This article was downloaded by: [Temple University Libraries]On: 16 November 2014, At: 07:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

African Journal of Research inMathematics, Science and TechnologyEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmse20

Understanding Challenges PhysicsTeachers Come Across as theyImplement Learner-centredApproaches in LesothoMakomosela Qhobelaa & Eunice Kolitsoe Morub

a Department of Science Education, National University ofLesotho, Lesothob Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, NationalUniversity of Lesotho, LesothoPublished online: 07 Mar 2014.

To cite this article: Makomosela Qhobela & Eunice Kolitsoe Moru (2014) UnderstandingChallenges Physics Teachers Come Across as they Implement Learner-centred Approaches inLesotho, African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18:1,63-74, DOI: 10.1080/10288457.2014.884351

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2014.884351

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Understanding Challenges Physics Teachers Come Acrossas they Implement Learner-centred Approaches in Lesotho

Makomosela Qhobela1* and Eunice Kolitsoe Moru2

1 Department of Science Education, National University of Lesotho, Lesotho2 Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, National University of Lesotho, Lesotho

* Corresponding author, email: m.qhobela@nul.ls

Teacher-centred strategies have dominated most physics lessons in Lesotho. This study attempted tounderstand the contributing factors for the choice of teacher-centred teaching instead of learner-centredteaching with the goal of informing a professional development programme designed to address thisproblem. The paper responds to the research question: what challenges do physics teachers comeacross when they attempt to implement learner-centred strategies in their lessons? Four teachers, withvarying teaching experience, participated in the study. Data were collected using written responses andaudio and video recordings. Analysis of the data reflected two elements. First, the operational definitionsof learner-centred strategies that teachers use lack components that are likely to influence theirteaching. Second, teachers claim that time and student characteristics are some of the challenges thataffect their choice of the teacher-centred approaches. Implications of these findings for bothprofessional development providers and classroom practitioners are discussed.

Keywords: learner-centred approaches; professional development; classroom practice

Introduction

The concerns about the quality of teaching and learning in science classrooms is a worldwide issue,but particularly so in developing countries, such as Lesotho, where resources are scarce. These con-cerns, which include dominance of teacher-centred lessons and little use of experimentation, havecompelled researchers and educators to pursue a variety of options to address them. Some of theissues coming to the fore from the literature about the quality of teaching science include the designand implementation of professional development (PD) (e.g. Loucks-Horsley, Hewson, Love, &Stiles, 2003; Ono & Ferreira, 2010), unpacking the teacher knowledge, including pedagogicalcontent knowledge (Loughran, Mulhall, & Berry, 2004; Mahvunga & Rollnick, 2013), and the role oflanguage in the teaching of science (Rollnick, 2000). There is an important consensus amongst math-ematics and science education researchers on the design of effective PD programmes. Variousresearchers have argued that effective PD must include more than attendance of traditional work-shops. For instance, Boyle, While and Boyle (2004, p. 47) have argued that approaches such as‘study groups in which teachers are engaged on regular, structured and collaborative interactionsaround topics identified by the group’ are more likely to make a positive impact on their practicethan traditional approaches such as workshops and conference attendance.Inevitably, the quality of teaching in Lesotho’s science classrooms, particularly in physics, remains a

concern. The national survey of needs of secondary school teachers of science, mathematics, Englishand Sesotho shows that the teaching of science in Lesotho is one of the areas needing urgent attention

African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 2014Vol. 18, No. 1, 63–74, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2014.884351© 2014 Southern African Association for Research in Mathematics, Science and TechnologyEducation (SAARMSTE)

African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education is co-published by Unisa Press and Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

(Ministry of Education and Training, 2006). Presently, there is evidence that most science teachers inLesotho use chalk-and-talk approaches in almost every lesson (e.g. see Qhobela & Moru, 2011). Com-menting on ways of addressing these concerns, Maqutu (2003) noted that institutions of higher learn-ing are doing little to address the challenges that teachers face in schools. These institutions canparticipate in addressing problems such as the dominance of chalk-and-talk approaches throughPD. Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003) offer a word of caution that such programmes can only be successfulif they take teachers’ prior knowledge, experiences and practices into consideration.The study reported in this paper sought to understand the factors that influence secondary-level

physics teachers to choose teaching strategies that are predominantly teacher-centred as againstthose that are learner-centred. In particular, the paper responds to the following main research ques-tion: what challenges do physics teachers come across when they attempt to implement learner-centred strategies in their lessons? To respond to this research question the following sub-questionswere identified as important:

. What are the teachers’ operational definitions of learner-centred teaching?

