IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Learner-Centered English Language Teaching: Premises, Practices, and Prospects
Nour El Imane Badjadi
Ouargla University
Algeria7

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Abstract
Although learner-centered education is claimed to have several learning gains, researchsuggests that teachers’ attitudes and practices play a crucial role in promoting its prolificoutcomes. This study examines the adaptation of learner-centered education and examines how
it has been implemented in second language teaching by university teachers since launching an
educational shift embodied in the learner-centered reform a decade ago. In so doing, aquestionnaire was distributed to a random sample of 128 instructors. The data collected wereanalyzed through descriptive and inferential statistical analyses using the Statistical Package
for Social Sciences SPSS 16.0 software. Meanwhile, interviews were analyzed qualitatively.
The quantitative analysis of data provides a snapshot of instructors’ attitudes towards Learnercentered education and the extent to which they implemented it in their courses. More
importantly, the analysis of qualitative interview results outlines a “contextualized” frameworkthat takes into account the conceptual nature of the global premises of Learner-centerededucation by linking them to teachers’ perceptions and practices in a particular context. The
findings provide insights into the dynamism of meeting college students’ second language
learning needs. The study further addresses the problems of designing teacher training thataims at promoting higher education second language learning in the Middle East and North
Africa context.
Keywords: learner-centered education (LCE), English language teaching (ELT), teacher
education, instructed second language development

8

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Globalized approaches to education are growing in spread and influence, informing theblueprint for educational reforms, forming current instructional practices, and reflecting theparadigm shift in education towards learner-centeredness. Learner-centered education (LCE)
is a model that emerged at the turn of the twentieth century to shape a new understanding oflearning, and to pave the way for what teaching and learning ought to be like in the newmillennium (Myers & Lee, 2017; Starkey, 2019; Weimar, 2013). Accordingly, since 2007,
higher education in Algeria has initiated an LCE-oriented reform called the LMD System,
referring to License, Master, Doctorate (Azzi, 2012). Nowadays, learner-centeredness is hardly
a new issue, but what is paradoxical about this notion is that although it has been around sincethe 1970s, it is rarely questioned in terms of its practicality for achieving specific objectives in
specific contexts. Rather, mostly, it has been taken for granted as common sense about effective
teaching, or as a fashion or a policy imposed by curricular changes. Besides, the need for more
efficient practices in English language teaching (ELT) has triggered a shift away fromsearching out a perfect one-size-fits-all teaching method towards focusing on certain learners
in particular backgrounds. Therefore, the fundamental concern of this study is to explore how
the conceptual premises of LCE are perceived by second language teachers in Algeria and how
they are realized in classroom practice as a means of promoting learners’ L2 development. The
study, thereby, aims at the betterment of alignment between espoused principles and enacted
practices by highlighting the potential discrepancy between theoretical ideality and practicalreality. The study further aims at offering new insights into how LCE- oriented instruction
might be designed to effectively promote second language development.
LCE is rooted in the belief that learning is a qualitative change in a person’s way of seeing and,
when this change is acquiring another language, another soul. Indeed, the methodology ofcurrent practice in ELT has been informed by the notion that learner-centeredness (Hall, 2017;
Nunan, 2012) is an axis around which contemporary ELT methods and post-methods revolve.
From this viewpoint, LCE in ELT encourages the creation and negotiation of meaning by thelearners themselves. As teachers strive to enhance students’ English language development,
they are often confronted with language deficiencies and shallow content knowledge. Theseobstacles are mirrored in the lack of vocabulary, grammatical mistakes, limited range of ideas,
and the chaotic or incoherent presentation of ideas. As antidotes to those weaknesses, theteacher needs to integrate learner-centered teaching strategies due to two major characteristics.
First, they encourage students to enlarge their knowledge, in terms of both language andcontent, through tasks and projects (Ellis, 2017). Second, other than the significance of thecognitive aspect, great importance ought to be given to the social and affective aspects andtheir role in learning a second language through cooperative and collaborative practices(Donato, 2016). Hence, the current study inspects the merits of using learner-centered ELTpractices, namely content-based, task-based, and project-based, as well as cooperative andcollaborative language teaching practices.
This article reports on a study investigating the adaptation of learner-centered education to
English language teaching in a university in Algeria. Specifically, it explores the teachers’
insights towards the theoretical premises and their practicality as classroom instructional
practices. This paper firstly reviews literature related to LCE and its applied pedagogicalpractices in ELT, describes the research methodology used in the study, presents findings anddiscussion, and lastly draws conclusions and implications.

9

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Literature Review
LCE has established a worldwide track record in motivating students, stimulating personal
growth and lifelong learning, and developing communication skills, among other gains (Ahmed& Dakhiel; 2019; Van Viegen & Russell, 2019; Villacís & Camacho, 2017). However, thegains of LCE are claimed to be largely dependent on the way teachers perceive, and implement
it, especially that it is portrayed not to belittle the teacher’s role but, rather, to multiply it (Ilieva,
Wallace, & Spiliotopoulos, 2019; Van den Branden, 2016), a premise that maybe challenging
to many teachers (Kaymakamoglu, 2018; Yamagata, 2018). In addition, previous studies haveindicated that the implementation of LCE pedagogies requires high levels of awareness andspecialized skills on behalf of teachers, together with encouraging school environments(Marwan, 2017; Shehadeh; 2018; Troyan, Cammarata, & Martel, 2017). Similarly, despite thatseveral studies advocate that implementing LCE is challenging in terms of both course design
and the development of instructional methods and materials (Bai & González, 2019;
Philominraj, Jeyabalan, & Vidal-Silva, 2017), a number of research reports have shown that
LCE has been successfully implemented even where teacher-centered instruction used to be
the norm (Yu & Liu, 2017). In the same strand, this research is intended to contribute to theemergent body of knowledge which addresses the ongoing need for empirical studies on theimplementation of LCE practices in ELT.
Exploring the implementation of learner-centered practices in the context of ELT is crucial tomaximizing their usefulness in terms of strategic pedagogy and enhanced target language
development. Haley and Austin (2004) suggest, “As the field is constantly changing, we want
to stress that this process of questioning one’s assumptions and reconstructing them on thebasis of new knowledge is key to maintaining instructional practices that are responsive to ourlearners” (p. 1). The way theory is envisaged in classroom practice is worth investigation,
especially since teachers and learners sometimes appear to be caught between tediously
sticking to old tradition and obediently imitating current trends. In addition to linking theory topractice, an important aspect of ELT pedagogy is improving practice to optimize learning
outcomes. As Leung (1993) states, “A researched pedagogy scrutinizes pedagogic activity toassess its mode of implementation, its operation, and its outcomes.” (as cited in Bygate,
Shehan, & Swain, 2001, p.1). In ELT, the main LCE-oriented approaches are: attending tolearners’ needs through integrating language-and-content (Lyster, 2017) raising students’awareness of their active role through tasks and projects (Beckett & Slater, 2019; Ellis et al.,2019); and leading learners towards autonomy through peer cooperation (Karim, 2018), andinstructional communication (Ammar & Hassan, 2017).
Research on educational pragmatism is vital for advancing the field of ELT. Therefore, thisstudy assumes that it is through critical appraisal that educational premises and practices canbe adapted to specific contexts in order to inform future second language teaching and learning.
Notably, the present study comprehensively focuses on the use of these particular practices as
they relate to concurrent learner-centered ELT practices. Specifically, it attempts to answer thefollowing questions:
1. How do university English language teachers perceive the theoretical premises that
underlie LCE?
2. How do English language teachers implement LCE practices in the classroom?

