Walden University

ScholarWorks

Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies

Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies Collection

2020

Understanding the Use of Learner-Centered Teaching Strategies

by Secondary Educators
Carmen M. Cain
Walden University

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies
Collection at ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies by an
authorized administrator of ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected].
 Walden University

College of Education

This is to certify that the doctoral study by

Carmen M. Cain

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.

Review Committee
Dr. Heather Caldwell, Committee Chairperson, Education Faculty
Dr. Michelle McCraney, Committee Member, Education Faculty
Dr. Barbara Schirmer, University Reviewer, Education Faculty

Chief Academic Officer and Provost

Sue Subocz, Ph.D.

Walden University
2020
 Abstract

Understanding the Use of Learner-Centered Teaching Strategies by Secondary Educators

by

Carmen M. Cain

MA, University of Mary, 2016

BS, University of Mary, 2000

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Walden University

June 2020
 Abstract

Use of learner-centered teaching strategies (LCTS) in the classroom practices improves

academic achievement. Secondary educators do not consistently demonstrate the use of

these strategies. The purpose of this study was to investigate how secondary educators

were using LCTS in their instruction and what support they perceived to need to use such

strategies. The conceptual framework for this dissertation was based on the Dreyfus and

Dreyfus model of skill acquisition. The research questions focused on how secondary

educators use LCTS and the support they need to use these strategies in their classrooms.

This study was a basic qualitative design that examined the classroom practices of

secondary teachers and the support they needed to use LCTS. The data collection

instrument was an individual interview protocol of 12 randomly selected secondary

education teachers from a midwestern high school in the United States. In vivo and

pattern coding of the transcribed interview data and thematic analysis revealed 3

overarching themes: (a) student ownership, (b) use of LCTS, and (c) content-specific

professional development. The overall findings of this study indicated that secondary

educators used LCTS in their classrooms by having students take ownership of their

learning and using a variety of LCTS in their classes. The findings also indicated that

teachers considered content-specific professional development an important means of

support for using LCTS. The use of LCTS by teachers increases student engagement,

which then improves academic achievement. When academic achievement increases for

all students, positive social change occurs. Secondary school administrators and teacher

preparation programs would benefit from the research by providing them knowledge for

developing professional development that supports the use of LCTS.

Understanding the Use of LCTS by Secondary Educators

by

Carmen M. Cain

MA, University of Mary, 2016

BS, University of Mary, 2000

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Walden University

June 2020
 Dedication

This degree and dissertation are dedicated to the memory of my mother, Lynette

Jacobs, who passed away as I was completing my doctoral program. She would have

loved to call me “Dr. Cain.” I love you and miss you, Mom.
 Acknowledgments

I would first like to thank my husband, Paul, for his continued support as I

indulge in furthering my education. I am sure he is most thankful that this is a “terminal”

degree! To my sons, Justin and Nathan and my daughter-in-law, Breanna - thank you for

your encouragement and support. To my granddaughters, Harper and Sawyer – always

remember that an education is something for which to be grateful.

Thank you, Dr. Heather Caldwell, the chair of this dissertation, for your succinct

advice and quick turnaround with feedback. Thank you to my second committee chair,

Dr. Michelle McCraney, for your encouragement and feedback.

Finally, thank you to my colleagues, who allowed me time off to work on my

dissertation and gave me encouragement and feedback to finish this labor of knowledge.
 Table of Contents

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... iv

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study....................................................................................1

Background ....................................................................................................................3

Problem Statement .........................................................................................................6

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................8

Research Questions ......................................................................................................10

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................10

Nature of the Study ......................................................................................................13

Definitions....................................................................................................................15

Assumptions.................................................................................................................16

Scope and Delimitations ..............................................................................................17

Limitations ...................................................................................................................19

Significance..................................................................................................................20

Summary ......................................................................................................................21

Chapter 2: Literature Review .............................................................................................23

Literature Search Strategy............................................................................................24

Conceptual Framework ................................................................................................25

Model of Skill Acquisition.....................................................................................26

Learner-Centered Teaching Approach ...................................................................31

Literature Review Related to Key Concepts and Variable ..........................................32

Learner-Centered Teaching Strategies ...................................................................36

Teacher-Centered Strategies ..................................................................................41

i
 Teacher Preparation ...............................................................................................48

Novice Teachers.....................................................................................................50

Professional Development .....................................................................................51

Summary and Conclusions ..........................................................................................51

Chapter 3: Research Method ..............................................................................................54

Research Design and Rationale ...................................................................................54

Role of the Researcher .................................................................................................56

Methodology ................................................................................................................58

Participant Selection ............................................................................................. 58

Instrumentation ..................................................................................................... 60

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection .......................... 61

Data Analysis Plan ................................................................................................ 64

Trustworthiness ............................................................................................................66

Ethical Procedures .......................................................................................................69

Summary ......................................................................................................................70

Chapter 4: Results ..............................................................................................................72

Setting ..........................................................................................................................72

Demographics ........................................................................................................74

Recruitment Process...............................................................................................75

Data Collection ............................................................................................................74

