachers to learn how to incorporate
LCT strategies in the lesson planning and practice LCT in classrooms. Recognition or rewarding
of teachers who apply LCT strategies in the classrooms could encourage more teachers to adopt
LCT practices, ultimately leading to improved learner performance.
Conclusion
According to the results from examining the knowledge needs for IPS teachers to
implement LCT in their classrooms, there is a continuing knowledge need for IPS teachers to
learn about LCT in order to comfortably incorporate LCT methods in their curricular and lesson
planning. Most teachers had some idea what LCT is but had limited knowledge to how learners
were involved in the learning process or to key features of a LCT learning environment.
Additionally, teachers did not know how to incorporate LCT strategies in their curricula.
However, teachers knew how to reflect on their teaching strategies, and many of them
demonstrated incorporating alternative solutions when they felt their lessons did not go as
planned.
In terms of motivational influences on LCT teaching practices, teacher utility value is a
current motivational asset. All teachers agreed that using LCT was an effective approach to
student learning, and they gave several reasons to support their beliefs. However, they did not,
in general, believe they had the ability to deliver a proper LCT curriculum or lesson. They were
also not confident enough to associate learners’ success to their (teachers’) ability to use LCT in
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 96

classrooms. Teachers felt they needed additional training to effectively apply LCT methods in
classrooms. The teachers’ attributions and self-efficacy, as motivational constructs to encourage
the use of LCT, were still continuing teacher needs.
Results from organizational influences on teachers’ use of LCT practices revealed that
the school did not clearly communicate the need for applying LCT strategies in classrooms.
Some teachers submitted that LCT was mentioned in passing sometimes, but there was no
deliberate effort to ensure teachers received clear communication about the importance of LCT
practices. Furthermore, the school did not have set goals, whether orally or written, for teachers
to use LCT strategies in classrooms and had no policy to reward or recognize teachers using LCT
strategies. These are still continuing organizational needs to encourage teachers’ use of LCT
practices at IPS. Table 18 below gives a summary of all IPS’s current assets and their continuing
needs related to LCT.
Table 18
Summary of Findings
Knowledge Assumed Knowledge Influence Result
Declarative
(Factual)
Knowledge of key features of learner-centered teaching
versus traditional, teacher-centered teaching.
Continuing Need
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Knowledge of the methods of creating a curriculum based
on learner-centered teaching.
Continuing Need
Procedural

Knowledge of how to incorporate strategies of learner-
centered teaching into all subjects’ lesson plans.
Continuing Need

Metacognitive

Knowledge of how to reflect on their own effectiveness
in implementing learner-centered instruction in the
classroom.
Current Asset

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 97

Table 18, continued
Motivation Assumed Teacher Motivation Influences Result
Utility Value Teachers need to see the value of learner-centered
teaching in supporting student learning and performance.

Current Asset
Attributions Teachers should see that students’ academic and social
development skills are directly related to their efforts in
learner-centered teaching.

Continuing Need
Self-Efficacy

Teachers need to believe they are capable of effectively
implementing learner-centered teaching.
Continuing Need
Organization Assumed Organizational Influences Result
Cultural Setting
Influence 1
The school needs to communicate the importance of
learner-centered teaching.

Continuing Need
Cultural Setting
Influence 2
The school needs to provide opportunities for
professional development in learner-centered teaching.
Continuing Need
Cultural Setting
Influence 3
The school needs to set clear, measurable and achievable
goals to incorporate learner-centered strategies in the
lesson plans and classrooms.
Continuing Need
Cultural Setting
Influence 4
The school needs to recognize or reward staff
achievements in learner-centered teaching
Continuing Need
Cultural Setting
Influence 4
The school needs to recognize or reward staff
achievements in learner-centered teaching
Continuing Need

In Chapter Five, the third research questions guiding this study is examined to provide
recommendations to address continuing needs and encourage learner centered teaching at IPS.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 98

CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
This study sought to understand the low teacher engagement in learner centered teaching
(LCT) strategies in classrooms in Uganda. Previous research has revealed that many Ugandan
teachers use rote learning and teacher-centered techniques of teaching, which may not produce
the desired learning outcomes such as critical thinking and creativity (Akello, Timmerman, &
Namusisi, 2016). Clark & Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis was used to determine the performance
gaps in using LCT in Imeri Primary School (IPS) in Uganda and determine evidence-based
solutions to the gaps. To understand the teachers’ knowledge, motivation and organizational
abilities related to LCT, three main research questions were asked: 1) What is the teacher
knowledge and motivation related to child centered teaching? 2) How do the school policies and
culture support or hinder knowledge and motivation in child centered teaching? 3)What are the
recommended knowledge and skills, motivation and organization solutions? This chapter will
mainly focus on the third question, where the school and teachers’ continuing needs will be
addressed with evidence-based recommendations, and an implementation plan and evaluation
plan related to the recommendations proposed.
The findings in Chapter Four revealed that, indeed, most teachers do not apply LCT
techniques in their classrooms. Furthermore, there is still a continuing need for teachers to learn
about LCT and how to integrate LCT strategies in their curricular and lesson plans. The study’s
“current assets” represent the areas where teachers are excelling or doing well related to LCT to
continue to build on, and the “continuing needs” are the areas that need to be improved upon for
LCT strategies to be effectively used in classrooms. This chapter will be categorized into five
main sections. The first section will reiterate the IPS teachers’ continuing needs related to LCT,
the second section will focus on the evidence-based solutions proposed for the continuing needs,
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 99

the third section will center on an implementation plan related to the solutions, the fourth section
will focus on the evaluation of the recommended solutions, and, finally, in the fifth section,
recommendations for further research will be discussed.
Teacher Continuing Needs Related to LCT
The findings revealed a number of challenges that IPS teachers need to mitigate if LCT is
to effectively be implemented. These include three continuing knowledge, two continuing
motivation and four continuing organizational needs. Table 19 reflects the continuing needs that
will be the focus of discussion in this chapter.
Table 19
Continuing Needs
Knowledge Assumed Knowledge Influence
Result
Declarative
(Factual)
Knowledge of key features of learner-centered teaching
versus traditional, teacher-centered teaching.
Continuing Need
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Knowledge of the methods of creating a curriculum based
on learner-centered teaching.
Continuing Need
Procedural

Knowledge of how to incorporate strategies of learner-
centered teaching into all subjects’ lesson plans.
Continuing Need

Motivation Assumed Teacher Motivation Influences
Result
Attributions Teachers should see that students’ academic and social
development skills are directly related to their efforts in
learner-centered teaching.

Continuing Need
Self-Efficacy

Teachers need to believe they are capable of effectively
implementing learner-centered teaching.
Continuing Need
Organization Assumed Organizational Influences
Result
Cultural Setting
Influence 1
The school needs to communicate the importance of
learner-centered teaching.

Continuing Need
Cultural Setting
Influence 2
The school needs to provide opportunities for
professional development in learner-centered teaching.
Continuing Need
Cultural Setting
Influence 3
The school needs to set clear, measurable and
achievable goals to incorporate learner-centered
strategies in the lesson plans and classrooms.
Continuing Need
Cultural Setting
Influence 4
The school needs to recognize or reward staff
achievements in learner-centered teaching
Continuing Need

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 100

Under the knowledge needs, IPS teachers need to know the key features of LCT, the
methods of LCT and how to incorporate those methods in their curricular and lesson plans.
Under the motivation needs, teachers need to believe that their learners’ success is due to
applying LCT strategies in classrooms. In addition, teachers need to believe in their abilities to
apply LCT in classrooms. Under the organization needs, IPS needs to set clear and measurable
goals for teachers to apply LCT in their curriculum, lesson plans and classrooms. The school
also needs to provide opportunities for teachers to learn more about LCT in order to comfortably
use it, and to recognize teachers for the use of these practices. Following below are
recommendations for how these continuing needs may be resolved.
Proposed Recommendations
The school’s mission is to apply learner centered teaching strategies in educating their
children to maximize each child’s full potential. In order to fulfill this mission, the continuing
needs identified in the findings have to be addressed and evidence-based solutions recommended
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Several concerns about the application of learner centered teaching were
highlighted by the participants and some recommendations emerged. Recommendations were
directed towards improving teacher knowledge, motivation and organization influences in LCT
strategies. There are five main recommendations that will assist teachers, administrators, parents
and learners recognize, implement and ultimately enjoy the benefits of LCT in Imeri Primary
School. These are: 1) communicating to stakeholders about the importance of LCT; 2) setting
clear, measurable and achievable goals to incorporate LCT in classrooms 3 (a) providing
professional development for teachers about the benefits of LCT and the LCT strategies; (b)
providing professional development for teachers in how to incorporate LCT strategies in the
lesson plans; 4) training supervisors in the value of LCT and how to assist teachers in ensuring
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 101

they use LCT in classrooms; and 5) training supervisors in strategies of motivating and
recognizing teachers using LCT.
Recommendation 1: IPS will communicate to the teachers and parents the
importance of learner centered teaching. Clear communication leads to effective and better
performance and trust (Clark & Estes, 2008). Related to this proposed solution, the school needs
to set initial meetings with the teachers and their supervisors to communicate the importance of
LCT to the performance of their learners. This communication will be the first of many efforts
related to communicating this message, as Clark & Estes (2008) emphasize the need to
continuously remind people about what you wish to be done. With continuous communication,
new staff will also be brought on board with the LCT policy. After communicating with the
teachers, the school will need to arrange meetings with parents to communicate the same
message about LCT. Parents’ involvement is expected to enhance teachers’ willingness to invest
in LCT practices and enhance learners’ outcomes (Klemencic et al., 2014). Below are the
summarized action steps for communicating about LCT.
Table 20
Summary Action Steps for Communicating LCT to the Staff and Parents of IPS
Action Steps Timeframe
i. Communication session with administrators and
teachers
October 2020 and ongoing
ii. Send invitations to the parents (via email,
newsletter, WhatsApp, SMS messaging, etc),
indicating the reason for the meeting, when,
where and what time the meeting would take
place.
October 2020
iii. Hold a parents’ session to communicate about
LCT
November 2020 and ongoing