10

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

3. From the teachers’ perspectives, how can LCE be effectively implemented in ELT
courses?
Research Methodology
Participants
To achieve the aforementioned aims, a descriptive exploratory study was carried out where aquestionnaire was administered to a random sample of 128 second language teachers in thedepartments of French, English and Translation working at Algerian Universities. The
participants were largely homogeneous in terms of background and included male and female
as well as experienced and early-career participants. All of the participants spoke Arabic as
their mother tongue and were teaching French or English as second languages. At the university
level, second languages were mostly taught for academic (translation and literature) andeducational purposes (applied linguistics and second language acquisition). The language
programs taught by the participants were sets of compulsory courses including grammar,
phonetics, literature, general linguistics, translation, language history and culture, TEFL
(Teaching English as a Foreign Language), and educational psychology, or ESP (English forSpecific Purposes) for non-English major students, all taught in the second language, i.e.,
French or English.
As for the interview, the participants were 9 teachers selected from the initial questionnaire
sample based on their implementation rates reported in the questionnaire. After the collectionof questionnaire responses, teachers who reported obviously frequent use of LCE oriented
practices were manually detected (N= 24). However, only nineteen of them filled in theirpersonal information since that was optional. In addition to availability, variability was also
taken into consideration; the available participants were grouped into experienced (senior,
N=12) and novice (N=7). Then, ½ from each group were randomly selected, phoned, andrequested to participate in a semi-structured interview. Eventually, they kindly agreed to takepart. The interviews were phone-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed.
Data Collection and Analysis
This study employed quantitative and qualitative approaches to data collection and analysis. In
accordance with the purposes of this study, a survey was designed based on the literature
reviewed on LCE (Myers & Lee, 2017; Starkey, 2019).
First, the questionnaire was designed to elicit information about second language teachers’
backgrounds, attitudes, practices, and implementation of LCE and consisted of three sections(Porte, 2010). The first four questions constituted the first section and were meant to gather
information about teachers’ age, gender, and work experience. The next section included
question items about teachers’ views of teaching and learning conceptions related to LCE.
Teachers were required to indicate how far they agreed with some statements associated with
LCE using: strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree. The focus of the third section
was narrowed down to an inquiry into teachers’ implementation of LCE methods. In thissection, teachers were required to indicate the extent to which they use LCE methods in theircourses. Cronbach's Alpha for the questionnaire was .891. The questionnaire responses wereinterpreted based on a 4-point Likert scale where means that ranged between 1 and 2 denoteda low value, means that ranged between 2 and 3 denoted an average value, and means that
ranged between 3 and 4 represented a high value.

11

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Qualitative research instruments are particularly useful in terms of the valuable insights aninsider can report. As Miller and Bell (2002) argue, “The shift towards a focus on subjective
experience and the meanings individuals give to their actions has led to a concern with theresearch process itself and the ways in which qualitative data are gathered” (p. 61). Because
this study aimed at examining LCE premises, not only based on their theoretical meaning, butalso on what they experientially meant to the teachers, and examining the ways in which theseinternalized meanings were translated into educational practices, taking ethical considerations
into account was extremely important. In so doing, prior to the administration of thequestionnaire, the participants were told that their responses would be treated withconfidentiality, and would be used for research purposes only. The participants were also
informed that filling in personal information (Name, email, phone number) was optional andwould be used only in case they were interested in perusing probing questions or willing toshare their experiences. The semi-structured interview sought information on teachers’
evaluation and implementation of LCE methods in their courses. Participants were also
required to reflect on the difficulties they faced and the solutions they found practical within
their teaching situation.
The choice of questionnaire and interview for data collection was based on the purpose of thestudy. It is common for investigators using quantitative research to conduct interviews in orderto help verify research conclusions (Phakiti & Paltridge, 2015). This is known as triangulation
and represents a primary means by which qualitative researchers establish validity of theirresearch (Guion et al., 2011, p.1). The initially constructed versions were followed by revisions
based on the feedback provided by three senior teacher educators in Languages and Human
Sciences School at an Algerian University from which the study sample was taken. Using bothquestionnaire and interview data was appropriate for investigating teacher’s beliefs andpractices and for inspecting challenges teachers faced in their implementation of LCE, alongwith the coping strategies they had developed.
The data collected were analyzed through descriptive and inferential statistical analyses using
the Statistical Package for Social Sciences SPSS 16.0 software. Notably, a level of significanceof 0.01 was adopted for the quantitative analysis. Meanwhile, interviews were audio recorded
and analyzed qualitatively (Richards, 2009). The analysis of interview data employed areflexive approach to data coding and interpretation (Duff, 2018). This view suggests thatthroughout the process of data analysis, “constant checks must be made to ensure that it is thedata, rather than one’s intuitions or assumptions that are leading the analysis.”(Burns, 2003, p.
157).
Figure 1 shows the different stages that were followed in completing the research. Initially, theresearcher gathered all the collected data and scanned it to take notes of the outstanding ideas
and impressions. Then, the categories of codes were developed so that more particular patterns
could be identified. The latter step allowed for reading across the assembled data to build
hierarchies or sequences to detect frequencies of occurrences, behaviors, or responses. One
deviation from the scheme suggested by Burns (2003) is that, in this study, the categories were
derived from the thematic categories that formed the foundation of the questionnaire items.
These thematic questionnaire categories were, in turn, derived from the literature on thetheoretical premises and concurrent practices associated with LCE (Attitudes Category: A.
Transmission vs. discovery, B. Responsibility, C. Readiness; Implementation Category: D.
Content-based, E. Task-based, F. Project-based, G. Cooperative and Collative, H. Awareness12