. What features of a taught lesson do the teachers identify as characteristics of learner-centredlessons?

The main assumption in this paper is that teachers in Lesotho, particularly at secondary level, havesome understanding of what a learner-centred approach (LCA) is and that they appreciate the advan-tages of such approaches. However, the main problem is that their classroom practice fails to reflectthat limited knowledge. For instance, Khoboli and O’Toole (2011) found that teachers participating intheir study had, at the beginning of the study, some basic understanding of LCA and that understand-ing only improved as a result of an intervention focused on changing practice. They show that, at thebeginning of the study, teachers saw LCA in terms of active strategies and learners finding things outfor themselves. Qhobela and Moru (2013) show that there is a disjuncture between the pedagogicalknowledge of LCA and classroom practice among secondary-level teachers. It will be appreciatedthat, although there is extensive literature on the characteristics of effective PD and on the impact ofLCA (Schweisfurth, 2011), the context in which many of these studies were conducted differs signifi-cantly from that of the reported study, which is set within a deep-rooted culture of teacher-centredness.Two factors are critical regarding this study of LCA. First, LCA has been identified, not only in Lesotho(Khoboli & O’Toole, 2011) and other southern African countries such as Namibia (Lubben et al., 2003),but worldwide as an effective way of teaching and learning science. Second, understanding of LCA isused in this study to inform the subsequent stages of PD that teachers were participating in.

Learner-centred Approaches

The debate about the learner-centredness of mathematics and science classrooms has a long history(Brodie, Lelliott, & Davis, 2002) and has generated important implications for the teaching and learningprocess. In addition, the meaning of LCA, and the conceptualisations of the basic and associated LCAthemes (such as the role of the teacher, the freedom of the learners, and the relevance of the curricu-lum and assessment in supporting the LCA view) have equally had a long and important developmen-tal journey. O’Neill and McMahan (2005, p. 29) show that the literature on LCA highlights severalthemes related to the definition of LCA: ‘some view student-centred learning as: the concept of the stu-dent’s choice in their education; others see it as being about the student doingmore than the lecturer… ; while others have a broader definition which includes both of these concepts but, in addition,describes the shift in the power relationship between the student and the teacher.’ This study is primar-ily informed by these themes.The theoretical conceptualisations of learner-centred approaches proposed by Weimer (2002) and

Brodie et al. (2002) are particularly helpful in understanding O’Neill and McMahan’s (2005) third theme.The central idea in the two proposals is that learner-centred approaches focus attention on the learningprocess and that all the actions in a classroom must focus on what the students are doing and not onwhat the teacher is doing. Brodie et al. (2002) proposed that such a conceptualisation should focus on

64 Qhobela and Moru

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

four principles: learning entails construction and restructuring of knowledge; there is integrity to a lear-ner’s activity at any point in time; the conditions of possibility for learning are that the learner mustexperience a gap between her existing knowledge and the demands of her experience, and secondthat she must be in a position to either elaborate or acquire the resources to overcome the gap; andthe construction of knowledge and social practices are mediated by social relations. The notion that‘there is integrity to a learner’s activity at any point in time’ implies that teachers must have trust in stu-dents. Such trust has a critical bearing on what must change in situations where the teaching process isdominated by chalk-and-talk strategies. Thus the integrity to a learner’s activity centres around theways teachers view learners’ participation and the role of the teacher.Weimer (2002) argues that, in cases where teaching is dominated by chalk-and-talk, five areas

must change. She argues that the function of content must change such that it is used not onlyfor building a knowledge base but also to develop learning skills and self-awareness. The secondarea that must change is the view of the roles of the teacher such that instructional actions shouldfocus on students learning rather than on the teacher. The third area that must change is the respon-sibility for learning where teachers must do everything possible to encourage students to accept thisresponsibility. The fourth area that must change is the processes and purpose of assessment wherethe central issue should be to use evaluation for promoting learning. Lastly, she argues that the viewof the balance of power must also change such that teachers reasonably share decision-making withstudents.A learner-centred approach in a science classroom can be viewed from a socio-cultural per-