Interview Process ...................................................................................................76

Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................78

Organizing the Data ...............................................................................................79

ii
 Data Coding ...........................................................................................................79

Results ..........................................................................................................................80

Themes for RQ 1 ....................................................................................................82

Themes for RQ 2 ....................................................................................................86

Evidence of Trustworthiness........................................................................................88

Summary ......................................................................................................................91

Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations ............................................94

Interpretation of the Findings.......................................................................................95

Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................100

Recommendations ......................................................................................................102

Implications................................................................................................................104

Conclusion .................................................................................................................106

References ........................................................................................................................109

Appendix A: Research and Interview Questions .............................................................124

Appendix B: Participant Recruitment Email ...................................................................125

Appendix C: Interview Protocol ......................................................................................126

Appendix D: Informed Consent .......................................................................................127

Appendix E: Codes ..........................................................................................................129

Appendix F: Data Summary Tables .................................................................................134

iii
 List of Tables

Table 1. Research Questions and Interview Questions Used for Data Collection.............61

Table 2. Research and Interview Questions .......................................................................77

Table 3. Codes and Themes ...............................................................................................87

iv
 1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study

Student engagement is essential for academic achievement. Students who are

engaged in their learning have a better attitude toward learning and achieve higher

academic success (Erdogdu, 2019; Konold, Cornell, Jia, & Malone, 2018). However,

fewer than half of students’ report being engaged in their education, primarily those in

secondary schools (Gallup Student Poll, 2017; Greenleaf & Valencia, 2017). One issue

that may lead to a lack of engagement in secondary schools is that many secondary

educators use teaching strategies that are considered teacher centered. In teacher-centered

strategies, the teacher acts as the primary source of knowledge, conveying that

knowledge to the students, primarily in the form of a lecture (Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018;

Weimer, 2013). In addition, the teacher controls the learning environment, such as what

and how the content will be learned, at what pace it will be learned, and how it will be

assessed (Arseven, Sahin, & Kiliç, 2016; Weimer, 2013). Teacher-centered instructional

strategies may dampen student curiosity because of the high level of control teachers

have in these classrooms, leading to lower levels of engagement and academic

achievement (Carrabba & Farmer, 2018; Weimer, 2013).

Learner-centered strategies are different from teacher-centered strategies in that

students have more control of their learning, which often leads to higher engagement.

Learner-centered education includes instructional approaches that engage the student in

active construction of knowledge (Lattimer, 2015; Somani & Rizvi, 2018; Weimer,

2013). During learner-centered instruction, students are active participants in their

learning, which increases student motivation and engagement significantly and

 2
statistically more than traditional, or teacher-centered, instruction (Edwards, 2017;

Scarrow, 2017). However, secondary teachers often struggle with implementing learner-

centered teaching strategies (LCTS) (Ndirangu, 2017; Sendurur, 2018; Whitener, 2016).

Although LCTS are taught in most teacher preparation programs, many preservice and

novice teachers do not subscribe to student-centered pedagogy (Edwards, 2017; Kelly,

Gningue, & Qian, 2015; Scarrow, 2017; Sendurur, 2018). In addition, secondary

educators often find that professional development is irrelevant to them. Bonghanoy,

Sagpang, Alejan, and Rellon (2019) found that secondary educators did not deem

professional development useful because it was not specific to their content area and,

therefore, not applicable to their classroom.

The purpose of this dissertation was to explore the LCTS secondary educators

used in their instruction and what support they needed to use such strategies. The

knowledge generated from this dissertation may provide school administrators and

teacher preparation programs insight for planning teacher professional development in

using LCTS. Students in a learner-centered environment experience higher academic

achievement. By increasing academic achievement for all students, positive social change

occurs.

This chapter begins with an overview of the why the study was conducted, the

potential for positive social change, and the context and background that frames the

study. Following that is the problem statement, purpose of the study, and research

questions. Also included in this chapter is the conceptual framework for the study, a

discussion of the methodology, definitions of key terminology, and the researcher’s

 3
assumptions. The chapter concludes with a description of the scope and delimitations,

limitations, and significance.

Background

Many benefits exist for students when teachers use LCTS. LCTS and student-

centered education motivate students intrinsically to construct meaning for knowledge

and encourage students to be self-motivated and independent learners (Lattimer, 2015;

Walker, 2015; Weimer, 2013). Although these teaching strategies are known to be

effective for student learning and teachers can identify LCTS, teachers do not always

demonstrate the skills of these strategies in their practice (Arseven et al., 2016; Onurkan

Aliusta & Özer, 2017; Scarrow, 2017; Weimer, 2013). Teachers express the beliefs that

they are utilizing LCTS, but observations of these classrooms do not support that belief

(Arseven et al., 2016; Onurkan Aliusta & Özer, 2017; Scarrow, 2017).

Student engagement is essential for learning. LCTS are effective because students

are engaged in the learning process, resulting in the active construction of knowledge

(Lattimer, 2015; Somani & Rizvi, 2018; Weimer, 2013). However, fewer than half of

students’ report being engaged in their education (Gallup Student Poll, 2017). LCTS

increase student motivation and engagement significantly more than tradition, or teacher-

centered, instruction (Edwards, 2017; Scarrow, 2017). Although teacher-centered

strategies do not engage students at the same level as LCTS, they do have benefits.