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Raising, I. Support Provision). The subsequent stage involved examining the underlying
concepts and theorizing about why certain patterns had evolved.
Stage1:
Assembling thedataStage 5:
Reporting theoutcomes

Stage 2: Coding
the data

Stage 4:
Building
interpretations

Stage 3:Comparing thedata

Figure 1: The stages of qualitative data analysis (adapted from Burns 2003)
Findings
Teachers’ Attitudes Towards LCE
Attitudes toward LCE approaches to instruction show variation across questionnaire statementsin the participants’ responses.
Table 1: Descriptive results of teachers’ attitudes towards LCE premises
Items in Category 1*
Item1
Item2
Item3
Item4
Item5
Item6
Attitudes
Valid N (listwise)

N
128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128

Mean**
2.84
3.39
2.79
2.63
3.88
3.18
3.1185

Std. Deviation
.781
.679
.969
.946
.323
.837
.59641

N: Total number of participants*Category 1 of the questionnaire: Attitudes**Mean weight of responses given that response options are weighted as follows: strongly agree=4, agree=3, disagree=2,
strongly disagree=1

Table 1 shows the descriptive results of questionnaire items indicating that, overall, teachers
agreed with the pedagogic premises associated with LCE (total mean for Attitudes Category:
3.11=agree, see response weights above). However, from the responses’ means in the13

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

questionnaire data (Item 1: the view of teaching as knowledge transmission, Item 3, usefulnessof providing learning opportunities, and Item 4: students’ responsibility for their own learning),
it was obvious that teachers assigned a remarkable amount of importance to the transmissionof knowledge from teachers to students while, at the same time, encouraging active learning(Items 2, 5, 6; Category 1) as a significant aspect of LCE.
The interview data were coded focusing on the attitudes category and represents assumptions
regarding the nature of learning and teaching, concerning the distribution of roles andresponsibilities, and as regards students’ readiness for LCE practices. The majority of theinterviewees agreed on the active nature of learning with the teacher as a facilitator. Meanwhile,
they disagreed with the notion of teaching as merely the transmission of content. As Senior 4
clarifies, “delivery … for me as language teacher is only part of teaching and functions as input
for language learning to be initiated”. What is even more interesting, at the same time, is that
all the respondents agreed with the idea of learning as a matter of discovery rather than delivery.
For Novice 1: “… language learning as involves not just change in behavior, but in knowledge,
skills, strategies, beliefs, and attitudes as well. Change of this kind is mainly intrinsically driven
through discovery rather than transmitted.”
The next set of assumptions, however revealed more controversy among teachers. Concerning
the distribution of roles and responsibilities in the teaching-learning enterprise, most of the
respondents, disagreed with “the total relinquishment of teachers’ responsibilities to theirstudents. The role of the teacher is pivotal if any learning is to take place and being responsible
for one’s own teaching implies being partly responsible for students’ learning as well.” (Senior2). In addition, slightly more than half of the respondents disagreed with the view that students
take full responsibility for their learning, nearly half of the respondents (N=4) agreed with thesame assumption. The reason behind this controversy may be echoed in Senior 5’s claim that“teaching always implies learning and thus is learner-centered to some degree and in one way
or another. Teaching methods may agree in that the learner is a central axiom, but disagree
about the nature and degree of this centrality, and how it best promotes learning”. Indeed, themost debatable assumption was that students take full responsibility for their learning.
Lastly, the large majority of teachers agreed that LCE requires prerequisite knowledge andskills on behalf of students (Item 5). As suggested by Senior 3: “besides needing a solid
knowledge background, I intend to design my courses in such a way to enable students,
whatever their level is, to actively develop effective learning skills”. When asked if this means
structuring the teaching around LCE practices, Senior 3 replied “… well …Just as a completely
teacher-centered classroom would teach nothing, in an extremely learner-centered classroom,
little or no learning would take place. Thus, a compromise is required.” Not surprisingly, there
was a tendency in the interview data towards favoring a balance of power and desiring to share
responsibility for learning; in fact, this was the most appealing argument among the
respondents.
Teachers’ Implementation of LCE Methods
Table 2 shows participants’ responses regarding the use of concurrent LCE practices in theirclasses, namely Content-, Task-, and Project-Based, Cooperative and Collaborative practices(Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; Category 2) as well as Awareness Raising and Scaffolding (guidance andsupport) strategies (Items 6 and 7, Category 2). The responses from the questionnaire (Table2) indicate that teachers moderately adopt reform-oriented LCE methods (total mean: 2.41=

14

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

average, see response weights below). Specifically, content and task-based methods (Items 1,
2: Category 2) are the most commonly used since they are regarded as the most practical as
they can be easily adapted to teacher-fronted classrooms. Similarly, interview data point toward
the practicality of joining the two methods.
Table 2: Descriptive results of teachers’ implementation of LCE methods
Items in Category 2*

N

Mean**

Std. Deviation

Item 1
Item 2Item 3Item 4Item 5Item 6Item 7
Implementation

128
128
128
128
128
128
128
128

2.88
2.76
1.49
2.23
2.30
2.50
2.75
2.41629

.790
.929
.589
.837
1.022
1.004
.763
.543770

Valid N (listwise)

128

2.88

N: Total number of participants*Category 2 of the questionnaire: Implementation**Mean weight of responses given that response options are weighted as follows:
always=4, often=3, sometimes=2, never=1