spective that sees learning as social and discursive (Leach & Scott, 2003), and recognises par-ticipation of students in terms of the notion of classroom talk. Qhobela and Moru (2011) arguethat there is classroom talk if there is a communication exchange between students, andbetween students and their teacher, which is an idea that promotes learner-centredness of thescience classrooms.The nature of LCA practices has been a concern in different countries in recent decades and numer-

ous empirical studies have been conducted to make these practices better understood. Schweisfurth(2011) analysed a sample of empirical studies with the objective of understanding how LCA has beenconceived in developing countries. Her findings identify the availability of material and humanresources as among the challenges contributing to the implementation of LCA. On the other hand,in Lesotho, understanding of LCA seems to have been one of the factors contributing towards itsimplementation. For instance, Khoboli and O’Toole (2011) documented a process of change asthree science teachers in Lesotho developed a better understanding of learner-centred approaches.They report that teachers changed their conception of learner-cetredness from a restricted collectionof teaching strategies to one where students are viewed as active participants in the learning process.In Malawi the study by Mtika and Gates (2010) shows that pre-service teachers’ appropriation andapplication of LCA is influenced by factors such as the teacher education system and the culture ofthe school.

Methodology

Study DesignThis qualitative study documents secondary-level physics teachers’ understandings of the learner-centred approaches as the first phase of a PD intervention. The design of this first phase wasinformed by two theoretical underpinnings. First, according to Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003), priorknowledge of participants plays a critical role in PD. Thus, this first phase sought to establishthe teachers’ prior understandings, particularly their operational definitions, of learner-centredapproaches. Second, research suggests that approaches such as study groups tend to beamongst the effective forms of PD (e.g. Boyle et al., 2004). The main activities in this phase there-fore were meetings in which teachers discussed their ideas related to learner-centred approaches.In addition to the meetings, the design included a classroom lesson in which one of the teachers

Understanding Challenges Physics Teachers Come Across as they Implement Learner-centred Approaches in Lesotho 65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

was asked to demonstrate a learner-centred lesson. Table 1 summarises the main events in eachdata collection activity.

SampleThe sample of this study included four physics teachers (T1–T4), three female and one male, from fourdifferent secondary-level schools in Maseru. The teaching experiences of the four teachers rangedfrom 1 to 6 years. All four teachers were qualified physics teachers with a Bachelor of Science Edu-cation degree. They were chosen by virtue of convenience for researchers visiting their schools,and them going to any of the participating schools. Permission was sought from all four teachers,their heads of departments and principals of the schools.

Data CollectionData were collected through written responses and audio and video recording. In the first meeting tea-chers were asked to write their operational definitions of learner-centred teaching. The descriptionsthey wrote were collected. Then they were asked to discuss with each other their descriptions andwrite down their agreement. The final definitions arrived at were collected. This was followed by abrainstorming exercise in which teachers gave concept words related to learner-centred approaches.Then, working in pairs, the teachers drew concept maps using concept words listed during brainstorm-ing. The two concept maps were also collected.In preparation for the second meeting, T2, who had greater teaching experience (6 years), was

asked to prepare and conduct a learner-centred lesson. The lesson was video recorded and critiquedin the second meeting. The discussion focusing on the learner-centredness of the lesson was audiorecorded.

Data AnalysisIn order to answer the research questions above, data from all of the meetings were analysed interms of the expressed meaning(s) and with reference to the substance and/or the form of alearner-centred lesson. Teachers made reference to the substance of LCA if they described it,and they made reference to its form if they gave strategies that promoted LCA (Brodie et al.,2002). The concept maps were analysed for purposes of shedding light on the meaning of the tea-chers’ operational definitions. Concept links with meaning(s) related to a substance and/or a form ofthe learner-centred lesson were also identified. To identify features of learner-centredness lacking inthe lesson question, two considerations were made. First, the issues raised by the teachers wereidentified and mapped against the five themes of LCA identified by Weimer (2002). Second, ananalysis of what was lacking in the operational definitions, compared with issues raised byWeimer (2002), was made.

