Comparative Study On Mastery Level of Grade 11 Students in Learner

 

DIFFERENCE OF LEARNER-CENTERED AND TEACHER-CENTERED APPROACH ON MASTERY LEVEL OF GRADE 11 STUDENTS

Action Research

Mt. Apo National High School Kidapawan City

By:

ARLYN G. ZAMORA EUGENIO S. BURGOS Researchers

July 2019

 

ABSTRACT   Appropriate approach approach on Teaching-Learning Teaching-Learning process makes a big difference in every student’s learning student’s  learning outcome and today’s today’s curriculum,  curriculum, the K-12, opens more opportunity for the students to learn based on their abilities and capabilities with the use of proper strategies and approaches.  Amidst all these apt apt and modern approaches, approaches, it is still known worldwide worldwide that traditional traditional approaches like Teacher-Centered is widely used, and Philippines, by far, is not an exemption. Some of teachers still st ill adhere and exercise this approach which is derived from the viewpoint viewpoint that students are “tabula rasa” and rasa”  and sometimes represses the students’ capacity to express their knowledge and certain opinion on the topics discussed. Lately, Mt. Apo National High School teachers have passionate discussion about whichever is more effective approach in teaching, Teacher-centered or Learner-centered. Hence, this study was created to determine the mastery level of the students using Teachercentered and another using Learner-centered then finally, to compare the mastery level of Grade 11 students using Teacher-centered and Learner-centered. Learner-centered. The results of the study confirmed that Grade 11 students’ students’ mastery level is higher when Teacher-centered approach is used in teaching E-Technology. It can be concluded that in teaching, it is better to combine Teacher-centered and Learner-centered approaches.

INTRODUCTION   INTRODUCTION Concurrent to modernization of the world, the unending and constant change in technologies,, appropriate and innovative technologies innovative changes to approaches and strategies to teachinglearning process have emerged.  Although K-12 curriculum curriculum of the Philippines Philippines adheres and promotes the use of approaches and teaching strategies more skewed to Learner-centered approach and strategies, there are still teachers who preferred to use traditional approaches.

 

 

With the recently addition of Senior High School in Mt. Apo National High School, most

of the teachers are debating which approach is more appropriate to use to maximize the mastery level of every student. This prompted the researchers to conduct the study to calculate the mastery level of the students using Teacher-centered and Learner-centered approach and compare the result of the two using standard deviation.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study is intended to determine and compare the difference of Teacher-Centered and Learner-Centered Learner-Centered Approach to the mastery level of Grade 11 students of Mt. Apo National High School. Specifically,, this study aimed to answer the following questions: Specifically 1. What is the mastery level of of Grade 11 students using Learner-Centered Learner-Cent ered Approach? 2. What is the mastery level of Grade 11 students using Teacher-Centered  Approach? 3. Based on the result of the formative formative assessment/ assessment/ post-test, what is the most effective approach?

 

BRIEF REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE In Teacher-Centered Approach, students put all their focus on the Teacher. The Teacher talks, the students exclusively listens. During activities, students work alone and collaboration is discouraged. On the other hand, when a classroom operates with studentcentered instruction, students and instructors share the focus. Instead of listening to the teacher exclusively, students and teachers interact equally. Group work is encouraged, and students learn to collaborate and communicate with one another. For many years, the traditional teaching style of teaching English or specifically, teacher-centered instruction has been dominant in higher education in Iran. In a traditional classroom, students become passive learners, or rather just recipients of teachers’ knowledge. Teachers make all the decisions concerning the curriculum, teaching methods, and the different forms of assessment. Duckworth (2009 revived on 2017) asserts that teacher-centered teachercentered learning actually prevents students’ educational growth. growth.   In contrast, in a learner-centered classroom, students are actively learning and they have greater input into what they learn, how they learn it, and when they learn it. This means that students take responsibility of their own learning and are directly involved involved in the learning process. Learner-centered Learner-centered teaching approach focuses on how students learn instead of how teachers teach (Weimer, 2002, and Wohlfarth et.al, 2008, revived on 2017). In a learnercentered classroom, teachers abandoned lecture notes and power point presentations for a more active, engaging, collaborative collaborative style of teaching (Wohlfarth et.al, 2008, revived on 2017). Mutlaq Al-Zu'be (2013) examined the difference between the learner-centered approach and the teacher-centered approach in teaching English as a foreign language. The results of the research revealed that “the comparison of the two approaches in terms of their efficiency and effectiveness in student’s prof iciency iciency showed that each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses, hence choosing one approach lead to avoiding the advantages of the other. The student-centered approach, however, was recognized as more suited for teaching English as a foreign language.