Interview data also indicate positive attitudes and gains from jointly implementing content andtask-based methods. As a teacher interviewee clarified “… with regard to LCE methods, when
the teacher reviews course content, explains a language point related to the course content as
part of feedback on students’ task performance or contribution, content knowledge will be
deepened because students not only understand, but also apply course content and the language
they use to express it.” (Senior 2) Likewise, another interviewee noted: “frequently requiring
learners to solve a problem, arrive at a conclusion, or complete a task and to share information
allows them to collect information and cultivate themselves” (Senior 3).
In addition, a relatively large number of teachers have employed cooperative and collaborative
methods (Survey Items 4, 5, Category 2). Similar findings were revealed in the reported
experiences through qualitative interview data. As a senior teacher pointed out, “though time
consuming, cooperative and collaborative methods can foster growth in many areas: learning
to use interpersonal skills effectively, understanding and applying the course content to life
situations, developing self-esteem and ability to explain concepts to others” (Senior 5).
Similarly, a teacher interviewee reports “through encouraging student-student interaction,
positive interdependence and individual accountability, students gain greater motivation andself-confidence, learn to work cooperatively, and eventually become autonomous learners”(Novice3). Another teacher noted: “varying teacher-student interaction through collaborative
dialogue and mentoring students’ groups stimulates the negotiation of meaning and allows the
maximum of students to contribute to the discussion and develop as thinkers, andcommunicators in the second language… This is because students have the opportunity to

15

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

benefit from the presence of the teacher and peers, to receive feedback from multiple sources”(Novice 1).
Conversely, few teachers reported using project-based methods, (Questionnaire Item 3:
Category 2). The findings also suggest that many teachers seemed to doubt the usefulness ofraising students’ awareness of their active role in the learning process, assuming that changing
their habits may cost much effort and time, and regarded the provision of adequate support andguidance as challenging (Questionnaire Items, 6 and 7, Category 2). In the interview, this theme
was raised in specific reference to students’ readiness and the challenges that teachers face in
implementing the LCE reform. One interviewee comments: “we cannot ignore that LCE
methods require students to enlarge their knowledge by doing extra readings, investigate issues
in depth, and solve problems and other study skills to which many students may not be used
to… especially in over-crowded classrooms or lecture halls” (Senior 1). Another point raisedby a teacher interviewee was that: “language teachers and learners come to class with a lifetimeof experiences and preconceived notions about teaching and learning” (Novice 2).
Teachers’ Attitudes and Implementation of LCE
The results show that while there existed a correlation among teachers’ attitudes (Category 1)
and the implementation (Category 2) of LCE that was significant (Table 3), the descriptive
statistics point to a noticeable gap between the two survey categories (Table 4).
Table 3: Correlation among teachers’ attitudes and implementation of LCE
Attitudes

Implementation

Attitudes
1

Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)N

128.837**.000
128**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

16

Implementation.837**
.000
128
1
128

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Table 4: Descriptive statistics of teachers’ attitudes and implementation of LCE
Questionnaire Categories

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Attitudes (Category 1)
Implementation (Category 2)

128
128

3.11852.41629.59641.543770

Valid N (listwise)128

In consonance with the quantitative results, interview data highlight a tension between
teachers’ attitudes toward the reform standards and the practicality of educational reformthough many teachers were cognizant of the benefits of LCE reform for second language
learning. For instance, an important point that was raised by a number of participants was skills
integration. As a senior instructor explained, “A LCE framework provides a natural context for
integrating the four skills. Oral interaction helps wiring development at least in two ways. First,
content will be enhanced, through brainstorming in groups, for example” (Senior 5). Similarly,
another teacher observed that “the acquisition of new vocabulary and improvement of learners’
grammar are stimulated by interaction and likely to occur through scaffolding during
collaborative work” (Novice 1). In the same vein, a writing teacher reported: “… In a learnercentered classroom writing not only triggers reading, but listening and speaking as well; this is
likely to lead to an increase in students’ overall competence and writing abilities thereby”(Senior 6).
Discussion
This study sought to demonstrate how effectively the LCE approach could be implemented in
the ELT context. Throughout the current work, the relationship between teachers’ perceptions
and ways of implementing learner-centered teaching practices were highlighted. To explore
the extent to which LCE teaching practices affect the advancement of language leaning fromthe instructor’s perspective, the researcher has considered the most influential LCE theoreticalpremises as well as concurrent LCE oriented ELT methods in constructing the questionnaire
instrument. In addition, the interview data have been used to identify patterns that explain why
ELT teachers implement LCE in the way they do in terms of the influence of certain perceptions
on their approaches to teaching. The qualitative analysis is based on reading across the
respondents’ answers to the open-ended interview questions and coding data into thequestionnaire-derived categories which are: the nature of learning, assumed responsibility,
students’ readiness, content-based practice, task-based practices, project-based practices,
cooperative and collaborative practices, as well as awareness-raising and support provision.
This section focuses on analyzing the data gathered and discussing their interpretation in lightof the research questions.
Question 1:

How do university English language teachers perceive the theoretical premisesthat underlie LCE?

The quantitative results (Table1) show that though teachers are evidently aware of the LCE
orientation towards encouraging active learning through guided discovery in order to enlarge
students’ resources such as online learning and self-study instead of the heavy reliance onteacher’s “spoon-feeding”, they still assign a remarkable amount of importance to the17

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

transmission of knowledge from teachers to students. These findings have been clarified bytriangulation with interview results where participants frequently show concerns about the timeneeded to cover the programs’ content and the demands discovery-based learning necessitates
on both students and teachers. This contradiction is consistent with research findings that point
to the significance of reform-focused training and, at the same time, provide support to previous
studies indicating the need for adapting educational reforms according to the context of
implementation. Similarly, the interview respondents believe that the implementation of LC
practices positively affects students’ second language development and enhances theircomprehension and production skills. Respondents; however, highlight different aspects of thisrelationship.
First of all, with regard to the perceived nature of learning, the respondents expressed
willingness “to break the rule that says teachers tend to teach in the way they were taught, I
believe that good change takes time, but even a slight alteration to start with can make adifference” (Novice 3). This gradual nature of change in educational settings is alsoemphasized in (Qamar, 2016). Within the context of teaching EFL writing, Hedge (2000)
states,
It is a result of various pressures of time and the need to cover the syllabus, writing isoften relegated to homework and takes place in unsupported conditions of learning. The
danger in these circumstances is that poorer writers struggle alone and the experience
confirms them in their perceptions of themselves as failing writers. And better writers
miss valuable opportunities for improvement through discussion, collaboration, andfeedback. (p. 301)
Nonetheless, “these contextual constraints”, according to Senior 6, “may limit, but may notprevent the implementation of LC practices because they can be adapted for learners, at any of
the stages of development, and in most curricula; it depends on the teacher’s epistemologicalbeliefs and experience of course”. This realistic yet optimistic response relates to Spada andLightbown’s (2006, p.50) claim that: “Many teachers watch theory development with interest,
but must continue to teach and plan lessons and assess students’ performance in the absence ofa comprehensible theory of second language learning” - emphasis added-. By “must”, Spadaand Lightbown hint at the contextual constraints hindering the adoption of educationalinnovations. To minimize the effects of contextual constraints, Ó Ceallaigh, Hourigan, andLeavy, (2018) argue for enhancing teachers’ potential in terms of knowledge and skills. Also,
solving the problems that arise in a particular context can be triggered through collaboration
among teachers across and within disciplines (Zappa-Hollman, 2018; Pawan & Greene, 2017),
and through teacher education as well (Cammarata & Cavanagh, 2018).
Question 2:

How do English language teachers implement learner-centered methods ofteaching in the classroom?