Table 1: Main events of the first phase of PD

Activity Main issue discussed

First meeting • Teachers give their operational definitions of learner-centred approaches individually,in pairs and as a group

• The definitions are discussed at each level• Teachers construct concept maps about learner-centred approaches in pairs

Lesson •Concepts of fission and fusion are taught to form E students in a participating teacher’sschool

Second meeting • The lesson is discussed to determine the learner-centredness of the lesson

66 Qhobela and Moru

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Results

The analysis described above primarily sought to unravel teacher understanding of LCA and chal-lenges that they came across when implementing LCA. The teachers’ operational definitions of LCAare therefore presented below. These definitions also emerged from the concept maps the teachersdeveloped and lastly from their critique of T2’s lesson.

Operational Definitions of Learner-centred ApproachesThe descriptions of learner-centred approaches that teachers provide are critical in highlighting somejustifications of their classroom practice. From the first activity two broad categories emerged. The firstcategory, coming from T1, T2 and T4, is of descriptions that predominantly refer to the substance oflearner-centred approaches. T2 wrote:

A characteristic highlighted in this description is the ‘active involvement of learners’ during a lesson,which pre-supposes less involvement of the teacher. T2 incorporates the idea of learners discoveringthings and the importance of prior knowledge as elements of learner-centred approaches. T2’sdescription therefore makes reference to responsibility of learning only.The second category, suggested by T3, is that of teachers who make some reference to both the

substance and the form of learner-centred approaches. T3 wrote

In this description T3 raises two issues. In the first paragraph she argues that ‘most of the activities… aredone by the learners’. She makes reference to students being allowed to ‘give… opinions and views’.Although the exact meaning of the latter is not clear, the idea expressed seems to be referring to the ‘stu-dents doing more’ theme. In the second paragraph, she makes reference to what must happen in the

Understanding Challenges Physics Teachers Come Across as they Implement Learner-centred Approaches in Lesotho 67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

classroom: ‘teacher probes the learners… by asking questions’. T3 associates the learner-centredapproaches toaskingandansweringquestions.T3, likeT2,makes referenceonly to the roleof the teacher.After their whole group discussion this is what participants presented at the end of the task:

It is important to unpack themeaningof this position, itself aproduct of adiscussion. The teachers’agree-ment suggests two examples of ‘active participation’. First, they write ‘handling equipment’, which con-notes doing experiments. Second, they refer to ‘discussing a certain concept and tackling a problem’,which suggests classroom talk followed by solving problems. This conclusion touches on two issuesthat Weimer (2002) suggests must change. First is the responsibility for learning. Students can onlybe actively involved if they realise that the responsibility for learning is theirs. The second issue is therole of the teacher. According to the agreement above, teachersmust only facilitate the process of learn-ing. Table 2 presents the summary of this discussion using Weimer’s (2002) framework.Two features in Table 2 are clear. First, all of the teachers used responsibility for learning in their defi-

nitions and as a group they included the role of the teacher. Second, all of the teachers did not relatelearner-centred approaches to the balance of power, the function of content and the purpose ofassessment in their operational definitions.

Operational Definitions from Concept MapsThe talk activity included brainstorming of concept words related to learner-centred approaches fol-lowed by formation of concept maps. Two concept maps, with similar properties, were drawn since tea-chers worked in pairs. The map in Figure 1 was drawn by T1 and T2.This concept map brings to the fore a number of issues viewed by T1 and T2 as related to LCA and

three of these appear to be directly related to the operational definition of learner-centred approaches.First, it is the responsibility for learning in a learner-centred lesson where the emphasis is on the activeinvolvement of learners. Examples of this, in the concept map, include: the learner is solving given pro-blems and the learner asks questions and give answers. Second, it is the role of the teacher in alearner-centred lesson. According to T1 and T2, in a learner-centred lesson the teacher probes byasking students questions and/or the teacher guides the student. Third, the concept map illustrates

Table 2: Elements of Weimer’s framework mentioned by teachers

TeacherBalance of

powerFunction ofcontent

Processes and purpose ofassessment

Role of theteacher

Responsibility forlearning

T1 X X X X √T2 X X X X √T3 X X X √ √T4 X X X X √All X X X √ √

X= not mentioned; √ = mentioned.