Recommendation 2: IPS will set clear, measurable and achievable goals to
incorporate LCT strategies in their curriculum, lesson plans and classrooms. From the
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 102

interviews, the participants suggested that the school had neither set nor prompted any goal
setting in using LCT strategies in their classrooms. A goal is what one is trying to accomplish,
and those that set goals for themselves perform better than those that do not (Locke, 1996). Goal
setting is therefore crucial if the school wants to achieve success in using LCT (Dembo & Seli,
2016). The participants unanimously recommended that goal setting was important if the school
wanted to seriously consider implementing LCT in the classrooms. Some of the participants
were skeptical about using LCT in their classrooms without prioritization from the school,
despite stating clearly that it was a good strategy and that learners would benefit from it. If the
school engaged the teachers in setting measurable and achievable goals in using LCT practices,
and made deliberate effort to monitor progress, continuous practice in LCT would improve life-
long learning (Kolesnikova, 2016). Below are the summarized action steps for LCT goal setting.
To ensure that goals are set as planned, the following should be done:
a. Administration should engage an expert in goal setting and team-building strategies
to facilitate the goal setting process. Goals are set.
b. Administration (together with the facilitator) will work with the teachers to dedicate
needed resources in the process of setting their goals in LCT.
Table 21
Summary Action Steps for Goal Setting in LCT Strategies
Action Steps Timeframe
i. Engage experts, teachers and administrators in
LCT goal setting activity
October 2020
ii. Planning meeting to look into training needs
and resource requirements for training
October 2020
iii. All stakeholders (teachers, supervisors) set
clear, measurable and achievable goals, write
them down, and share them with teachers.
December 2020

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 103

It is expected that when teachers learn about goal setting, they will apply their knowledge
not only to planning for LCT, but to everything else they do in their teaching and personal lives.
If they do not transfer this knowledge or acquired skills to other tasks, then the long-term
benefits of training in goal setting are minimal (Rueda, 2011).
Recommendation 3: (a) IPS will provide professional development for teachers about
the benefits of LCT and how to apply LCT strategies in the classrooms. Professional
development can transform teachers and develop their dispositions related to curriculum
planning, goal setting, and LCT (Wheatley, 2008). The school can engage experts in LCT to
give an overview of the benefits of LCT. Sensitization should begin with the teachers,
administrators and all the staff of IPS so that every member of the organization understands the
actual meaning and features of LCT, how to implement it in and out of the classroom and the
short and long-term benefits of LCT to the learners. At the end of the sessions, every staff
member will be able to serve as an ambassador in LCT. In addition, teachers need to be able to
reflect on whether real learning is taking place and whether their teaching methods help their
learners progress (Mau & Harkness, 2020). Through professional development in LCT and
assessment of teaching outcomes, teachers’ teaching skills would improve and teaching would
become more meaningful (Mau & Harknes, 2020).
It takes a different kind of skill set for learners to take the lead in classroom activities and
for teachers to facilitate using LCT in classrooms (Cano, 2003). Training is, therefore, essential
for both teachers and ultimately learners as they learn to practice the lead role. Although all
teachers in the study confirmed receiving training at IPS, only 27% of them acknowledged
receiving training specific to LCT approaches in teaching. There is some evidence that besides
improvement in performance, employee retention improves after professional development
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 104

(Clark & Estes, 2008). The need to provide professional development programs targeting LCT
came out clearly from the teachers’ recommendations, and it would help teachers get to know the
benefits of LCT so as to appreciate and be motivated to use them (Dembo & Seli, 2016). Once
the training objective is clear and teachers clearly know what LCT is, how beneficial it is to the
learners and teachers, how to incorporate it in their lesson planning, and become comfortable in
applying it into their classrooms, learning will become easier and, according to their own
assertions, improvements will be seen in the general performance of their learners (Clark &
Estes, 2008). Table 22 summarizes action steps for professional development in LCT strategies.
Table 22
Summary Action Steps for Professional Development in LCT Strategies

Action Steps Timeframe
i.
Teacher training in LCT
strategies
January 2021 and ongoing
iv.
Teachers begin implementing
what they learnt in classrooms
February 2021
v.
Monitoring of teachers Term 1, 2021 (February - May)
vi.
Evaluation and way forward May, 2021

(b) IPS will provide professional development for teachers in how to incorporate
LCT strategies in the lesson plans. The document analysis of the lesson plans revealed that
most of the teachers did not incorporate LCT strategies as they planned for their lessons. The
traditional ways of lesson planning, which includes motivation, presentation, what resources to
use, and evaluation, sometimes does not cater for all learners, and thus the need to be specific
when planning (Tamilselvi & Geetha, 2015). A lesson planning process related to LCT would
help teachers in setting personal goals in LCT and focus on objectives and learner outcomes
(Wheatley, 2002). Since learners are different and learn differently, teachers need to use learner
centered strategies which include individualizing the lesson plans (Test et al., 2004). Lesson
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 105

planning not only saves time but ensures that teachers remain focused on what they planned to
teach and involve all learners (Tamilselvi & Geetha, 2015). If LCT strategies are incorporated in
the lesson planning stage, they would more likely be used in the classrooms as well (Tamilselvi
& Geetha, 2015). In order to improve teachers’ perceptions about LCT and ensure that teachers
adopt LCT strategies, training them in how to incorporate LCT in their lesson plans would
demystify and assuage their concerns (Amini, 2011).
Below are the summarized action steps for professional development in how to
incorporate LCT strategies in lesson plans.
Table 23

Summary Action Steps for Professional Development In Incorporating LCT Strategies In Lesson
Plans

Action Steps Timeframe
i.
Teacher training in lesson planning
and incorporating LCT strategies in
lesson plans.
January 2021 and ongoing
iv.
Teachers carry out lesson planning,
highlighting the LCT methods to use
in classrooms.
February 2021 and ongoing
v.
Monitoring of teachers Term 1, 20201 (February - May)
vi.
Evaluation and way forward May, 2021

In order to save time and financial resources, the professional development sessions for
recommendations 3 and 4 could be combined together and conducted on the same days. The
trainer would ensure that each of the two areas is tackled individually for emphasis.
Recommendation 4: IPS will train supervisors on the value of LCT and how to assist
teachers in ensuring they use LCT in classrooms. If supervisors have not embraced the idea
of taking up certain activities, they could deter those they supervise from implementing what
they learned (Kirpatrick & Kirpartrick, 2006). Supervisors sometimes see themselves taking the
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 106

role of “gate-keeper,” which can affect their decisions on certain ways, yet, at the same time,
they have to stay balanced in order to objectively perform their supervisory or advisory role
(Slick, 1997). To effectively perform their role, like teachers, supervisors need to understand
and appreciate the value of the task before them (LCT in this case), and assume multiple roles
such as counselor, mentor, teacher and encourager, in order to encourage and support the
teachers they supervise (Slick, 1997).
Most schools, if not all, are results oriented and LCT can be effective in improving
learners’ performance through improved communication, collaboration, critical thinking and
creativity (Barraket, 2005; Aliusta et al., 2015). If supervisors are able to dialogue with the
teachers they supervise, improvements would happen through these conversations and teachers’
reflections, which would subsequently link to performance improvement (Lui, 2017). Training
of supervisors in how to hold conversations, support and mentor teachers would help in
strengthening teaching practices in applying LCT strategies in classrooms (Mau & Harkness,
2020). In addition, supervisors cannot be effective in assisting teachers to use LCT if they,
themselves, cannot reflect on their own processes and learn how to guide, mentor and encourage
teachers to take the responsibility and accountability for their learning (Paris & Gespass, 2001).
Therefore, it is imperative that supervisors understand the need for LCT, but also how they can
guide teachers to effectively use it in classrooms and assist them to achieve their goals in LCT.
Table 24 shows the summarized action steps to train supervisors in the value of LCT.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 107

Table 24
Summary Action Steps for Training Supervisors the Value of LCT Strategies
Action Steps Timeframe
i. Supervisors trained in LCT strategies
and their importance.
January 2021 and ongoing
iv. Supervisors work with teachers to
incorporate LCT in lesson plans. They
ensure teachers have the necessary
materials and learning aids.
February 2021 and ongoing
v. LCT expert to check on supervisor for
any additional support.
Term 1, 20201 (February - May)
vi. Evaluation and way forward May, 2021

Recommendation 5: IPS will train supervisors in strategies of motivating and
recognizing teachers using LCT. It is not enough to train teachers in using LCT. Teachers
need to be continuously encouraged and motivated to do so (East, 2012). Motivation is crucial
for teachers to stay on course and for them to encourage each other, but supervisors need to
indicate to the teachers what they (supervisors) value in LCT so it can be recognized and
rewarded (Ambrose et al., 2010). It is believed that using LCT encourages intrinsic motivation
for teachers (East, 2012). One of the ways of encouraging teachers to remain actively engaged in
LCT strategies is to come up with creative ways of recognizing or rewarding the teachers who
have endeavored to use LCT in their classrooms. This could be through complementing their
efforts in using LCT, supporting their goals, giving them positive feedback, or creating a positive
working environment in which they will thrive. This recognition or reward would show the
teachers that the school values LCT and give them additional motivation to continue to invest
their time and energy in developing and applying LCT strategies (Clark & Estes, 2008; East,
2012).