On one hand, the findings indicating positive attitudes and gains from jointly implementing
content and task-based methods, especially within the frameworks of cooperative and/or
collaborative learning, are in consonance with of experimental research on the effectiveness ofcontent-based, cooperative and collaborative language teaching methods (Eriksson, 2018;
Mayo, 2018; Mohamadpour et al. 2018; Sato et al., 2017; Seah, 2020; Spenader et al., 2018).
One example is Arboleda-Arboleda and Castro-Garcés’ (2019) study which focuses on

18

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

teaching the target language through literature and provides evidence for the effectiveness ofcontent-based with task-based approaches.
On the other hand, the findings that teachers moderately raise students’ awareness of theiractive role in the learning process and regard the provision of adequate support and guidanceas challenging lend support to the view that the adoption and adaptation of LCE reform requires
collaboration among teachers (and between the teacher and the learners who have alreadyconstructed notions about what their role in the classroom is (Yen, 2016). The results alsosuggest that the implementation of LCE is a process that requires gradually refining
epistemological beliefs and dropping stereotypical notions about learning and instruction (VanLoi, 2020). These findings are consistent with research in similar contexts which has
highlighted the effect of students’ responsiveness and readiness for a reform-oriented approachto teaching (Edwards et al., 2019), especially if the approach entails learning skills students
may not be equipped with, study strategies they may not be aware of, and responsibilities they
did not expect.
In content-based language learning, learners’ understanding of texts is the result of integrating
the knowledge and language which this text presents and the learners’ prior knowledge. With
this regard, in Senior 6’s EFL writing course “explaining points relevant to course content
frequently occurs in most sessions, yet it does not occur is isolation, but rather in a form of
feedback in accordance with students’ contributions. It usually aims at helping students express
their ideas appropriately and develop a sense of audience through emphasizing the clarity ofstudents’ topic sentences.” As far as writing is concerned, several studies demonstrate thatstudents’ written production considerably benefits from using LCE practices. Students will
have the opportunity to learn from mistakes by allowing for different sources of feedback andby being exposed to variety of activities, students acquire multiple skills and enlarge theirknowledge through interacting with peers and with the teacher (Yasuda, 2017). Moreover,using LCE practices is found to enrich students’ vocabulary and fosters their retention; also,
through unlocking their learning potential, and relying on themselves, students acquire usefullearning strategies (Tseng, Liou, & Chu, 2020). Besides, through LCE practices, students
develop not only cognitive and intellectual abilities, but also they gradually become more
proficient learners and produce high quality pieces of writing in terms of accuracy andcoherence (Kafipour, Mahmoudi, & Khojasteh, 2018).
Besides creating a context for interacting, task-based and project-based language teachingseems to provide a context for language skills’ integration. With regard to writing, therespondents’ views were further in line with Hedge’s argument that students benefit noticeably
from writing in the classroom; “If students experience some success in the classroom, they are
more likely to write more at home and gain more motivation and improvement” (Hedge, 2005,
p. 13). Similar findings have been revealed with regard to developing translation abilities (Lin,2019). As Senior 6 described “During sessions in class, the focus may be on developing aparticular skill, say writing or speaking for example, but almost always try to use the activities
involve students to interactively develop the four skills.”; when asked how?, Senior 6 clarified“when doing in-class writing tasks, the students not only write, but also speak about the topics
proposed, listen to each other, read the handouts, and write to answer the activities.”
Congruently, Yasuda (2017) examined the integrated effect of systemic functional linguisticsbased genre approach and task-based language teaching on the synchronized development of
linguistic knowledge and writing expertise. Yasuda’s (2017) findings lend support to the19

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

aforementioned respondent’s practice. However, the assumption of developing English
language learners’ integrated skills “in the background” while keeping the focus on one skill
at a time has remained scarcely searched despite the proliferation in task-based ELT studies(Al Kandari, & Al Qattan, 2020; Anwar & Arifani, 2016; Ellis et al., 2019; Lee, 2016; Saaty,2020). An extended form of TBLT is project-based language teaching (PBLT). The latter was
the least used LCE practice among the interviewed teachers due to its “vagueness, especiallyin terms of assessment” (Novice 2). Coincidently, PBLT has so far received little attention in
ELT theorizing (cf. Beckett & Slater, 2019) and research (cf. Baş & Beyhab, 2017; Poonpon,
2017).
Finally, the respondents, overall, advocate that cooperative and collaborative teaching practices
raise students’ awareness of their active role and motivation by “making them feel dedicatedto acquire the language more effectively in order to achieve more success and better self-esteem
and self-confidence in return” (Novice 3). Likewise, research has shown that teachers’
behaviors are directly related to students’ motivation including behaviors influencing theaffective atmosphere of the classroom (Marsh, 2018). Additionally, according to the interview
respondents’ view, implementing LCE strategies encourages students to be more interactive
and productive because they are required to write more inside and outside the classroom. In
addition, as one respondent claimed, “the more students are motivated, the harder they work,and the more they write” Senior 4. Indicating the effectiveness of requiring students to write
frequently, Hedge (2005, p. 13) argues: “My own experience tells me that in order to be good
writers, a student needs to write a lot”. Eventually, when students recognize that theircontributions are worthy, they develop a “we can, so I can” attitude. “with time, students
develop self-confidence and self-reliance that encourage them to enrich their vocabulary andimprove their language proficiency in general by working on their own.” (Senior 3). Using a
combination of LCE strategies is suggested to create variety and engages more students
because “all the learners can participate, no matter what their talents might be. Everyone canfind satisfaction in using language in different ways to produce interesting and attractive pieceof work” (Davies & Pearse, 2000, p.100). By being motivated, students will be more eager tolearn from each other (Namaziandost et al., 2019; Rochman, 2019) and from the teacher(Kukulska‐Hulme & Viberg, 2018; Saha & Singh, 2016). As a consequence, the students feel
more responsible to actively take part in constructing their knowledge (He & Lin, 2019;
Morton, 2020), and strategically learn the target language (Lo & Lin, 2019; Zhong et al., 2019).
Question 3:

From the teachers’ perspectives, how can LCE practices be effectively
implemented in ELT courses?