68 Qhobela and Moru

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

the tension between the teacher’s role and the learner’s responsibility. That is, the teachers shouldwork towards achieving objectives. In conclusion, T1 and T2 use the role of the teacher and the respon-sibility of the learner to define learner-centred lesson and, as is the case in Table 2, they do not refer tothe other elements. They seem to be subscribing to the notion that learner-centred approaches meangiving students a chance to do more than the teacher.

The LessonThis lesson was intended to demonstrate learner-centred teaching. On the day of the lesson, T2reported to the first researcher that she had failed to plan a learner-centred lesson because she ranout of ideas. Although T2 reported that there was no lesson plan, she promised the researcher thatshe was nevertheless ready to teach. Table 3 summarises some of the notable features of the lesson.All teachers, except T1, agreed that the lesson was not a learner-centred lesson. Here are the com-

ments that T4 made

R1 : After watching this lesson from its beginning up to the end, would you say this lesson is alearner-centred lesson? If yes, why? If no, why? Ehm, you just want to address that ques-tion as broadly as possible.

T4 : OK! I think the lesson is not learner-centred. Maybe I can say 70% of it is not learner-centred because, for example, ehh there was fusion, fission, at the beginning it was likethe lesson was ehh going to be learner-centred because she first asked the learner thelearners what fission is. So, but as she continues most of the concept were comingfrom him. Because we said for a lesson to be learner-centred most activities, most ofthe ehh teaching and learning is done by a student.

R1 : Yes!T4 : What the teacher does is to direct student to what to what he wants ehh the student to learn.

Figure 1: Concept map 1

Understanding Challenges Physics Teachers Come Across as they Implement Learner-centred Approaches in Lesotho 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

According to T4 the lesson is predominantly teacher-centred. He argues that ‘most of the conceptwere coming from him [Teacher]’, not from the students. He also argues that the teacher ‘first askedthe… learners what fission is’ and ‘What the teacher does is to direct student to…what he wants’,which are references to the role of the teacher. According to T4 the lesson is predominantlyteacher-centred since in a learner-centred lesson ‘most of the… teaching and learning is done by astudent’. It is important to observe that, according to T4, the lesson would be learner-centred hadthe ‘questioning’ done by the teacher been more frequent. Therefore T4 uses the role of the teacherand the responsibility for learning to define learner-centredness.The conversation with T3 is also helpful in understanding the teacher’s operational definition of

learner-centred approaches. T3 had the following to say:

R1 : When you look at this class, is that a learner-centred class?T3 : NoR1 : Why?T3 : I think the structure of this topic does not give space for the learner centred, this topic, its

structure channels one to end up lecturing.R2 : This one of fission and fusion?T3 : Yes!! Because even student–teacher discussion is also difficult, it needs only a teacher…R1 : Why?R2 : (at the same time) why should it be like that?T3 : Because it looks like, it looks like there is no way you can show them using an experiment,

or use it as a reference, honestly there are no references that are related to Chemistry andBiology, but (meaning not clear) reference.

T3 agrees that the lesson is not learner-centred. Her description raises two ideas about learner-cent-redness of a lesson. First is the role played by the nature of the topic. She argues that ‘the structure ofthis topic does not give space for the learner centred… its structure channels one to end up lecturing’and ‘student–teacher discussion is also difficult’. T3 is suggesting that a discussion could not be used

Table 3. Summary of the lesson

Time Activity

00:06–00:18 Teacher (T2) briefly makes reference to presence of visitors and asks students not to beworried about their presence.

00:18–00:33 T2 reminds students that in the last lesson they started studying radioactivity.00:33–00:58 T2 introduces processes of fusion and fission and writes them on the board. She then asks a

question about what fission means and no response from students. After some time sheexplains what fission is.

00:58–01:34 T2 asks a question, no response and finally continues teaching.01:34–04:56 T2 discusses fission, asks questions and elaborates when students have responded,

otherwise explains the concept.04:56–06:20 T2 introduces application of fission, asks question, no response, then proceeds to talk about

release of energy.06:20–09:04 Student is answering question, T2 explains and asks, no response, and introduces energy

using concept of kinetic energy.09:04–11:40 Students asks a question, T2 responds.11:40–16:20 T2 introduces fusion and makes an example of 2H + 3H.16:20–18:00 T2 introduces handout on fission and explains chain reaction.18:00–19:10 T2 writes a problem on the board and asks one student to come to the board and solve it.19:10–22:00 One student comes to board and solves the problem.T2 explains the solution on the board

and wraps up the lesson. She22:00–24:07 promises a handout that summarises the topic.

