This study looked at the comparative impact of both student as well as teacher-centered teaching on EFL students’ effects on freshmen.(anxiety motivation, anxiety to self-efficacy, autonomy, self-efficacy as well as opinions about English and learning) andachievement. A total of two groups English department students at Shaqra University, KSA participated in the research.
Students from the two classes answered a survey to test the variables of affect. An independentThe t-test showed that the two classes were identical in affective variables prior to the treatment. The treatment
The class was taught in accordance with the student-centered curriculum for the academic year. The class taught in the control was by theidentical courses in line with the traditional teacher-centered instruction. The students took the
A questionnaire was developed to assess their effects. A composite score of the final exam marks from three courses was used to create an indexof success. The analysis of independent sample t-tests showed that the treatment group overcame the control class.
Class in the entirety of affective variables (except in the case of instrumental motivation) and success.Keywords: student-centered instruction instructor-centered teaching, emotional variables motivation, anxiety,Self-efficacy, autonomy, attitude attitudes, self-efficacy, beliefs about language learning success, EFL students
Saudi EFL students have been identified as having low attainment (e.g. Al-Khairy, 2013, Alrahaili (2013);Alrashidi and Phan,) and low affect, including excessive anxiety (e.g. Al-Saraj, 2014, Mohammed (2015)) poormotivation (e.g., Al-Johani, 2009; Fareh, 2010; Alrabai, 2014), poor autonomy (e.g., Alrabai, 2016, 2017), lowconfidence in oneself (e.g., Alrabai, 2014; Al-maqtriin 2016) and debilitating beliefs regarding English and learning(Kassem, 2013). Top of the list of sources that researchers have attributed the poor performance and low affect
Within Saudi students is teachers-focused instruction, which researchers have found to be the most effective teachingmethodology to approach EFL classrooms approach in EFL classrooms Saudi Arabia in all study levels. For example, Alrabai (2016: 30) ended from
his research shows that the poor results in learning a language his data that poor language learning outcomes in Saudi Arabia Functional Skills Maths Level 2 are mainly caused due to the prevalence of”teacher-centered approaches and spoon-feeding methods”.Teachers-centered instruction has been proven as a cause of low levels of language proficiency. It’s believed to hinder pupils’Educational growth (DuckWorth 2009) due to the fact that in classrooms with a teacher focus, teachers are the ones who do the majority of the work.
Students are never the passive recipients of information. The negative relationship between the teacher and the studentinstruction and performance was documented empirically (e.g., Geisli, 2009; Alrabai, 2016). This kind ofInstruction was also shown to cause poor effect (e.g., Mermelstein, 2015; Amiri and Saberi, 2007). Accordingly,
Researchers have called for a shift away from teacher-led instruction to student-centered.There is a consensus that student-centered instruction results in more effective language learning and has a positive impact on
In comparison to teacher-centered instruction as students are more successful when they are motivatedto think, rather than doing their thinking. McCombs along with Whistler (1997) recommend that learners-centeredness is a way for themCreates an environment for learning that fosters the highest levels of motivation as well as success for all students.Research supported these theories. As an example, Geisli (2009) studied the effects of a student-centered
instruction in language performance. The group that was centered around the student achieved higher performance than the other group.teacher-centered group. Amiri Saberi and Saberi (2017) examined the impact of learning and teacher-centeredInstruction about Iranian EFL learners Motivation (50 Iranian high school students). A significant impact onMotivation was identified for the use of a student-centered approach to instruction.
Benson (2001: 1) asserts that helping FL students become more autonomous has become one of the most prominent themes in the field of SL/FL teaching and learning. He accounts for this prominence by asserting that the person who knows how to learn learns efficiently. Little (2003) argues that learner autonomy is critical for several reasons. First, students who actively participate in their learning will most likely be more efficient and more effective. Second, active engagement in learning enhances learners’ motivation, so they can persist in the face of difficulties which are numerous in FL learning.
Third, learning a language requires independent efforts on the part of learners in order to use the language in natural communication and ultimately develop their communicative competence. Research conducted in FL contexts reported a positive relationship between autonomy and students’ language proficiency. Dafei (2007) found a correlation between autonomy and students’ language proficiency among a sample of 129 non-English majors in a teacher college in China. This same finding was reported for 721 Japanese university students from 16 universities (Saka & Takagi, 2009). Afshar, Rahimi and Rahimi (2014) studied relationships between instrumental motivation, critical thinking, autonomy and academic achievement of Iranian EFL learners (100 Iranian learners majoring in English language). Autonomy correlated significantly highly with academic achievement, followed by instrumental motivation and critical thinking. For the FL classroom to be learner autonomy supportive, Functional Skills English Level 2 there should be, as recommended by Little (2009: 224), three principles: learner involvement, learner reflection and target language use. Strategy training is also recommended, as it furnishes learners with the skills they need to be autonomous in their approach to learning (Benson, 2001). What is required also is a shift in the teacher’s and the learner’s roles in the classroom.
The role of the teacher needs to change from an authoritative conveyor of knowledge into a facilitator and a guide of the learning process. By the same token, learners’ role needs to change from passive recipients of knowledge into active planners of their own learning. They should have a say in all aspects of their learning. The development of learner autonomy is “a move from teacher-directed teaching environment to a learner-directed learning environment” Dam (2011: 41). In order for learners to shift to the new role, there is a need to overcome an obstacle that has an aversive impact on the development of learner autonomy. That is the resistance of “teacher-centered students” (Lewis & Reinders, 2008: 97) who might see no value in non-language activities related to autonomous learning such as reflection on and evaluation of progress. In the Saudi context, there is no concern for learner autonomy to the extent that it was described as anti-autonomy by Alrabai (2016: 30). This judgment was based on survey studies he conducted in several Saudi schools.
He wrote “Promoting readiness for spontaneous, self-directed, lifelong learning and enhancing such metacognitive skills as self-assessment, recognition of one’s strengths and weaknesses, and planning and implementing suitable strategies -all of which are important features of learner autonomy- are not incorporated into EFL education in Saudi Arabia”. He attributed absence of autonomy in Saudi classrooms to teacher-centered approaches and spoon-feeding methods of teaching. Empirically, Alrabai (2017) investigated the level of autonomy in a sample of 630 Saudi students and its relationship to academic achievement.
Students were found to be non-autonomous, with a mean autonomy score of 2.35 out of 5; and also low language achievers (M = 66 out of 100). 3.5 Self-Efficacy Bandura (1986: 391) defines self-efficacy as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances”. Bandura (1997) attributes self-efficacy to four sources: mastery experience, vicarious experience, persuasions and psychological states. Mastery experience means that one’s achievements raise their level of self-efficacy. Reflecting on this, Bandura (1997: 80) suggests that “successes rebuild a robust belief in one’s personal efficacy” while “failures undermine it, especially if failures occur before a sense of efficacy is firmly established”.
Vicarious experience relates to other individuals’ achievements that motivate us to believe that we have the same ability in gaining achievements. Persuasions means that what others say can influence our beliefs about our abilities. If Individuals are verbally encouraged and explained that they can perform a task, they are more likely to perform it well. Psychological states like anxiety, stress, and fear can influence our behavior.