The results are in accordance with previous studies that examined the implementation ofstandards-based educational reforms and found inconsistency between conceptualization andpractice in instruction (Nielsen, 2019). In addition, the findings provide evidence that if LCE
strategies are to be successfully implemented, teachers need to tailor the implementation ofthese methods according to their teaching situations through what Kumaravadivelu (2003)
refers to as “theorizing from practice”. He further explains:
Such a continual cycle of observation, reflection, and action is a prerequisite for thedevelopment of context-sensitive pedagogic theory and practice…no theory of practice
can be fully useful and usable unless it is generated through practice. A logical corollary
is that it is the practicing teacher who, given adequate tools for exploration, is best20

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

suited to produce such a practical theory. The intellectual exercise of attempting toderive a theory of practice enables teachers to understand and identify problems,
analyze and assess information, consider and evaluate alternatives, and then choose thebest available alternative that is then subjected to further critical appraisal. In this sense,a theory of practice involves continual reflection and action. (p.35)
Taken together, the findings draw attention to the effects of teachers’ and students’
epistemological beliefs and pre-assumptions of roles and responsibilities on reform
implementation, adding, thereby, to previous studies on reform implementation and, moreparticularly, contributing to the literature on the implementation of LCE (Seah & Silver, 2018)
and on the contextualization of second language education (Al-Humaidi, 2015). At this point,
it can argued that, besides being informed about existing choices, teachers need to investigate
reform-oriented methods by themselves, neither to conform to nor to reject them, but rather tomake sense of them so that they can be meaningfully implemented within their own teachingsituations. The findings further raise questions as to how attitudes toward the distribution ofroles and responsibilities develop and change and how LCE methods can be better assimilated
into educational routines in a particular context.
Figure 2. Sums up the aforementioned implications and illustrates a data-driven model forcontextualizing LCE practices into the ELT classrooms.
Teachers'
autonomyStudents'social capital

Epistimologicalbeliefs

Teachers’cooperation

Increasing
interaction

Organizing
learning
activities

Teachergenerated
materials

Effective
tutoring

Awarenessofalternatives

Adviceandfeedback

Piecemeal
nature of learnerautonomy

Figure 2. Model for contextualizing LCE in English language teaching
Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
From the outset of this research, the aim has been to examine the implementation of LCE
methods for second language learning in terms of both language and content. What was meant
to be done is finding out the limitations and benefits of implementing LCE methods based onuniversity second language instructors’ attitudes and experiences. However, this study is notconcerned with examining the relationship between implementing LCE methods and aparticular aspect of second language learning. For instance, one way to extend the findings ofthis study is by addressing the effectiveness of LCE methods in promoting English academic
writing, in particular, due to the importance of this skill in higher education contexts. It would

21

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

also be desirable to conduct such research using experimental or longitudinal designs with theanalysis of students’ perspectives.
Further intriguing issues with regard to the LCE methods discussed in this study include thechallenges and prospects of technology-enhanced language teaching, peer assistance andcollaborative learning in this same context of the present study. Other possible areas of research
include investigating how the use of cooperative discussion tasks which highlight different
aspects, options, and alternatives can enhance students’ critical and higher-order thinking.
Also, as with most attitudes-focused research, a limitation of this study is that the findings
reflect the attitudes and experiences of the study participants; thus, replicating this research ina different context may shed light on other aspects of LCE-oriented reforms. Further researchis needed to inspect their actual, isolated and integrated, prospective for promoting English
language development among English-major and non-English major learners.
Conclusion
This paper has explored teachers’ perceptions of the challenges and benefits associated withthe overall usefulness of implementing LCE methods. It, thereby, contributes to research on
the interaction between theory and practice for effective educational change.
It can be concluded that, even in the present post-method era, the teacher adopts a particularclassroom strategy according to their learners’ characteristics and to the whole learning
situation as well. According to participants’ experiences, the implementation of learnercentered methods in the second language classroom is likely to contribute to the betterment of
second language teaching and learning. However, teachers need to progressively introduce
LCE methods not necessarily all the methods together or in all of the sessions. Rather, what is
to be taken into consideration is that each method shapes and is shaped by the other. For
instance, content may shape a task or a project to be completed cooperatively and/or
collaboratively. LCE methods interweave and interact with each other in a synergic
relationship; the result of such a relationship will vary from context to context depending on
the teacher, the learners, and the learning objectives.
Noteworthy, LCE methods may not be effective for full-time use in the second language
classroom. The effectiveness of LCE is by no means determined by how much time is spent inlearner-centered activities. Rather what matters is what methods are used with whom, for what
purpose, and in what way. This is not to gainsay the practical usefulness of LCE though; nor is
it to suggest that there are rock-solid golden rules for implementing it. Rather, this article ismeant to serve as another contribution to the pool of resources on education reform
implementation which both provide educators with insights from, potentially similar,
implementation contexts together with a set of suggested instructional activities and guide them
toward becoming independent teaching material developers. Interestingly, the findings also
indicate a teacher-initiated shift towards social-centeredness in reaction to reform-oriented
learner-centeredness.
Acknowledgement
Special thanks go to Mrs Nashoua Hassina, Head of the Department of English at Mohamed
Kheider Biskra University, for her crucial help.