70 Qhobela and Moru

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

possibly because students could not contribute owing to the nature of the topic. Second is the issue ofstudents’ experience. T3 argues that ‘there is no way you can show them using an experiment, or use itas a reference, honestly there are no references that are related to Chemistry and Biology’. T3suggests that, apart from the unavailability of materials, students do not have experiences (fromother science subjects or elsewhere) that teachers can use. In this extract, therefore, T3 makes refer-ence to content in so far as it helps a teacher to choose a teaching strategy, but does not make refer-ence to using content to promote learning skills.T1, who was convinced that the lesson was learner-centred, had the following to say:

R1 : Is it a learner-centred class?T1 : It is sir.R1 : why?T1 : Because the teacher is moving with student, she is asking questions, they respond.R1 : So, you are saying once ehm the teacher asks questions, that’s a learner-centred class?T1 : silence It is, yes it is.R1 : T1 is laughing. That is what I want to understand. Once ehm, the teacher asks a question

you are saying it is a learner-centred lesson?T1 : long silence. Once she asks a question?R1 : Yes!T1 : long silence. Yes!R1 : If she did not ask questions?T1 : Just talking alone?R1 : Yes!T1 : Silence. It would not be a learner-centred.R1 : So because she asked questions, then it’s a learner-centred?T1 : Yes sir!

T1 is arguing that, because the teacher asked questions and students answered them, the lesson isa learner-centred. The role students played during the lesson convinced her that it was learner-centred. Therefore her operational definition includes the role of learner during the lesson.All of the teachers were asked about the challenges they faced when they had to prepare for a

learner-centred lesson based on their operational definitions. The response of T1 covers most ofthe issues they raised.

T1: In fact when you prepare for the class you look at the characteristics of students in the class andwhat you want them to know about the topic. What kind of students do you have in the class? Arethey studentswho can do that thing or not? If youwant learner-centred, howshould it be so that thestudents can do it or not? Again, time, if I want them to know something can theymanage? If I had40or 80minutes can they do it within that time. If it is 40what is it that I cando so that they can finishwithin 40 minutes? If they are students that I know I will struggle when I want to do something,(changing line of thought) sometimes I, yes, yes to students like that a worksheet does not help.

The teachers raise two fundamental issues. The first is the issue of time. Their feeling is that a learner-centred lesson needs more time and they unfortunately do not have it owing to time-table problems.The second challenge they raise is the nature of students and the topic to be taught. They believethat there are students who cannot do certain activities on their own and thus learner-centredapproaches cannot be used.

Discussion

In this paper an analysis of operational definitions and challenges of learner-centred approaches ispresented. These operational definitions seemed to have a direct impact on participants’ choice ofteaching strategies and therefore had an important lesson for the design of the PD programme.

Understanding Challenges Physics Teachers Come Across as they Implement Learner-centred Approaches in Lesotho 71

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Operational DefinitionsThe relationship between teacher knowledge and classroom practice cannot be over-emphasised. Theteachers’ operational definitions in this study reflect learner-centred approaches as including the activeparticipation of students while teachers act as facilitators and refer to the ‘being about the student doingmore than the lecturer’ theme (O’Neill & McMahan, 2005). This theme commonly includes descriptionsof learner-centred as active learning rather than passive learning and the teacher becoming the facil-itator and resource person during the lesson. It is critical, however, to contextualise this definition.A critical consideration about the definition above is whether it encompasses elements that would