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 108

Capacity and Resource Requirements
The study participants expressed the need to train in LCT strategies and recognized the
benefits of using the LCT methods but had varying concerns with the time LCT takes to deliver a
lesson, the lack of teaching aids, and the effect it would have on the learners if the syllabus is not
covered in time (Nakabugo et al., 2007). As such, the school needs to invest in building the
teachers’ capacity to effectively use LCT so that teachers gain time, instead of losing it, during
class time. Expert trainers in LCT strategies should be engaged to work with the teachers over a
period of time (a term / semester). In turn, teachers could become experts in using LCT, and a
program to initiate new teachers could then be designed by the teachers themselves, with the
leadership of the Director of Studies. This would enable continuity when new teachers come on
board.
The school should invest in teaching aids recommended by teachers for use in
classrooms. In addition, teachers, learners and parents should be trained and encouraged to
create their own teaching aids using local resources and recyclable materials, as creativity and
problem solving are strong 21
st
century skill requirements, which should be passed on to the
learners (Woods-Groves & Woods-Groves, 2015). This would ensure that learning using LCT
still takes place regardless of the school’s financial ability to purchase learners’ aids. Parents, as
partners, should be engaged in assisting the teachers, learners and the school in promoting
learner-centered activities in their homes as well as fundraising for materials needed (Body,
2017). If this is done on a continuous basis, all the stakeholders would be engaged in ensuring
LCT is a permanent strategy in IPS. In order to minimize training costs, the recommended
solutions three, four and five (all training interventions) could be combined such that training to
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 109

cover these knowledge needs takes place at once. However, it is important for each solution to
be given particular attention to ensure trainees understand what is required of them.
Timeframe
September 2020: The earliest the preparations to implement LCT would be September
2020, with the school administration engaging experts (or look within their staff) to help them go
through the LCT goal-setting activity. By the time this activity is completed, all teachers and
administrators should have clear, measurable and achievable goals related to LCT with timelines
and with a monitoring tool in place. The goals should be printed on posters and placed in
strategic places such as the teachers’ staff room, school office, libraries, waiting rooms and any
other place where they could be easily read by anybody.
November 2020: Initial communication to the parents should be sent out early in the
process of enacting change. This could be through written circulars, email and WhatsApp. This
communication would alert the parents that they would be called upon to attend a meeting where
experts would be taking them through LCT and how their children would benefit from it.
January 2021: Staff training in LCT strategies begins. Although the main trainees
would be the teachers and their supervisors, this training would target all staff because they
would ultimately be counted on to be ambassadors in communicating about LCT to partners.
Initial evaluation would be done immediately after the training. The trainees will be given
evaluation sheets to fill out so that the trainers get a sense of how trainees feel about the training
and adjustments could be made. Depending on the evaluation outcomes, decisions to do follow-
up training with the same trainers, internal training with teachers, or some other means of
training would be made.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 110

February 2021-April 2021: For the first time after initial training, LCT strategies would
be introduced and implemented in the classrooms. This would be Term One of 2021.
Monitoring will take place during this time to see what progress teachers are making in
implementing LCT in their lessons. As they face challenges, interventions will be made, and
teachers will be guided and supported by their administrators and peers. This is expected to be
an ongoing activity until teachers fully embrace LCT as a way of delivering lessons.
Arrangements should be made periodically for experienced teachers to pass on their knowledge
to the new ones so that learning is a continuous process.
April 2021: Initial evaluation of the experiences would take place. Towards the end of
Term One, of 2021, monitoring will be carried out by the supervisors. This will be done by
going to individual classes to understand what teachers are doing to incorporate LCT in classes.
Teachers would be consulted for their feedback, and learners would also be consulted to get a
sense of how they feel about the new teaching method(s). If there are any major gaps, additional
training will be scheduled. In the event that schools remain closed due to the COVID-19
pandemic, training should continue, but virtually via Zoom, GoToMeeting or any other online
meeting software. Additional LCT strategies for online classes would need to be incorporated in
the training.
Evaluation Plan
It is important to evaluate the interventions to ensure that they were successful and
fulfilled the intended purposes (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). Evaluations of teacher
application of LCT strategies would suggest how to improve on the training programs and make
them more effective in the future (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006; Clark & Estes, 2008).
Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick’s model of evaluation will be used to ascertain that teachers and their
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 111

supervisors have effectively adopted LCT strategies in their classrooms to enhance student
learning. This four-level plan critically evaluates the trainees’ reactions, learning, behavior and
results. Table 25 indicates a summary of the evaluation plan after teacher training in LCT
strategies.
Table 25
Evaluation Plan
Intervention
proposed
Reaction
(Level 1)
Learning
(Level 2)
Transfer
(Level 3)
Impact
(Level 4)
1. In a meeting
organized at
school, IPS will
communicate to the
teachers and
parents the
importance of
learner centered
teaching
Teachers and parents
will fill out evaluation
sheets to indicate how
they feel about LCT.
IPS will take a
survey to find
out what the
teachers and
parents know
about LCT.
Teachers will begin
asking questions
about LCT.

Teachers will begin
discussing strategies
of using LCT.
Teachers will
begin
organizing their
classes to suit
the LCT.

Teachers will
begin requesting
for, or making,
teaching aids.
2. IPS will set
clear, measurable
and achievable
goals to incorporate
LCT strategies in
their curriculum,
lesson plans and
classrooms.
All teachers will fill
out feedback forms on
the types of goals they
see as important
related to LCT.

Supervisors and
trainers will monitor
teacher participation
during the training.

Supervisors and
trainers will monitor
attendance.

Teachers will
summarize in
writing and share
with their
supervisors their
goals in LCT;
how they will be
measured; and
how they intend
to achieve them.
The LCT goals are
clearly
communicated to
teachers in writing
and also explained
to them for clarity.

The goals are
displayed in areas
where teachers and
parents can easily
read them.
Teachers and
supervisors
receive clearly
written,
measurable and
achievable goals
to integrate LCT
strategies in the
curriculum and
lesson plans.

Goals are
regularly
measured
against student
learning
outcomes

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 112

Table 25, continued
Intervention
proposed
Reaction
(Level 1)
Learning
(Level 2)
Transfer
(Level 3)
Impact
(Level 4)
3a. IPS will provide
professional
development to
teachers in the
benefits of learner
centered teaching
(LCT) and how to
incorporate LCT
strategies in
classrooms.

All teachers fill out
evaluation sheets on
the training that has
been received, and on
ideas of future
training.

Supervisors and
trainers will monitor
teacher participation
during the training.

Supervisors and
trainers will monitor
attendance.

Participants
summarize in
writing what
they have learnt.

Participants
generate action
plans, complete
with dates.

Re-assessments
conducted every
beginning of
term through
peer training.

Teachers update
classroom set up
with current charts;
learners’ work is
displayed in the
classrooms.

Learning aids are
visible and being
used by teachers and
learners.

Learners are
engaged in more
group activities.

Teachers are paying
attention to learners’
personal challenges.

Teachers’ self-
efficacy is
higher related to
implementing
LCT

All learners are
actively
engaged in
decision-making
during class
time.

Learners’ self-
esteem has
improved. They
can voluntarily
take on
assignments.

Learners’
academic
performance
improved (a
record of
performance
before and after
the training will
be kept).

Parents notice
the positive
change in their
children (self-
esteem,
academic
progress, love
for teachers and
school)

3b. Training
teachers in how to
incorporate LCT in
the lesson planning.
All participants fill in
evaluation sheets on
the training they have
received and future
training.

Monitor participation
during the training.

Monitor attendance.
Conduct a
survey to find
out teachers’
strategies in
incorporating
LCT in lesson
plans.

Re-assessments
every beginning
of term during
scheming or
work.

Teachers
incorporate LCT
strategies in their
daily lesson plans,
detailing reference
books, learning aids,
planned group work,
and planned
outcome.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 113

Table 25, continued
4. Train supervisors
in the value of LCT
and how they can
assist teachers to
ensure teachers use
LCT in classrooms.
All participants fill
evaluation sheets on
the training they have
received and future
training.

Monitor participation
during the training.

Monitor attendance.

Administrative
team to
summarize what
they have learnt.

Conduct a survey
to find out how
administrative
team can assist
teachers in
realizing the goal
of using LCT.
Administrative staff
coordinate with
teachers to supply
them with materials
needed to use in the
classrooms.

Assign small,
manageable class
sizes.

Supervisors
share periodic
reports on
teachers’ use of
LCT.

Teachers report
greater
collaboration
around LCT
with their
supervisors and
positive
working
relationships

Supervisors
assist and equip
teachers with
what they need
to succeed in
using LCT.
5. Supervisors use
research-based
strategies of
motivating and
recognizing
teachers using
LCT.
Supervisors receive
reactions from
teachers about
proposed motivation
strategies.

Supervisors, with
input of teachers,
set plans for
recognizing and
awarding
teachers for
using LCT.

Plans are
communicated to
the teachers and
parents.
Leadership monitors
supervisors’ actions
towards recognizing
and rewarding
teachers using LCT.
Supervisors
recognize
teachers for
using LCT and
award them.

Teachers see the
rewards and
recognition as
reflective of
their efforts

Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006)’s four levels of evaluation include Level One, which will
assess the reaction of the teachers immediately after receiving training or communication about
LCT; Level Two will assess if learning has taken place after the training or communication, and
that knowledge has been effectively received; Level Three will assess the trainees’ behavior to
see if the information received about LCT has been transferred and put to use; and Level Four
will assess the results, or impact resulting from the interventions.