 

Lynch (2010) offered four principles for learner-centered approach. These principles are based on the responsibility for learners’ learning, directly involving them in the learning process and raising social activities like collaboration, meaningful communication, choice and cooperation. These principles principles are put forth as follow f ollow:: 1. Learners should develop their own knowledge by communication, critical thinking, and problem solving. 2. Instead of learning irrelevant materials, students could have this opportunity to learn directly related materials to their real life. Mostly, teachers have no answer on facing this question “why do I have to know this”.  this”.   3. Huba and Freed (2000) state that in traditional method, students’ performance is assessed based on a test. Some students are well on testing with average in school and some are weak test takers but well on their curriculum. While these factors are not considered in teacher-led learning, it is a positive tool to “promote and diagnose learning assessment in student-led learning. 4. According to Adams (2008), providing opportunities for students to use target language in order to negotiate meaning with teacher and other students in a group work, project work, also task-based interactions while providing providing guidance, modeling, and feedback about progress. In comparison with learner-centered approach, teacher-centered approach or learning (passive learning) is a method of teaching in which the teacher is in the center of learning process and the student has the least impression in (reading comprehension) language teaching and learning. In other words, teacher-centered approach occurs in a situation that the teacher plays the main role in the process of learning and teaching. Accordingly, teachercentered approach can be defined as a teaching style in which instruction is closely managed and controlled by the authority of the classroom (i.e., the teacher), where language learners often respond in agreement to teacher questions, and where whole-class instruction is preferred to other methods (Richards & Schmidt, 2010).During the last few f ew decades, teachercentered teaching style has been replaced by learner-centered teaching style in higher education (McCombs & Whistler, 1997; Weimer, 2002, revived 2017).

 

K-12 Curriculum, also known as The Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 in Section 5, states to wit: “The DepEd shall adhere to the following standards and principles in developing developi ng the t he enhanced basic education curriculum: curriculum: (a) The curriculum shall be learner-centered, inclusive and developmentally developmentally appropriate; (b) The curriculum shall be relevant, responsive and research-based; (c) The curriculum shall be culture-sensitive; (d) The curriculum shall be contextualized and global; (e) The curriculum shall use pedagogical approaches that are constructivist, inquiry-based, reflective, collaborative and integrative; (f)The curriculum shall adhere to the principles and framework of Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) which starts from where the learners are and from what they already knew proceeding from the known to the unknown; instructional materials and capable teachers to implement the MTB-MLE curriculum shall be available; (g) The curriculum shall use the spiral progression approach to ensure mastery of knowledge and skills after each level; and (h) The curriculum shall be flexible enough to enable and allow schools to localize, indigenize and enhance the same based on their respective educational and social context.

METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN This study is anchored in constructivism and experimental approach wherein researchers conducted their classes using the two approaches: Teacher-Centered and Learner-Centered. The researchers first used Learner-Centered Approach in teaching then measured their mastery level at the end of the t he session. On the second day, Teacher-Centered  Approach is used and the mastery level is determined through formative test/ t est/ post-test the same class. This study was conducted at Mt. Apo National High School, Sayaban, Ilomavis, Kidapawan City with the Grade 11-HUMSS students as the respondents.

 

 

The researchers utilized the quantitative design to measure the mastery level of the

Grade 11 students using Teacher-Centered and Learner-Centered Approach and to compare and determine the most effective approach to be used and qualitative for the corresponding descriptions.

 

Results and Discussions The following were the results and interpretations of the data on the mastery level of Grade 11 students of Mt. Apo National High School in E-Technology based on LearnerCentered and Teacher-Centered Approach with the k-12 grading system and grading scale as basis while standard deviation deviation (SD) was used in comparing the effectiveness effectiveness between the two approaches.

Table 1. Mastery Level of Grade 11 students using Learner-Centered Learner-Centered Approach Student 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Score x 30 47 28 36 41

Grade

Transmuted Grade

Description

50.00 78.33 46.66 60.00 68.33

72 86 71 75 80

Beginning Proficient Beginning Developing Approaching Proficiency Proficienc y

40 33 34 40 34 52 Mean

66.66 55.00 56.66 66.66 56.66 86.66 37.72

79 73 74 79 74 91

Developing Beginning Beginning Developing Beginning Advance

90 above—Advance 85-89—Proficient 80-84—Approaching Proficiency 75-79—Developing Below 74—Beginning

 As shown shown in Table 1, 1, five out of eleven students (45.45%) are still in the beginning level, three students (27.27%) are developing, while only one (9.09%) got in approaching proficiency, also one (9.09) proficient and one (9.09) in advance level. The K-12 grading system and grading scale was used as basis in transmuting and giving descriptions.