influence the lesson to be learner-centred. The teachers have mainly made reference to two of thefive elements suggested byWeimer (2002), namely, the responsibility for learning resting with the lear-ners and the role of the teacher during a learner-centred lesson. According toWeimer (2002), these aresome of the elements of learner-centred approaches that compel teachers to focus their efforts onlearning rather than on teaching. Teachers’ definitions for LCA in this study hardly make referenceto the strategy of learner-centredness except to refer to the use of questioning methods as a way ofinvolving the students. Three teachers agree that the use of questions would make (or made) thesample lesson learner-centred. In addition, T2 felt that her lesson would be learner-centred if sheallowed students to solve problems on their own. Their reference to active participation is thereforerestricted to answering or asking questions. However, T1 referred to the use of worksheets asanother way of promoting active participation. According to Qhobela and Moru (2011), manylessons in Lesotho have three stages: an introduction, presentation and closure in which studentsare normally given problems to solve. The way teachers define LCA matches with their current class-room practice. The function of content has been made reference to. The important issue about it is thatit helps teachers to make a choice of teaching strategies.The operational definitions of LCA do not make reference to two other elements; namely, the

balance of power and the process and purpose of assessment. The absence of these elementshas potential to also explain the current teaching practice. For instance, the fact that the teachersdo not mention the balance of power during the LCA suggests that they view themselves as havingabsolute authority. According to Weimer (2002), teachers who fail to realise the advantage ofsharing power with students, while not abdicating their duties, encourage passivity in studentswho do not show any motivation to learn. This therefore explains the culture that remains dominantin secondary schools in which the students’ voice is limited to asking questions or responding to theteacher’s questions.

Challenges of Learner-centred LessonsAccording to Loucks-Horsley et al. (2003), acknowledging teachers’ beliefs and concerns in thedesign of a PD intervention contributes towards effective PD. Teachers in this study identified twochallenges related to implementation of learner-centred approaches. First, teachers emphasisedthe point that learner-centred approaches, although helpful in promoting understanding, needmore time than teacher-centred approaches. They make the point that there is a lot to becovered in a short time and they are under pressure to finish the syllabus. Second, they feel thatcharacteristics of students influence the choice of teaching strategies and, in particular, studentcharacteristics make teachers to prefer teacher-centred strategies. These two claims must be under-stood in conjunction with the conclusion by Qhobela and Moru (2013) that there is a gap betweenteachers’ pedagogical knowledge and their practice, and that this gap may be associated withtheir pedagogical content knowledge. Therefore, effective PD must attend to these concerns as away of narrowing this gap.It does appear, however, that there are more challenges that teachers have to face in order to

facilitate a learner-centred lesson. First, teachers associate learner-centred with asking and answer-ing questions. The greatest challenge that surfaces is: what should happen when the topic isassumed to be difficult or unfamiliar to students? Second, teachers associate learner-centred teach-ing with doing practical work. The challenge appears when they cannot find materials needed forlaboratory work. Third, teachers make reference to the function of content with regard to the

72 Qhobela and Moru

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

choice of strategy that does not promote LCA as Weimer suggested. The challenge is to encourageteachers to use content as a guide to promoting LCA. These three issues can be addressed by aPD intervention within the framework of narrowing the gap between pedagogical knowledge andpractice.

Conclusions and Implications

The results of this study add evidence to the view that most teachers who practise teacher-centredapproaches lack deep understanding of LCA and have a weak pedagogical content knowledge ingeneral. The finding that the teachers’ definitions lacked elements such as the purposes of assess-ment and balance of power within LCA is in agreement with Khoboli and O’Toole’s (2011) observationthat teachers who participated in their study lacked a deeper understanding of LCA. However, the con-clusion we drew elsewhere (Qhobela & Moru, 2013) that there is a disjuncture between teacher knowl-edge and their practice suggests that a deeper understanding is required of what influences teacherpreferences for teacher-centred approaches over learner centred approaches. The teachers identifiedthe lack of and/or minimal use of questions in a lesson as a major factor that makes the lesson teacher-centred, suggesting that they transform their understanding of learner-centred teaching throughasking, or expecting students to ask, questions during the lesson. The challenges of implementingLCA include that teachers raised show a weak topic-specific pedagogical content knowledge andthey find it difficult to plan a learner-centred lesson when a topic may not be familiar to students andsometimes to teachers themselves.The teachers’ operational definitions discussed above bring to the fore a need for PD. The fact that

the definitions lack elements of what makes a lesson learner-centred explains a classroom practicethat is limited to teacher-centred approaches with, at most, different questioning strategies. Furtherreflection about teachers being able to define LCA must also be viewed in a similar way. For instance,an observation made by Lubben et al. (2003) suggests that the availability of textbooks in Namibia,although critical, did not necessarily translate to LCA and a need for a PD was clear. Therefore, PDproviders, such the Ministry of Education through its Inspectorate Department, need to design pro-grammes aimed at, among other things, improving teachers’ ability to design learner-centred lessons.The design followed in this study also brings to the fore some of the elements of an effective PD.