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 114

Level One: Reaction
It is imperative that reactions towards any training are evaluated (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006). Teachers and supervisors’ reactions before and after training in LCT
strategies should be evaluated to gauge how trainees feel about the learning outcomes and impact
of the training. Evaluations before training can be used to understand the participants’
expectations and gauge the general mood about the training. After the training, evaluations
should be filled out anonymously (unless some teachers do not mind coming forward with their
reactions) by all participants, which would allow them to be as frank and open as possible (Clark
& Estes, 2008 & Kirkpatrick, 2006). If objective feedback is received, the trainers and
administrators would be able to improve or focus future training in LCT using the users’
feedback (Clark & Estes, 2008 & Kirkpatrick, 2006).
In addition, trainers should ensure all teachers have attended the training program and all
of them have given their feedback. Reaction sheets should prompt teachers to explain further
what they have liked or disliked (if at all) about the training, if and why they think it is relevant
or not, and if this is something that should be continuous. This would help for planning and
budgeting purposes (Clark & Estes, 2008 & Kirkpatrick, 2006).
Level Two: Learning
According to Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick (2006), when participants’ skills, behavior and
comprehension improve as a result of attending a program, then learning has taken place. If
trainees have not understood or if attitudes have not changed, then the program has not achieved
its purpose. Teachers have to demonstrate that they have learnt what LCT is about through
practicing what they have learnt. Likewise, supervisors have to demonstrate learning through
guiding teachers in goal setting, continuous communication and feedback about LCT in classes.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 115

The feedback should be two-way from teachers to supervisors and vice versa. Teaching should
be a purposeful process, not just implementation of particular teaching approaches. Learners and
teachers should use reflection to learn about their respective roles in the learning and teaching
process (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1990; Dewey, 1938). Teachers and their supervisors will write
down what they have learnt about LCT and continue to refer to their notes and reflect on their
experiences as they integrate LCT strategies in their lesson plans.
Level Three: Transfer
During this stage, a noticeable change should be observed in the participants’ behavior as a
result of the training received (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick). Teachers can be observed using LCT
in their classrooms. Absence of LCT techniques in the classrooms would imply that teachers
may not have understood what was taught to them, or they were not made to realize the value of
LCT. The supervisors should be able to support the teachers through reminders of how they can
use LCT in the classrooms, provide the required material to use in classrooms, and ensure that
teachers are supported into turning the classroom into a LCT environment. Supervisors should
be able to check the curriculum, lesson plans and classrooms for LCT strategies.
To find out if effective transfer of knowledge took place, learners could be assessed to see
how they are progressing as a result of LCT and how they are responding to the new LCT
changes introduced in the classrooms. Likewise, the supervisors could be assessed through the
number of teachers they have directly assisted, mentored and guided to use LCT in the
classrooms and what kind of information they shared with the teachers. A survey could be
carried out to find out how the supervisors have supported the teachers and what else could be
done to support them. Teachers and supervisors should be made to understand that the goal of
LCT is not finite and about delivering a good lesson plan or a classroom set up that supports
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 116

LCT, but a process through which they learn to critique, teach learners how to critique and
analyze events, and interconnect classroom activities and events to those outside of the
classrooms (Paris & Gespass, 2001).
Level Four: Impact
Impact is what happens as a consequence of training (Clark & Estes, 2008; Kirkpartrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2006). It is the expected outcome that was initially outlined or communicated to the
participants during training. Impact includes teachers incorporating LCT strategies in their
lesson plans and applying LCT in classrooms. Continuous discussions held between supervisors
and teachers will serve to evaluate progress and mitigate any challenges faced as LCT is being
implemented along the way. There should be an improvement from the 13% of teachers who
demonstrated knowledge of incorporating LCT in their lesson planning in this research to not
less than 50% during Term One of 2021, and eventually to 100%.
The advantages of using LCT, such as improved learning abilities, self- esteem, creativity,
and collaboration through group work and fun, will be progressively visible through comparison
of each child’s past performance in those areas and the current performance after introducing
LCT in the classrooms. Teachers should be able to write or describe what their learners will be
able to do when LCT strategies are used in the classrooms (Wheatley, 2002). Further evidence
of progression will be seen in the learners’ written activities or periodic assessments, and
learners’ ability to analyze simple and sometimes complex issues. As part of impact, supervisors
will be recognizing or rewarding teachers using LCT in classrooms. Measuring impact must
recognize the challenges in determining if learners’ progress is a result of the teachers’ LCT
strategies or something else, since there are always other factors at play. Nevertheless, some
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 117

changes can be clearly visible, such as classroom collaborative behavior in the learners, ability to
independently make decisions, and others that were missing before the introduction of LCT.
Future Research
The subject of LCT is wide and may be subject to several interpretations and teaching
methods (Aliusta et al., 2015). This study focused on several areas that constitute LCT, such as
learners taking charge of their lessons, small class sizes, group discussions, creativity and
collaborations, use of learning aids in classrooms, and use of classroom displays and learner-
friendly charts, to mention a few (Agrahari, 2016; Fung, 2015; Sikoyo, 2010; Altinyelken, 2010;
Aliusta et al., 2015). Different researchers, scholars and theorists such as John Locke (17
th

century); Colonel Francis Parker (19
th
century); and John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Lev Vygotsky
(20
th
century) have written about LCT (Henson, 2003), and the subject still maintains its
relevance in present-day learning as LCT continues to develop and evolve (Henson, 2003). This
study focused on teachers in IPS, but teachers in other schools may have different knowledge,
motivation and organizational experience in using LCT. Future studies on the subject of LCT
may give us more perspectives that could be applied in classrooms. Below are some of the
suggestions for future research.
1) Use control and experimental groups to compare the long-term effects of teacher centered
versus LCT in Ugandan schools. This would be a long-term study but could be relevant
in supporting schools, parents, educators and policy makers in decision-making regarding
curricula, assessments, technology and other pedagogical ideologies. It takes time for
real education outcomes to surface and using control and experimental groups could
inform practice.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 118

2) Examine teachers’ knowledge, motivation and organization influences in LCT in
additional Ugandan schools. This could be done as a comparative study of national and
international schools.
3) Given current environments and the move to more online learning, future research on
LCT can be applied to online learning and how online learning strategies and outcomes
compare with LCT strategies in physical classrooms.
Conclusion
The findings of this study revealed high levels of teacher centered instruction in Ugandan
classrooms, which hampers the learners’ ability to apply critical thinking skills, create,
collaborate and engage in meaningful learning. This, in turn, would affect learners as adults in
applying these skills at the workplace. This study was conducted to determine the knowledge,
motivation and organization influences in LCT strategies among the teachers of one school in
Uganda, IPS. Through interviews, observations and document analysis, some challenges were
identified, and evidence-based recommendations were made, that if incorporated in the school
curriculum, would enhance the learners’ creativity, collaboration, critical thinking, decision-
making skills and long-life learning (Aliusta et al., 2015). As learners are given the mandate to
make decisions during their learning, they begin to connect the pieces together and draw their
own conclusions (Amini, 2011; Paris & Gespass, 2001). These skills are highly valued in the
competitive 21
st
century workplace (Aliusta et al., 2015; Barraket, 2005). Learners with these
21
st
century skills hold advantages in job creation and job placements over those that are lacking
in those skills (Altinyelken, 2010; Boholano, 2017). In addition, the LCT approach to learning
usually integrates the learners’ social and cultural environments, leading to improved cognitive
competence (Amini, 2011). Learners who have learnt to be creative decision makers are
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 119

perceived to be great contributors to their socio-economic environments and could be counted on
as problem solvers (Boholano, 2017). The call for a learner centered approach to teaching is
more relevant than ever, especially during the current technological advances where robots can
replace humans in some tasks, or sometimes work alongside humans in others (Gaskill, 2015;
Brown, 2010). The pressure to develop relevant skills, mindsets, and competencies is evident in
the world, and schools need to be innovative in how they teach in order to cope with the fast
changing, increasingly technological demands (Brown et al., 2019; Lim et al., 2013). Teachers,
therefore, face pressure to incorporate new approaches to learning.
Schools in Uganda need to be clear in their goal setting and communicating the LCT policy
so that teachers appreciate that the benefits outweigh the constraints of using LCT in the
classrooms. The benefits of LCT should be relayed to parents and all stakeholders so that they
are clearly understood and, therefore, are accountable; know what to look out for and are on the
same page. If all stakeholders are in synch, implementation would be smoother and
improvement in learning will likely take place (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). No matter
what subjects teachers are teaching, if they found ways to facilitate, rather than becoming the
custodians of information, learners would pick up pace and get used to thinking critically,
reasoning, discussing and finding solutions to problems, rather than always looking to their
teachers for answers (Amini, 2011). Dynamic teachers would use available resources, despite
the challenges, to apply themselves and engage their learners. For successful implementation of
LCT in classrooms, the skills required for both the learners and teachers are unique; and with
continuous training and practice, teachers and learners would move from rote to more engaged
learning (Weimer, 2002). Research on how to support teachers to practice LCT should help to
accelerate use of, and better practices in LCT (Ellis, 2016).
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 120