 

Table 2. Mastery Level of Grade 11 students using Teacher-Centered Approach Student Score

Grade

Transmuted Grade

Description

1

44

73.33

83

Approaching Proficiency

2

52

86.66

91

Advance

3

40

66.66

79

Developing

4

43

71.66

82

Approaching Proficiency

5 6

40 41

66.66 68.33

79 80

Developing Approaching Proficiency

7

50

83.33

89

Proficient

8

43

71.66

82

Approaching Proficiency

9

42

70.00

81

Approaching Proficiency

10

50

83.33

89

Proficient

11

56

93.33

95

Advance

Mean

45.54

90 above—Advance

—

85-89

Proficient

80-84—Approaching Proficiency 75-79—Developing Below 74—Beginning  As stated in table 2 where 2 where Teacher-centered approach was used, it is shown that no one has gotten a below 75 transmuted grade while five students out of eleven, equivalent to 45.45% are in approaching approaching proficiency. Meanwhile, two students (18.18%) are still developing, there are also two students (18.18) who are already proficient and another two students (18.18%) on advance level. K-12 grading system and grading scale was also used on this table.

 

Table 3. Comparison of Learner-centered and Teacher-centered Approach using Standard Deviation

Approach

∑( − ẋ)² 

SD

Learner-Centered Learner-Ce ntered

47.10

2.06

Teacher-Centered Teacher-Cen tered

27.33

1.57

 As shown in Table 3, 3, it is apparent that using Teacher-centered approach with SD 1.576 is more effective than Learner centered approach which has an SD of 2.06 in teaching E-Technology in Grade 11 students in Mt. Apo National High School.

Conclusion and Recommendat Recommendations ions

Conclusion Based on the results of the study, it is discovered that Grade 11 students can understand better the topics in E-Technology when Teacher-centered approach is used. 1. Although Learner-centered Learner-centered approach approach is well-know well-known n to be effective in teachinglearning process and is encouraged, it is apparent that most of Grade 11 students have difficulty in learning their topics in E-Technology. E-Technology. 2. It is observed that although teacher-centered approach was refrained and discouraged, 100% of the respondents have gotten 75% and above results in mastery level. 3. Grade 11 students still preferred Teaching-centered approach than Learnercentered approach.

Recommendations Based on the following results and conclusion, the following are the recommendations:

 

1. When using Learner-centered Learner-centered approach, teachers teachers still need to facil facilitate itate and monitor monitor regularly the progress of every students. Teachers must give additional input to the students, correct their wrong interpretations and not to just let them finish their activities without monitoring. 2. Although all of the students got got 75% and above above in their mastery level because because of the Teacher-centered approach, most of them are only in the approaching proficiency level, thus, teachers must not rely solely in teacher-centered approach. 3. It is better to combine combine Teacher-centered Teacher-centered and Learner-centered Learner-centered approach approach in teaching especially in E-Technology. Teacher-centered approach must be used in topics that are rather difficult followed by activities that are learner-centered for them to apply what they learn from the teacher.

References

E-Sources

The Effect of Teacher-Centeredness Method vs. Learner-Centeredness Method in Reading Comprehension among Iranian EFL Learners retrieved on July 17, 2019 from http://european-science.com/jaelt/ar http://european-sci ence.com/jaelt/article/downl ticle/download/4886/2415 oad/4886/2415

The Impact of Learner-Centered Learner-Centered Teaching on Students’ Learning Skills and Strategies  Strategies   retrieved

on

July

17,

2019

at

https://webcache.googleuserco https://webcache .googleusercontent.com/search ntent.com/search?q=cache:LqC ?q=cache:LqCmvJsXOIJ:https://info mvJsXOIJ:https://info nomics-society.org/wpcontent/up nomics-socie ty.org/wpcontent/uploads/ijcdse/p loads/ijcdse/publishedpa ublishedpapers/volume-5 pers/volume-5-2014/The-2014/TheImpact-of-Learner-Centered-Tea Impact-of-Learne r-Centered-Teaching-on-Stude ching-on-Students-Learnin nts-Learning-Skills-andg-Skills-and-  Strategies.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&c Strategies.pd f+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ph t=clnk&gl=ph

 

Teacher-Centered Versus Learner-Centered Learning retrieved on July 17, 2019 from https://knowledgeworks.org/reso https://knowled geworks.org/resources/learne urces/learner-centered-learni r-centered-learning/ ng/

Teaching Methods retrieved on July 17, 2019 from https://teach.com/what/teachersknow/teaching-methods/

2019 DEPED TRANSMUTATION TABLE (PDF COPY) retrieved on July 19, 2019 from https://www.teacherph.com/transmu https://www.teache rph.com/transmutation-table/ tation-table/