Specifically, the idea of critiquing a lesson helped the teachers to critically reflect on their practiceand determine how learner-centred their lessons are. This is in line with the conclusions drawn else-where. For instance, Ono and Ferreira (2010) concluded that critical reflection has proved to be aneffective method of PD. This further suggests that the peer observations and collaborations are impor-tant elements of effective PD.Applying Weimer’s framework has been helpful in conceptualising teachers’ operational definitions

in that it explicitly highlights elements that are lacking in the teachers’ definitions. This in turn explained,to some extent, the heavily teacher-dominated science lessons.

References

Boyle, B., While, D., & Boyle, T. (2004). A longitudinal study of teacher change: What makes professionaldevelopment effective? The Curriculum Journal, 15(1), 45–68.

Brodie, K., Lelliott, A., & Davis, H. (2002). Forms and substance in learner-centred teaching: teachers’ take-up froman in-service programme in South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18, 541–559.

Khoboli, B., & O’Toole, J. M. (2011). Learner-centred science in Lesotho: Adapting the ideal to adjust classroompractice. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 15(1), 80–91.

Leach, J., & Scott, P. (2003). Individual and sociocultural views of learning in science education. Science &Education, 12, 91–113.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P., Love, N., & Stiles, K. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers ofscience and mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Loughran, J., Mulhall, P., & Berry, A. (2004). In search of pedagogical content knowledge in science: developingways of articulating and documenting professional practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(4),370–391.

Understanding Challenges Physics Teachers Come Across as they Implement Learner-centred Approaches in Lesotho 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Lubben, F., Campbell, B., Kasanda, C., Kapenda, H., Gaoseb, N., & Kandjeo-Marenga, U. (2003). Teachers’ use oftextbooks: Practice in Namibian science classrooms. Educational Studies, 29(2–3), 109–125.

Maqutu, T. (2003). Explaining success in O-level physical science in Lesotho: A survey of physical science tea-chers. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 7, 97–107.

Mavhunga, E., & Rollnick, M. (2013). Improving PCK of chemical equilibrium in pre-service teachers.African Journalof Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 17(1–2), 113–125.

Ministry of Education and Training (2006). Training needs analysis for improvement of the teaching of English,Mathematics, Science and Sesotho in Lesotho’s secondary schools. Maseru: Government Printers.

Mtika, P., & Gates, P. (2010). Developing learner-centred education among secondary trainee teachers in Malawi:The dilemma of appropriation and application. International Journal of Educational Development, 30, 396–404.

O’Neill, G., & McMahan, T. (2005). Student-centred learning: What does it mean for students and lecturers?In G. O’Neill, S. Moore, & B. McMullin (Eds.), Emerging issues in the practice of university learning and teaching(pp. 27–36). Dublin: AISHE.

Ono, Y. & Ferreira, J. (2010). A case study of continuing teacher professional development through lesson study inSouth Africa. South African Journal of Education, 30, 59–74.

Qhobela, M., & Moru, E. K. (2011). Teaching argumentation in learning physics at secondary school level inLesotho: A feasible teaching strategy. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and TechnologyEducation, 15(2), 97–111.

Qhobela, M., & Moru, E. K. (2013). Examining secondary school physics teachers’ beliefs about teaching and class-room practices in Lesotho as foundation for professional development. International Journal of Science andMathematics Education; doi: 10.1007/s10763-013-9445-5

Rollnick, M. (2000). Current issues and perspectives on second language learning of science. Studies in ScienceEducation, 35, 93–121.

Schweisfurth, M. (2011). Learner-centred education in developing country contexts: From solution to problem?.International Journal of Educational Development, 31, 425–432.

Weimer, M. (2002). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

74 Qhobela and Moru

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tem

ple

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

07:

22 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014