22

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

References
Ahmed, S. A., & Dakhiel, M. A. (2019). Effectiveness of learner-centered teaching inmodifying attitude towards EFL and developing academic self-motivation among the12th grade students. English Language Teaching, 12(4), 139–148.
https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n4p139
Al Kandari, A. M., & Al Qattan, M. M. (2020). E-task-based learning approach to enhancing
21st-Century learning outcomes. International Journal of Instruction, 13(1), 551–566.
https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2020.13136a
Al-Humaidi, S. (2015). Adopting a learner-centered methodology at Sultan Qaboos
University. Studies in English Language Teaching, 3(2), 172–186.
https://doi.org/10.22158/selt.v3n2p172
Ammar, A., & Hassan, R. M. (2017). Talking it through: Collaborative dialogue and second
language learning. Language Learning, 68(1), 46–82.
https://doi.org/doi:10.1111/lang.12254
Anwar, K., & Arifani, Y. (2016). Task based language teaching: Development of
CALL. International Education Studies, 9(6), 168–183.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n6p168
Arboleda-Arboleda, A., & Castro-Garcés, A. Y. (2019). Fostering language learning in theuniversity EFL classroom through literature: A task-based approach. GIST–Educationand Learning Research Journal, 19, 101–127. https://doi.org/10.26817/16925777.706
Azzi, M. (2012). The new pedagogical practices within the LMD System: Perceptions of EFL
faculty members. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 69, 1004–1013.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.12.027
Bai, X., & González, O. R. G. (2019). A comparative study of teachers’ and students’ beliefs
towards teacher-centered and learner-centered approaches in grade 12 English as aforeign language class at one governmental senior secondary school in Shaan’xi
Province, China. Scholar: Human Sciences, 11(1), 37–44.
Baş, G., & Beyhab, Ö. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-basedlearning on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards English
lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2(3), 365–385.
Baş, G., & Beyhab, Ö. (2010). Effects of multiple intelligences supported project-basedlearning on students’ achievement levels and attitudes towards English
lesson. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2.
Burns, A. (2003). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Bygate, M., Shehan, P., & Swain, M. (2001). Researching pedagogic tasks: Second language
learning teaching and testing. Harlow, England: Longman.
Cammarata, L., & Cavanagh, M. (2018). In search of immersion teacher educators’knowledge base: Exploring their readiness to foster an integrated approach toteaching. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language Education, 6(2), 189–
217. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18009.cam
Cammarata, L., & Ceallaigh, T. Ó. (2018). Teacher education and professional development
for immersion and content-based instruction: Research on programs, practices, and23

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

teacher educators. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based Language
Education, 6(2), 153–161. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.6.2
Davies, P., & Pearse, E. (2000). Success in English teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Donato, R. (2016). Sociocultural theory and content-based foreign language instruction:
Theoretical insights on the challenge of integration. In L. Cammarata (Ed.), Contentbased foreign language teaching (pp. 39–64). New York: Routledge.
Duff, P. (2018). Case study research in applied linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Edwards, R., Holguín-Barrera, M. D., Ortiz, A. C., & Pérez, F. (2019). Promoting EFL
learner autonomy in a teacher-centered culture through video-sharing andcollaborating in online forums. Latin American Journal of Content & Language
Integrated Learning, 12(1), 99–127. https://doi.org/10.5294/laclil.2019.12.1.5
Ellis, R. (2017). Task-based language teaching. In S. Louwen & M. Sato (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of instructed second language acquisition (pp. 124–141). New
York: Routledge.
Ellis, R., Skehan, P., Li, S., Shintani, N., & Lambert, C. (2019). Task-based language
teaching: Theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108643689
Eriksson, A. (2018). Redesigning a discipline-specific writing assignment to improve writing
on an EMI programme of engineering. Journal of Academic Writing, 8(2), 48–66.
https://doi.org/10.18552/joaw.v8i2.496
Haley, M. H. & Austen, T.Y. (2004). Content-based language teaching and learning: Aninteractive approach. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.
Hall, G. (2017). Focus on the language learner. Exploring English language teaching, 139–
161. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315193380-7
He, P., & Lin, A. M. (2019). Co-developing science literacy and foreign language literacy
through “Concept + Language Mapping”. Journal of Immersion and Content-Based
Language Education, 7(2), 261–288. https://doi.org/10.1075/jicb.18033.he
Hedge, T. (2000). Teaching and learning in the language classroom. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Hedge, T. (2005). Writing (2nd ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ilieva, R., Wallace, A., & Spiliotopoulos, V. (2019). Institutional roles and identity
construction of applied linguistics faculty involved in interdisciplinary collaborations
for multilingual student success. TESL Canada Journal, 36(1), 71–96.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1303
Kafipour, R., Mahmoudi, E., & Khojasteh, L. (2018). The effect of task-based language
teaching on analytic writing in EFL classrooms. Cogent Education, 5(1), 1496627.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2018.1496627
Karim, K. (2018). Cooperative language learning. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English
Language Teaching, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118784235.eelt01
Kaymakamoglu, S. E. (2018). Teachers' beliefs, perceived practice and actual classroom
practice in relation to traditional (Teacher-Centered) and constructivist (LearnerCentered) teaching (Note 1). Journal of Education and Learning, 7(1), 29–37.
https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v7n1p29

24

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Lee, L. (2016). Autonomous learning through task-based instruction in fully online language
courses. Language Learning & Technology, 20(2), 81–97.
https://doi.org/10125/44462
Lightbown, P.M., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Lyster, R. (2017). Content-based language teaching. New York: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315103037
Marsh, R. (2018). Cultivation of Learner-Centered Intrinsic Motivation in the Japanese ELF
Classroom [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Tamagawa University, Japan.
Marwan, A. (2017). Implementing learner-centered teaching in an English foreign language(EFL) classroom. Celt: A journal of culture, English language teaching &literature, 17(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.24167/celt.v17i1.1138
Mayo, M. D. P. G. (2018). Child task-based interaction in EFL settings. Research andchallenges. International Journal of English Studies, 18(2), 119–143.
https://doi.org/10.6018/ijes/2018/2/319731
Miller, T., & Bell, L. (n.d.). Consenting to what? Issues of access, gate-keeping and“informed” consent. Ethics in Qualitative Research, 61–75.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473913912.n5
Mohamadpour, P., Talebinejad, M. R., & Tabatabaei, O. (2018). Task-based Meta-cognitive
Instruction Approach to Self-regulation in Listening Comprehension. Iranian Journalof English for Academic Purposes, 6(2), 33–49.
Morton, T. (2020). Cognitive discourse functions: A bridge between content, literacy andlanguage for teaching and assessment in CLIL. CLIL. Journal of Innovation andResearch in Plurilingual and Pluricultural Education, 3(1), 7–17.
https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/clil.33
Namaziandost, E., Neisi, L., Kheryadi, & Nasri, M. (2019). Enhancing oral proficiency
through cooperative learning among intermediate EFL learners: English learning
motivation in focus. Cogent Education, 6(1), 1683933.
https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2019.1683933
Nielsen, B. M. (2019). Fostering learner autonomy in foreign language learning:
Justifications, definitions, misconceptions, and interrelated components for its
realization. Hokuga, 8(1), 33–52.
Nunan, D. (2012). Learner-centered English language education: The selected works ofDavid Nunan. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203096888
Ó Ceallaigh, T. J., Hourigan, M., & Leavy, A. (2018). Developing potentiality: pre-service
elementary teachers as learners of language immersion teaching. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1489779
Pawan, F., & Greene, M. C. (2017). In trust, we collaborate: ESL and content-area teachers
working together in content-based language instruction. In M. A. Snow & D. M.
Brinton (Eds.), The content-based classroom: New perspectives on integrating
language and content, (pp. 323–337). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Peng, Y. (2017). Content-based instruction of EFL and its effects on learners’ needs in
China. Education Journal, 6(3), 116–119.
https://doi.org/10.11648/j.edu.20170603.12