REFERENCES
Ackers, J., & Hardman, F. (2001). Classroom interaction in Kenyan primary schools. Compare,
31(2), 245-61. doi:10.1080/03057920120053238
Agrahari, R. (2016). The nature of educational reform and change: From teacher-centered to
student-centered learning. Educational Quest, 7(2), 133-139. doi:10.5958/2230-
7311.2016.00030.1
Aguti, J. N., & Fraser, W. J. (2005). The challenges of universal primary education in uganda
through distance education programmes. Africa Education Review, 2(1), 91-108.
doi:10.1080/18146620508566293
Akello, D. L., Timmerman, G., & Namusisi, S. (2016). Teaching reading and writing in local
language using the child-centred pedagogy in Uganda. Language and Education, 30(3),
252-266. doi:10.1080/09500782.2015.1106553
Al Achkar, M., & Davies, M. K. (2016). A small group learning model for evidence-based
medicine. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 7, 611.
Alencar, E., Feldhusen, J. F., & Widlak, F. W. (1976). Creativity training in elementary schools
in brazil. The Journal of Experimental Education, 44(4), 23-27.
doi:10.1080/00220973.1976.11011544
Alexander, G., Le Roux, N., Hlalele, D., Daries, G., & Alexander, G. (2010). Do educators in the
free state province of South Africa engage learners via outcomes based teaching styles?
Journal of Social Sciences, 24(1), 15-22.
Aliusta, G., Özer, B., & Kan, A. (2015). Student-centred learning (SCL) in schools in North
Cyprus: Teachers' opinions and problems the implementation of student-centred
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 121

instructional strategies in schools in North Cyprus. TED EĞİTİM VE BİLİM. 40.
10.15390/EB.2015.2822.
Altinyelken, H. K. (2010). Pedagogical renewal in Sub‐Saharan Africa: The case of Uganda.
Comparative Education, 46(2), 151-171.
Altinyelken, H. K. (2010a). Curriculum change in Uganda: Teacher perspectives on the new
thematic curriculum. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(2), 151.
Altinyelken, H., Moorcroft, S., & van, D. D. (2014). The dilemmas and complexities of
implementing language-in-education policies: Perspectives from urban and rural contexts
in Uganda. International Journal of Educational Development, 36, 90-99.
doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2013.11.001
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work
environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154-1184.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Amini, A. (2011). A new learner-centered lesson plan in teaching grammar to ESL/EFL learners.
International Journal of Arts & Sciences, 4(10), 9–22. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/906338550/
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium
learners in OECD countries. OECD Education Working Papers, (41), 33.
Aslanargun, E. (2015). Teachers’ Expectations and School Administration: Keys of Better
Communication in Schools. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 60.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 122

Azumi, J., & Lerman, J. (1987). Selecting and rewarding master teachers: What teachers in one
district think. The Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 189–202.
https://doi.org/10.1086/461532
Baker, J. D., Rieg, S. A., & Clendaniel, T. (2006). An investigation of an after school math
tutoring program: University tutors + elementary students = A successful partnership.
Education, 127(2).
Ballou, D., & Springer, M. G. (2015). Using student test scores to measure teacher performance:
Some problems in the design and implementation of evaluation systems. Educational
Researcher, 44(2), 77-86. doi:10.3102/0013189X15574904
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior, 4, (pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.],
Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge; Cambridge University Press.
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary definition of
innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1323-1339. doi:10.1108/00251740910984578
Barraket, J. (2005) Teaching research method using a student-centred approach.
Bhattacharjee, Y. (2004). Harvard faculty decry widening gender gap.(women in science).
Science, 305(5691), 1692.
Body, A. (2017). Fundraising for primary schools in England—Moving beyond the school gates.
International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), n/a–n/a.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.1582
Boholano, H. (2017). Smart social networking: 21st century teaching and learning skills.
Research in Pedagogy, 7(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.17810/2015.45
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 123

Bovill, C. (2015). Learner-centred education in international perspective. whose pedagogy for
whose development? London, Routledge. doi:10.1080/1360144X.2015.1066404
Boyadzhieva, E. (2016). LCT and learner autonomy. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
232, 35-40. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.10.008
Broadhead, P. (2001). Curriculum change in norway: Thematic approaches, active learning and
pupil cooperation--from curriculum design to classroom implementation. Scandinavian
Journal of Educational Research, 45(1), 19-36. doi:10.1080/00313830020023375
Brough, C. (2008). Student-centred curriculum integration in action: "I was wondering if you
could tell me how much one meat patty and one sausage costs?" (Teaching and
Learning)(Report). Set: Research Information for Teachers (Wellington), (3), 9.
Brown, A. (2010). The drone warriors: robots pose risks, but not the type envisioned in tales of
machines taking over. Instead, robots are changing how we humans think about warfare.
(Focus On: Risk Management)(Cover story). Mechanical Engineering-CIME, 132(1).
Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 4-12.
doi:10.3102/0013189X023008004
Brown, C., Story, G., Mourão-Miranda, J., & Baker, J. (2019). Will artificial intelligence
eventually replace psychiatrists? The British Journal of Psychiatry : the Journal of
Mental Science, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.245
Brucks, M. (1985). The effects of product class knowledge on information search behavior.
Journalof Consumer Research, 12, 1–16.
Butler, L. (2012). LCT: Five key changes to practice (book review). Journal of Human Services,
32(1), 92.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 124

Cai, Y., & Zhu, X. (2017). Learning strategies and reading literacy among Chinese and Finnish
adolescents: Evidence of suppression. Educational Psychology, 37(2), 192-204.
doi:10.1080/01443410.2016.1170105
Camp, H. (2017). Goal setting as teacher development practice. International Journal of
Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 29(1), 61–72.
Cano, J. (2003). From teacher to facilitator: A new role for the teacher. Agricultural Education
Magazine, 2(76).
Carnoy, M., Ngware, M., & Oketch, M. (2015a). The role of classroom resources and national
educational context in student learning gains: Comparing Botswana, Kenya, and South
Africa. Comparative Education Review, 59(2), 199-233. doi:10.1086/680173
Caron, T. A. (2007). Learning multiplication: The easy way. The Clearing House: A Journal of
Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 80(6), 278-282. doi:10.3200/TCHS.80.6.278-
282
Çavuş Şahin, M., Kaan, D., & Osman Y. K. (2013). An investigation of pre-service teachers’
levels of rewarding preferences while maintaining classroom discipline. Kuramsal
Eğitimbilim Dergisi, 6(2), 180–195. Retrieved from
https://doaj.org/article/e9099be2aeeb44c88f746091b2cd7666
Chisholm, L., & Leyendecker, R. (2008). Curriculum Reform in Post-1990s Sub-Saharan Africa.
International Journal of Educational Development, 28(2), 195–205.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2007.04.003
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 125

Cochran-Smith, M. (1989, April). Of questions not answers: The discourse of student teachers
and their school and university mentors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Cohen, D. K. (1998). Dewey's problem. Elementary School Journal, 98(5), 427-46.
doi:10.1086/461907
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design : Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA. SAGE Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The right to learn and the advancement of teaching: Research,
policy, and practice for democratic education. Educational Researcher, 25(6), 5-17.
doi:10.3102/0013189X025006005
de Bilde, J., Boonen, T., Speybroeck, S., De Fraine, B., Van Damme, J., & Goos, M. (2015).
Experiential education in kindergarten. associations with school adjustment and the
moderating role of initial achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 116(2), 173-197.
doi:10.1086/683802
Dembo, M., & Seli, H. (2016). Motivation and learning strategies for college success : a focus
on self-regulated learning . New York, NY: Routledge.
Demos, J. (1978). Perceptions of teachers in selected high schools in DODDSEUR toward
innovations and change ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Designing quality survey questions. (Sheila B. Robinson and Kimberly Firth Leonard)(brief
article)(book review) (2018). Ringgold, Inc.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan.
DeZure, D. (2004). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. The Review of
Higher Education, 27(2), 271-272.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 126

Dlugash, M. (2014). Innovating schools: American school reform for the 21st century. Kennedy
School Review, 14, 75.
Dohmann, C. W. (2017). Teachers' perceptions toward innovations and change. University of
Southern California Digital Library (USC.DL). doi:10.25549/USCTHESES-C18-423108
Driver, M. (2001). Fostering creativity in business education: Developing creative classroom
environments to provide students with critical workplace competencies. Journal of
Education for Business, 77(1), 28-33. doi:10.1080/08832320109599667
Dunn, K., & Rakes, G. (2010). Producing caring qualified teachers: An exploration of the
influence of pre-service teacher concerns on learner-centeredness. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26(3), 516–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.06.013
East, M. (2012). Working towards a motivational pedagogy for school programmes in additional
languages. Curriculum Matters, 8.
Ediger, M. (2012a). Recent leaders in American education. (B.F. Skinner, Ralph Tyler, John
Dewey, William Chandler Bagley, A.H. Maslow, Jerome Bruner and Jean Piaget).
College Student Journal, 46(1), 174.
Edmond, M., Neville, F., & Khalil, H. (2016). A comparison of teaching three common ear,
nose, and throat conditions to medical students through video podcasts and written
handouts: A pilot study. Advances in Medical Education and Practice, 7, 281-286.
doi:10.2147/AMEP.S101099
Ejuu, G. (2012a). Early childhood development policy advances in Uganda. Wallingford,
Oxford, U.K. : Triangle Journals.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 127

Ejuu, G. (2012b). Implementing the early childhood development teacher training framework in
uganda: Gains and challenges. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 10(3), 282-293.
doi:10.1177/1476718X12437114
Ellis, T., & Levy, Y. (2009). Towards a guide for novice researchers on research methodology:
review and proposed methods. Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology, 6.
Ellis, D. (2016). The role of nurse educators’ self-perception and beliefs in the use of learner-
centered teaching in the classroom. Nurse Education in Practice, 16(1), 66–70.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2015.08.011
Fahraeus, A. (2013). Research supports LCT. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 13(4)
Falk, B. (2011). Preparing educators for LCT. The New Educator, 7(4), 303-304.
doi:10.1080/1547688X.2011.619943
Fong, L. L., Sidhu, G. K., & Fook, C. Y. (2014). Exploring 21st century skills among
postgraduates in malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 123, 130-138.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1406
Frey, C. B., & Osborne, M. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to
computerisation? Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 114, 254-280.
doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.019
Fung, C. K. H. (2015). “Active child” and “Active teacher”: Complementary roles in sustaining
child-centered curriculum. Childhood Education, 91(6), 420-431.
doi:10.1080/00094056.2015.1114787
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 128

Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45-56.
Gaskill, T. (2015). Hands-free.(using robots in the food processing industry)(Keeping Current).
Quality Progress, 48(3), 12,14.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. London, UK: Pearson.
Gwaltney, T. (1998). Experience and education: The 60th anniversary edition. Educational
Studies, 29(3), 266.
Ha, Y. L. (2014). Who's the teacher? who's the learner? professional growth and development of
a novice teacher in Hong Kong. Childhood Education, 90(1), 43-53.
doi:10.1080/00094056.2014.872514
Hannafin, M. J., Hill, J. R., Land, S. M., & Lee, E. (2014). Student-centered, open learning
environments: Research, theory, and practice. New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_51
Hara, A. (1995). Teacher-centered and child-centered pedagogical approaches in teaching
children’s literature. Education., 115(3).
Hardman, F., Ackers, J., Abrishamian, N., & O'Sullivan, M. (2011). Developing a systemic
approach to teacher education in Sub-Saharan Africa: Emerging lessons from Kenya,
Tanzania and Uganda. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education,
41(5), 669-683. doi:10.1080/03057925.2011.581014
Hassan, M. M., & Qureshi, A. N. (2018). Disrupting the rote learning loop: CS majors iterating
over learning modules with an adaptive educational hypermedia. Verlag: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-91464-0_7
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 129

Henry O'Lawrence. (2017a). The workforce for the 21st century. Issues in Informing Science and
Information Technology, 14, 67.
Henson, K. (2003). Foundations for learner-centered education: a knowledge base. Education,
124(1).
Higgins, L., & Rwanyange, R. (2005). Ownership in the education reform process in Uganda.
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 35(1), 7–26.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920500033464
Holt, L., & Brockett, R. G. (2012a). Self direction and factors influencing technology use:
Examining the relationships for the 21st century workplace. New York, NY: Elsevier
Science. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2012.06.011
Hou, Z., & Leung, S. A. (2011). Vocational aspirations of Chinese high school students and their
parents' expectations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79(2), 349-360.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.05.008
Ibarra, H. (2015). Act like a leader, think like a leader. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review
Press.
Innovations in open and flexible education (2018). In Li K. C., Yuen K. S. and Wong B. T. M.
(Eds.). Singapore: Springer Singapore. doi:10.1007/978-981-10-7995-5
Iqbal, A. (2011). Creativity and innovation in Saudi Arabia: An overview. Innovation, 13(3),
376-390. doi:10.5172/impp.2011.13.3.376
Irby, D., & O’Sullivan, P. (2018). Developing and rewarding teachers as educators and scholars:
remarkable progress and daunting challenges. Medical Education, 52(1), 58–67.
https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13379
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 130

Irvine, J., & Cossham, A. (2011). Flexible learning. Library Review, 60(8), 712-722.
doi:10.1108/00242531111166728
Izumi-Taylor, S., & Rogers, C. (2016a). You are not the boss of me: How Japanese teachers
delegate authority to children through play. Childhood Education, 210.
Jalani, N. H., & Sern, L. C. (2015). Efficiency comparisons between example-problem-based
learning and teacher-centered learning in the teaching of circuit theory. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 153-163. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.128
Jeffrey, B., & Woods, P. (2009). Creative learning in the primary school Routledge.
Judd, J. (2017). Exploring transformational leadership: How heads of school foster and support
innovation in schools. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Kassim, J. M., & Abdullah, J. B. (2011). Promoting learning environment and attitude towards
change among secondary school principals in Pahang Malaysia: Teachers’ perceptions.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 45-49. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.009
King, K. (1989). Primary schooling and developmental knowledge in Africa.
Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: The four levels (3
rd
Edition). San Francisco, CA: Brett Koehler.
Kirpalani, N. (2017). Developing self-reflective practices to improve teaching effectiveness.
Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, 17(8), 73–80. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1991591562/
Klemencic, E., Mirazchiyski, P., & Sandoval-Hernández, A. (2014). Parental involvement in
school activities and student reading achievement - Theoretical perspectives and PIRLS
2011 Findings. Solsko Polje, 25(3/4), 117–130,139–141,155–158. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1655361723/
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 131

Kola, O. (2018). Awareness creation and effective communication are impetus for entrenching
outcomes based education in law pedagogy in south Africa. Global Media Journal,
16(31), 1.
Kolesnikova, Iryna. (2016). Combined teaching method: An experimental study. World Journal
of Education, 6. 10.5430/wje.v6n6p51.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-18. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Kyoshaba, M. (2009). Factors affecting academic performance of undergraduate students at
Uganda Christian University (Doctoral dissertation, Makerere University).
Lattimer, H. (2015). Translating theory into practice: Making meaning of learner centered
education frameworks for classroom-based practitioners. International Journal of
Educational Development, 45, 65-76. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.09.012
Lawler, A., & Lawler, A. (2005). Harvard pledges $50 million to boost diversity on campus.
Science (Washington), 308(5725), 1102.
Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-
centered learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 64(4), 707-734. doi:10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5
Lerkkanen, M. (2016). Child-centered versus teacher-directed teaching practices: Associations
with the development of academic skills in the first grade at school. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 36, 145–156.
Lim, C.P., Zhao, Y., Tondeur, J., Chai, C.S., & Tsai, C. (2013). Bridging the gap: Technology
trends and use of technology in schools. Educational Technology & Society, 16, 59-68.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 132

Linder, C. J., & Hillhouse, G. (1996). Teaching by conceptual exploration: Insights into potential
long-term learning outcomes. Physics Teacher, 34(6), 332-38. doi:10.1119/1.2344470
Lithner, J. (2008). A research framework for creative and imitative reasoning. Educational
Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 255-276. doi:10.1007/s10649-007-9104-2
Locke, E. (1996). Motivation through conscious goal setting. Applied and Preventive
Psychology, 5(2), 117–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(96)80005-9
Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of
competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal,
40(2), 395-443. doi:10.3102/00028312040002395
Lui, K. (2017). Creating a dialogic space for prospective teacher critical reflection and
transformative learning. Reflective Practice, 18(6), 805–820.
Maehr, M., & Meyer, H. (1997). Understanding motivation and schooling: Where we’ve been,
where we are, and where we need to go. Educational Psychology Review, 9(4), 371–409.
Mangubhai, F. (2007). The moral and ethical dimensions of language teaching. Australian
Journal of Education, 51(2), 178-189. doi:10.1177/000494410705100206
Manring, R. B. (2017). Perceptions of students, teachers, principals, and parents toward the
need for change and innovation in the secondary schools of the united states dependents
schools, European area. University of Southern California Digital Library (USC.DL).
doi:10.25549/USCTHESES-C18-777509
Marshak, D. (1992). The role of learning/study skills in "re-inventing" secondary schools.
NASSP Bulletin, 76(547), 95-101. doi:10.1177/019263659207654712
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 133

Mau, S., & Harkness, S. (2020). The role of teacher educators and university supervisors to help
student teachers reflect: from monological reflection toward dialogical conversation.
Reflective Practice, 21(2), 171–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2020.1716710
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design : An interactive approach (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications.
Mayall, P., O'Grady, T., & Shurville, S. (2008). Educational and institutional flexibility of
australian educational software. Campus-Wide Info Systems, 25(2), 74-84.
doi:10.1108/10650740810866576
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
Mbunde, J. M., & Njage-Rwito, J. (2018). Characteristics of head teachers in management of
school facilities in Kenya. (Report). European Scientific Journal, 14(25), 227.
doi:10.19044/esj.2018.v14n25p227
Mckenna, B. (2014). Stanford School of Education. Retrieved from
https://ed.stanford.edu/news/researchers-find-learner-centered-learning-approaches-help-
underserved-kids-achieve
Megwalu, A. (2014). Practicing LCT. The Reference Librarian, 55(3), 252-255.
doi:10.1080/02763877.2014.910438
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research : A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ministry of Education and Sports. (2019). Schools and institutions. Retrieved from
http://www.education.go.ug/data/dcat/3/Schools-and-Institutions.html
Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. (2019). Retrieved from
https://budget.go.ug/dashboard/
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 134

Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. (2019). Retrieved from
https://www.finance.go.ug/National%20Budget
Minter, M. K. (2011). Learner-centered (LCI) vs. teacher-centered (TCI) instruction: A
classroom management perspective. American Journal of Business Education, 4(5), 55-
62. doi:10.19030/ajbe.v4i5.4225
Misidentifying factors underlying Singapore's high test scores. (2012). Mathematics Teacher,
105(9), 666-670. doi:10.5951/mathteacher.105.9.0666
Miyazaki, T. (2016). Is changing teaching practice the mission impossible? A case study of
continuing professional development for primary school teachers in Senegal. Compare: A
Journal of Comparative and International Education, 46(5), 701-722.
doi:10.1080/03057925.2015.1043238
Mobegi, F. O., Ondigi, A. B., & Oburu, P. O. (2010). Secondary school headteachers quality
assurance strategies and challenges in Gucha District, Kenya. Educational Research and
Reviews, 5(7), 408-414.
Muna Mohammed, A. A. (2017). Investigating EFL classroom interaction process in Iraqi
intermediate schools. Journal of University of Babylon, 25(6), 2738-2749.
Nakabugo, M. G., Opolot-Ukurut, C., Ssebbunga, C. M., Ngobi, D. H., Maani, J. S., Gumisiriza,
E. L., ... & Bisikwa, R. (2007). Instructional strategies for large classes: Baseline
literature and empirical study of primary school teachers in Uganda. In Report of the
Proceedings of the Africa-Asia University Dialogue for Basic Education Development
Second Reflective Dialogue Meeting (November Paris 15-17, 2006).
Norman, D., & Spohrer, J. (1996). Learner-centered education. Communications of the ACM,
39(4), 24-27. doi:10.1145/227210.227215
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 135