25

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Phakiti, A., & Paltridge, B. (2015). Approaches and methods in applied linguistics
research. In B. Paltridge & A. Phakiti (Eds.), Research methods in applied linguistics:
A practical resource, (pp. 5–25). London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Philominraj, A., Jeyabalan, D., & Vidal-Silva, C. (2017). Visual Learning: A learner centeredapproach to enhance English language teaching. English Language Teaching, 10(3),54–62. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v10n3p54
Poonpon, K. (2017). Enhancing English skills through project-based learning. The English
Teacher, 1–10.
Porte, G. K. (2010). Appraising research in second language learning: A practical approachto critical analysis of quantitative research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.
Qamar, M. B. (2016). The impact of learner’s autonomy on teaching oral skills (speaking
skills) in an EFL classroom. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 7(2), 293–
298. https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.0702.07
Reigeluth, C. M., Myers, R. D., & Lee, D. (2017). The learner-centered paradigm ofeducation. In C. M. Reigeluth, B. J. Beatty, & R. D. Myers (Eds.). Instructionaldesign theories and models, Vol. IV: The learner-centered paradigm of education, (pp.
5–32). New York, Oxford:Routledge.
Richards, K. (2009). Interviews. In J. Heigham & R. A. Croker (Eds.), Qualitative researchin applied linguistics, (pp. 182–199). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230239517_9
Rochman, M. (2019). Using cooperative language learning in improving the students’pronunciation accuracy and fluency. Journal of English Language andPedagogy, 2(2), 92–104. https://doi.org/10.33503/journey.v2i2.514
Saaty, A. A. (2020). Task-based meaningful literacy for language learners. Arab World
English Journal (AWEJ) 10(4). 356–373. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3512636
Saha, S., & Singh, S. (2016). Collaborative learning through language games in ESL
classroom. Language in India, 16(10), 180–189.
Sato, S., Hasegawa, A., Kumagai, Y., & Kamiyoshi, U. (2017). Content-based instruction(CBI) for the social future: A recommendation for critical content-based language
instruction (CCBI). L2 Journal, 9(3), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.5070/L29334164
Seah, L. H. (2020). What student language reveals about the demands of learning the human
circulatory system. Research in Science Education, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09915-z
Seah, L. H., & Silver, R. E. (2018). Attending to science language demands in multilingualclassrooms: a case study. International Journal of Science Education, 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2018.1504177
Shehadeh, A. (2018). Foreword: New frontiers in task-based language teaching research. In
M. J. Ahmadian & M. del Pilar Garcia Mayo (Eds.), Recent perspectives on taskbased language learning and teaching (pp. vii–xxii). Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter.
https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501503399-fm
Spenader, A. J., Wesely, P. M., & Glynn, C. (2018). When culture is content: Applications
for content-based instruction in the world language classroom. Language Teaching
Research, 1362168818799768. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168818799768

26

IAFOR Journal of Education: Language Learning in Education

Volume 8 – Issue 1 – 2020

Starkey, L. (2019). Three dimensions of student-centred education: a framework for policy
and practice. Critical Studies in Education, 60(3), 375–390.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1281829
Troyan, F. J., Cammarata, L., & Martel, J. (2017). Integration PCK: Modeling the knowledge(s) underlying a world language teacher's implementation of CBI. Foreign Language
Annals, 50(2), 458–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/flan.12266
Tseng, W. T., Liou, H. J., & Chu, H. C. (2020). Vocabulary learning in virtual environments:
Learner autonomy and collaboration. System, 88, 102190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102190
Van den Branden, K. (2016). The role of teachers in task-based language education. Annual
Review of Applied Linguistics, 36, 164–181.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190515000070
Van Loi, N. (2020). Unpacking perceptual and contextual influences on task-based
instruction: A framework of teacher beliefs and practice. PASAA: A Journal of
Language Teaching and Learning, 59, 154–180.
Van Viegen, S., & Russell, B. (2019). More than language—Evaluating a Canadianuniversity EAP bridging program. TESL Canada Journal, 36(1), 97–120.
https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v36i1.1304
Villacís, W. G. V., & Camacho, C. S. H. (2017). Learner-centered instruction: An approachto develop the speaking skill in English. Revista Publicando, 4 No.12 (1), 379–389.
Weimar, M. (2013) Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. 2nd ed. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Yamagata, S. (2018). Comparing core-image-based basic verb learning in an EFL junior highschool: Learner-centered and teacher-centered approaches. Language Teaching
Research, 22(1), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168816659784
Yasuda, S. (2017). Toward a framework for linking linguistic knowledge and writing
expertise: Interplay between SFL‐based genre pedagogy and task‐based language
teaching. Tesol Quarterly, 51(3), 576–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/tesq.383
Yen, P. H. (2016). Challenges of shifting to task-based language teaching: A story from a
Vietnamese teacher. Can Tho University Journal of Science, 2(1), 37–45.
https://doi.org/10.22144/ctu.jen.2016.002
Yu, Y., & Liu, Y. (2017, December). Creating a learner-centered communicative classroom
to help learners achieve optimal outcome. In W. Li & J. E. Mueller (Eds.),
Proceedings of the 2017 World Conference on Management Science and Human
Social Development (MSHSD 2017). Amsterdam: Atlantis Press.
https://doi.org/10.2991/mshsd-17.2018.21
Zappa-Hollman, S. (2018). Collaborations between language and content university
instructors: Factors and indicators of positive partnerships. International Journal of
Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 21(5), 591–606.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2018.1491946
Zhong, Y., Tan, H., & Peng, Y. (2019). Curriculum 2.0 and student content-based language
pedagogy. System, 84, 76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.06.001
Corresponding author: Badjadi Nour El Imane
Contact email: badjadi.noureliman@univ-ouargla.dz

27