Olsson, T., & Roxå, T. (2013). Assessing and rewarding excellent academic teachers for the
benefit of an organization. European Journal of Higher Education, 3(1), 1–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2013.778041
Orlando, J. (2014). Teachers’ changing practices with information and communication
technologies: An up-close, longitudinal analysis. Research in Learning Technology, 22(1)
doi:10.3402/rlt.v22.21354
Ortiz-Marrero, F., & Sumaryono, K. (2010a). Success with ELLs: ELLs at the center--rethinking
high-stakes testing. English Journal, 99(6), 93-96.
Papaioannou, P., & Charalambous, K. (2011). Principals' attitudes towards ICT and their
perceptions about the factors that facilitate or inhibit ICT integration in primary schools
of Cyprus. Journal of Information Technology Education, 10, 349-369.
Papong, E. (2014). The influence of John Dewey's educational thought on Philippine education.
Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 8(1), 62-69.
Paris, C., & Gespass, S. (2001). Examining the Mismatch between Learner-Centered Teaching
and Teacher-Centered Supervision. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(5), 398–412.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052005006
Pell, A. W., Iqbal, H. M., & Sohail, S. (2010). Introducing science experiments to rote-learning
classes in Pakistani middle schools. Evaluation & Research in Education, 23(3), 191-
212. doi:10.1080/09500790.2010.489151
Penny, A., Ward, M., Read, T., & Bines, H. (2008). Education sector reform: The Ugandan
experience. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(3), 268-285.
Perry, K. (2007). Teaching Practices and the promotion of achievement and adjustment in first
grade. Journal of School Psychology, 45(3), 269–292.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 136

Pierce, J. W., & Kalkman, D. L. (2003). Applying learner-centered principles in teacher
education. Theory into Practice, 42(2), 127-132.
Pontefract, C., & Hardman, F. (2005). The discourse of classroom interaction in kenyan primary
schools. Comparative Education, 41(1), 87-106. doi:10.1080/03050060500073264
Preston, C., Goldring, E., Berends, M., & Cannata, M. (2012). School innovation in district
context: Comparing traditional public schools and charter schools. Economics of
Education Review, 31(2), 318-330. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.07.016
Rader, L. (2005). Goal setting for students and teachers six steps to success. The Clearing
House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 78(3), 123–126.
https://doi.org/10.3200/TCHS.78.3.123-126
Ransom, M. (2012). Teaching strategies: The convention on the rights of the child--suggestions
for educator action. Childhood Education, 88(6), 394-397.
doi:10.1080/00094056.2012.741488
Rogan, J. M., & Grayson, D. J. (2003a). Towards a theory of curriculum implementation with
particular reference to science education in developing countries. International Journal of
Science Education, 25(10), 1171-1204. doi:10.1080/09500690210145819
Rowell, P. M. (1995). Perspectives on pedagogy in teacher education: The case of Namibia.
International Journal of Educational Development, 15(1), 3-13. doi:10.1016/0738-
0593(93)E0012-Y
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance : finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Rufo, D. (2013). bUzZ: A guide to authentic and joyful creative learning. Power & Education,
5(2), 149–158.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 137

Safdar, M. (2013). Meaningful learning and rote learning in physics: A comparative study in city
Jhelum (Pakistan). Middle Eastern & African Journal of Educational Research, 6, 60-77.
Schleicher, A. (2011). The case for 21st century learning. Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development. The OECD Observer (282/283), 42–43. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/866754317/
Schreurs, J. & Dumbraveanu, R. (2014). A shift from teacher centered to learner centered
approach. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP), 4(3), 36–41.
https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v4i3.3395
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., & Meece, J. L.(2008). Motivation in education.
Schweisfurth, M. (2015). Learner-centered pedagogy: Towards a post-2015 agenda for teaching
and learning. International Journal of Educational Development, 40, 259.
Shaffe, M. D., & Soaib, A. (2011). Applying total quality management in the classroom and
solving students failure. KASBIT Business Journal, 4(1)
Sias, C. M., Nadelson, L. S., Juth, S. M., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). The best laid plans:
Educational innovation in elementary teacher generated integrated STEM lesson plans.
The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 227-238.
doi:10.1080/00220671.2016.1253539
Sikoyo, L. (2010). Contextual challenges of implementing learner‐centred pedagogy: The case
of the problem‐solving approach in Uganda. Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Carfax
International Publishers. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.509315
Slick, S. (1997). Assessing versus assisting: The supervisor’s roles in the complex dynamics of
the student teaching triad. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13(7), 713–726.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(97)00016-4
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 138

Smith-Adcock, S., Shin, S. M., & Pereira, J. (2015). Critical incidents in learning child-centered
play therapy: Implications for teaching and supervision. International Journal of Play
Therapy, 24(2), 78-91. doi:10.1037/a0039122
Sorhagen, N. S. (2013a). Early teacher expectations disproportionately affect poor children's
high school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(2), 465-477.
doi:10.1037/a0031754
Sotiriou, S., Riviou, K., Cherouvis, S., Chelioti, E., & Bogner, F. X. (2016). Introducing large-
scale innovation in schools. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 541-
549. doi:10.1007/s10956-016-9611-y
Spangler, C. (1997). The sharing circle: A child-centered curriculum. Young Children, 52(5), 74–
78.
Ssewamala, F. M., Wang, J. S., Karimli, L., & Nabunya, P. (2011). Strengthening universal
primary education in Uganda: The potential role of an asset-based development policy.
Oxford: Pergamon. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2010.11.001
Stipek, E. (1998). Good Beginnings: What difference does the program make in preparing young
children for school? Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 41–66.
Stoller, A. (2018). Dewey's creative ontology. Journal of Thought, 52(3-4), 47.
Tabulawa, R. (1997). Pedagogical classroom practice and the social context: The case of
Botswana. International Journal of Educational Development, 17(2), 189–204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(96)00049-1
Tabulawa, R. (2003). International aid agencies, learner-centered pedagogy and political
democratisation: A critique. Oxford, England : Carfax Pub Co.
doi:10.1080/03050060302559
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 139

Tamilselvi, B., & Geetha, D. (2015). Efficacy in Teaching through “Multiple Intelligence”
Instructional Strategies. i-Manager’s Journal on School Educational Technology, 11(2),
1–10. https://doi.org/10.26634/jsch.11.2.3700
Tanner, D. (1980) Curriculum development: Theory into Practice (2nd ed). by Daniel Tanner and
Laurel N. Tanner. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1980. 776 pp., The
Educational Forum, 46(2), 250251, DOI: 10.1080/00131728209336019
Teachers College, Columbia University, 2019. Retrieved from
https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2002/january/education-for-a-changing-workplace/
Tembe, J. (2006). Teacher training and the English language in Uganda. TESOL Quarterly,
40(4), 857-860. doi:10.2307/40264317
Test, D., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neale, M., & Wood, W. (2004). Student
involvement in individualized education program meetings. Exceptional Children, 70(4),
391–.
The Jossey-Bass reader on educational leadership (2007). (2nd ed., Rev. ed. ed.). San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
The World Bank (2019). Population total. Retrieved from
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=UG
Thompson, J., Licklider, B., & Jungst, S. (2003). LCT: Post-secondary strategies that promote
"thinking like a professional." Theory into Practice, 42(2), 133-41.
doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4202_7
Tigistu, K. (2013). Professionalism in early childhood education and care in Ethiopia: What are
we talking about? Childhood Education, 89(3), 152-158.
doi:10.1080/00094056.2013.792641
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 140

Treesuwan, R., & Tanitteerapan, T. (2016). Students' perceptions on LCT approach. The New
Educational Review, 45(3), 151. doi:10.15804/tner.2016.45.3.12
Tumuheki, P. B., Zeelen, J., & Openjuru, G. L. (2016). Motivations for participation in higher
education: Narratives of non-traditional students at Makerere University in Uganda.
International Journal of Lifelong Education, 35(1), 102-117.
doi:10.1080/02601370.2016.1165745
Turnbull, M., Littlejohn, A., & Allan, M. (2012a). Preparing graduates for work in the creative
industries: A collaborative learning approach for design students. Industry and Higher
Education, 26(4), 291-300. doi:10.5367/ihe.2012.0105
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2016). Population projections 2015-2020
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2016). The national population and housing census 2014 – main
report, Kampala, Uganda. Retrieved from
https://www.ubos.org/onlinefiles/uploads/ubos/census_2014_regional_reports/Population
%20Projections_2015_2020.pdf
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2016). Urban labour force survey, 2015. Retrieved from:
https://www.ubos.org/wpcontent/uploads/publications/03_2018ULFS_2015_Fact_Sheet_
(1).pdf
Uganda Bureau of Statistics (2019). Explore statistics. Retrieved from
https://www.ubos.org/explore-statistics/21/
Uganda Bureau of Statistics. (2018). The National Labour Force Survey 2016/17 – Main Report,
Kampala, Uganda. Retrieved from: https://www.ubos.org/
UNESCO. (2009). Language and education: The missing link. Retrieved from
http://www.unesco.org/education/EFAWG2009/LanguageEducation.pdf.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 141

Usiskin, Z. (2012a). Misidentifying factors underlying Singapore’s high test scores. Lancaster,
PA: Association of Teachers of Mathematics in the Middle States and Maryland.
van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2015). The contribution of assessment experiences to
student teachers’ self-efficacy in competence-based education. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 49, 45–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.02.013
Wallace, S. (2015). Rote learning Oxford University Press.
Weatherholtz, D. B. (2003). LCT: Five key changes to practice (review)
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers : The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York: Free Press.
Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice (2. Aufl.).
Somerset: Jossey-Bass.
What work requires of schools: A SCANS report for America 2000. (the secretary's commission
on achieving necessary skills). (1992). Economic Development Review, 10(1), 16.
Wheatley, K. (2002). Two approaches to teaching transformational lesson planning. Journal of
Early Childhood Teacher Education, 23(4), 327–332.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1090102020230405
Winsler, A., & Carlton, M. P. (2003). Observations of children's task activities and social
interactions in relation to teacher perceptions in a child-centered preschool: Are we
leaving too much to chance? Early Education and Development, 14(2), 155-78.
doi:10.1207/s15566935eed1402_2
Wong, E. M. L., Li, S. S. C., Choi, T., & Lee, T. (2008). Insights into innovative classroom
practices with ICT: Identifying the impetus for change. Educational Technology &
Society, 11(1), 248-265.
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 142

Woods-Groves, S., & Woods-Groves, S. (2015). The human behavior rating scale-brief: A tool
to measure 21st century skills of K-12 learners. Psychological Reports, 116(3), 769–796.
https://doi.org/10.2466/03.11.PR0.116k29w0
Woods, P., & Jeffrey, B. (1996). Teachable moments: The art of creative teaching in primary
schools. Open University Press.
Yan, C. (2015). “We can’t change much unless the exams change”: Teachers’ dilemmas in the
curriculum reform in China. Improving Schools, 18(1), 5–19.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480214553744
Yasmin, M., Sohail, A., Sarkar, M., & Hafeez, R. (2017). Creative methods in transforming
education using human resources. Creativity Studies, 10(2), 145-158.
doi:10.3846/23450479.2017.1365778

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 143

APPENDIX A
Observation Guideline
Teacher ________________Class________

LCT Feature Observed Observer’s Comments
Classroom set up

Small group activities

Teacher checking learners for
comprehension

Teacher observing learners tackling
tasks

Teacher paying attention to personal
challenges

Learners making decisions

Teacher only intervening when
necessary

Using teaching aids

Lesson plans / lesson notes

Class size

Number of teachers in class

LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 144

APPENDIX B
Teacher Interview Protocol
1. How long have you been in the teaching profession?
2. How long have you worked with IPS?
3. Age range: 20-24; 25-29; 30-34; 35-39; 40-44; 45-49; 50-54; 55-59
Teacher assumed
Knowledge
Influence
(The original thinking is to interview teachers without directly
addressing the subject of learner-centered teaching. The assumption
was that from the answers the researcher would be able to tell or
figure out if the teacher is using LCT or not. This was to ensure the
teachers are not swayed into saying what they think the researcher
wants to hear when questions on LCT are directly asked).

Knowledge

Knowledge of
key features of
learner-centered
teaching vs.
traditional,
teacher-centered
teaching.
Declarative (Factual)
1. Can you walk me through your normal lesson activities? (As the
participant describes the lesson, the interviewer looks out for the key
LCT features).
2. I was lucky enough to observe you teach the other day. On any other
day, if I walked into your classroom in the middle of your lesson, what
will I most likely see? (Seeking for LC features in the classroom)
3. How many children do you have in your class? Do you think this is a
manageable class size? How does the class size affect the types of
lesson activities you include in your classroom, if at all?
4. (This knowledge question was asked after the Metacognitive
question)
In your opinion, what do you understand by the term LCT?

Knowledge of
the methods of
creating a
curriculum based
on learner-
centered
teaching.

Declarative (Conceptual)
5. (After enquiring if they have a lesson plan) Walk me through your
procedure of drafting a lesson plan. If they don’t have a lesson plan, I
will enquire why they don’t. The researcher will be looking for LCT
components from the curriculum.
Knowledge of
how to
incorporate
strategies of
learner-centered
Procedural
6. In your opinion, as you draft your lesson plan, what elements of your
lesson plan(s) are a must? (Seeking for learner-centered practices,
without directly referring to LCT)
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 145

teaching into all
subjects’ lesson
plans.
Knowledge of
how to reflect on
their own
effectiveness in
implementing
learner-centered
instruction in the
classroom.

Metacognitive
7. Tell me about the last time you reflected (if at all), on your
methodology in teaching your subject in class.
Probe: What changes did you make based on that reflection, if any?

Motivation

Teachers need to
see the value in
learner-centered
teaching in
supporting
student learning
and performance.
Utility Value
8. Could you tell me about your reasons for applying the teaching method
you just described above? Do you see value of learner-centered
teaching in your classroom? Do you think LCT supports learning and
performance?
Teachers should
see students’
academic and
social
development
skills as directly
related to their
efforts in learner-
centered
teaching.
Attributions
9. What do you believe are the reasons for your students’ performance
outcomes? Probe: Do you think they are directly related to your efforts
in learner-centered teaching—why or why not?
Teachers need to
believe they are
capable of
effectively
implementing
learner-centered
teaching.
Self-Efficacy
10. How do you feel about your ability to use learner-centered teaching
strategies in your classroom?

Organizational

The school needs
to communicate
the importance
of learner-
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
11. How has your school provided you (if at all), information about
learner-centered teaching? How, if at all, has it communicated with
you its importance?
LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING 146

centered
teaching.

The school needs
to provide
opportunities for
professional
development in
learner-centered
teaching.

Cultural Setting Influence 2:
12. What kind of facilitation (if at all) has the school availed you to
practice learner-centered teaching in your classroom?
13. What training opportunities (if at all) in learner-centered teaching have
been availed by the school to the teachers? Probe: What other training
opportunities would be helpful to you, if any?

The school needs
to set clear,
measurable and
achievable goals
to incorporate
learner-centered
strategies in the
lesson plans and
classrooms.
Cultural Setting Influence 3:
14. What are your thoughts about the school’s goals on learner-centered
teaching? Probe: Has the school set clear, measurable and achievable
goals for you to incorporate LCT into your classroom?
The school needs
to recognize or
reward staff
achievements in
learner-centered
teaching
Cultural Setting Influence 4:
15. How has the school recognized or rewarded (if at all), the teachers
using learner-centered teaching?

Other
16. Do you have any more information you would like to share with me?
Thank you very much for being part of my interview and for your time.
If I need any further clarification, I hope I will be able to get in touch with
you.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the teachers' knowledge, motivation and organizational influences in applying learner centered teaching (LCT) practices in and out of primary school classrooms in Uganda. 15 teachers were observed as they carried out their lessons. The same teachers were afterwards interviewed to gain deeper insights into their lesson preparation techniques. Their lesson plans, lesson notes and teaching aids were reviewed to identify features of LCT that were incorporated in the planning process. The findings revealed that there were continuing teacher knowledge, motivation and organizational needs in using LCT in the classrooms. Recommendations that would improve teacher knowledge of LCT features and practices

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A gap analysis on improving teacher retention in kindergarten: a case of a private kindergarten in Hong Kong

PDF

Building computations thinking through teaching of computer programming: an evaluation of learning centers in China

PDF

Defining and designing a new grammar of school with design thinking: a promising practice study

PDF

Effective course design for improving student learning: a case study in application

PDF

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

PDF

High attrition rate of preschool teachers in Hong Kong: an evaluation study

PDF

Critical thinking, global mindedness, and curriculum in a Saudi Arabian secondary school

PDF

An evaluation study of effectiveness of continuous professional development in Ethiopia

PDF

Preparing students for the 21st century labor market through liberal arts education at a Chinese joint venture university

PDF

Teaching quality in Zhejiang University of Technology

PDF

Welcoming and retaining expatriate teachers in an international school

PDF

America has a problem: helping charter school teachers build a new foundation to combat racism with anti-racist teaching pedagogy

PDF

Building 21st century skills for school-age children in Colombia: lessons from a promising practice

PDF

Improving educational attainment at a bridge program in Saudi Arabia: a gap analysis

PDF

Culturally responsive leadership in American K-12 education: a gap analysis of a large urban district

PDF

Child-centered, play-based curriculum at a Hong Kong kindergarten and nursery: a gap analysis

PDF

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

PDF

Assessing the needs of teachers when creating educational technology professional development for an urban charter school district: an innovation study

PDF

Creativity and innovation in undergraduate education: an innovation study

PDF

Making a case for teaching religious literacy in Ethiopian schools: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Nakato, Jane Frances (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Global Executive

Publication Date 07/21/2020

Defense Date 07/07/2020

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

Tag 21st century classrooms,collaboration,critical thinking,curriculum,learner centered,lesson planning,OAI-PMH Harvest,teacher centered,teaching aids

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Krop, Cathy Sloane (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email jfnakato@gmail.com,nakato@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-337639

Unique identifier UC11665274

Identifier etd-NakatoJane-8723.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-337639 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-NakatoJane-8723.pdf

Dmrecord 337639

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Nakato, Jane Frances

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