Teacher-centered, or traditional, strategies can be beneficial to student learning

when done well. In teacher-centered strategies, the teacher acts as the primary source of

knowledge (Weimer, 2013). This puts the responsibility for learning directly on the
 4
teacher, instead of sharing that responsibility with the students. Direct instruction is a

common teacher-centered strategy where the assumption is that all students can learn

with well-designed instruction (Stockard, Wood, Coughlin, & Rasplica Khoury, 2018).

The teacher is responsible for ensuring that the instruction is designed so all students can

learn. Direct instruction can be an effective and efficient form of instruction that allows

students to learn new material in less time (Head, Flores, & Shippen, 2018). Teachers

often feel pressured to cover a certain amount of material so direct instruction is a way of

meeting that goal. Drawbacks to direct instruction are that students become passive

observers in their education resulting in lower problem-solving skills, less creativity, and

poorer teamwork skills (Lattimer, 2015; Weimer, 2013). This leads to the issue of

students being less engaged in their learning. Direct instruction tends to be the primary

teaching method among secondary educators (Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018). Direct

instruction is effective but secondary educators need to ensure their students are engaged

during direct instruction for effective learning to occur.

In secondary schools, educators teach a specific content area and rely heavily on

teacher-centered strategies. Unfortunately, these strategies do not tend to engage students.

Instruction that engages students is uncommon in United States secondary schools

(Greenleaf & Valencia, 2017). In addition to lecturing, secondary educators use note-

taking, quizzes, tests, demonstration, and discussion as their primary modes of teaching

strategies (Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018). Some content areas are better suited for direct

instruction than others. For instance, math and science instruction is well-suited for

teacher-centered strategies (Baker & Robinson, 2018; Stockard et al., 2018; Zhang,
 5
2017). However, some math and science teachers do implement student-centered

strategies. Studies have found that when math and science teachers attempt to implement

LCTS in their classrooms, they are often unsuccessful (Ndirangu, 2017). In other content

areas, LCTS are more successfully implemented. When LCTS were used in secondary

physical education courses, students were more willing to engage in physical activity

(Oliver, Oesterreich, Aranda, Archeleta, Blazer, de la Cruz, & Robinson, 2015). In

addition to physical education, LCTS make history relevant to students (Van Straaten,

Wilschut, & Oostdam, 2016). For teachers to be expected to use LCTS, they must have

had training either in their teacher-preparation program or as professional development.

It is not only experienced teachers that have difficulty implementing LCTS.

Although LCTS are taught in most teacher preparation programs, many preservice

teachers do not subscribe to student-centered pedagogy (Sendurur, 2018). Studies

indicated that preservice teachers need more exposure to LCTS in their teacher

preparation programs in order to successfully implement these strategies in their own

classroom (Scarrow, 2017; Sendurur, 2018). As graduates from teacher preparation

become novice teachers, they continue to experience a disconnect between what they

learned about LCTS and what they put into practice (Edwards, 2017; Kelly et al., 2015).

Both experienced teachers and preservice secondary educators struggle with

implementing LCTS. The reasons why are unclear and need to be studied further.

The gap in practice this dissertation addressed was secondary educators

understanding the importance of LCTS but using primarily teacher-centered strategies,

such as lecture and note-taking. Current research reports the need for further investigation
 6
into the underlying reasons for discrepancies between the knowledge and use of

secondary educators regarding LCTS (Arseven et al., 2016; Kaymakamoglu, 2018;

Onurkan Aliusta & Özer, 2017; Scarrow, 2017). Researchers reported the need for

development of effective teacher training in the adoption of LCTS (Kaymakamoglu,

2018; Onurkan Aliusta & Özer, 2017; Scarrow, 2017; Sendurur, 2018). Novice teachers

reported experiencing a disconnect between what they learned in their teacher preparation

programs and their experiences as a novice teacher (Edwards, 2017; Kelly et al., 2015).

This study investigated the perceptions of secondary educators about LCTS and the

support they needed to carry out these strategies.

Problem Statement

The research problem under investigation is the that secondary teachers across the

nation do not consistently demonstrate the use of LCTS in their classroom practices.

According to Scarrow (2017), teachers could identify both learner-centered and teacher-

centered methods. However, they could not demonstrate the skills of learner-centered

methods in their practices. Researchers have found that although teachers express the

belief that they are utilizing LCTS in their classrooms, observations in these classrooms

show teacher-centered strategies are predominantly used (Arseven et al., 2016; Onurkan

Aliusta & Özer, 2017). A disconnect occurs between what teachers believe they are doing

(student-centered) and what they are doing in the classroom (teacher-centered).

LCTS, also known as student-centered learning and student-centered education,

motivate students intrinsically to construct meaning for knowledge (Walker, 2015). Many

teachers believe they have adopted student-centered practices; however, studies show that
 7
these perceptions are not accurate (Arseven et al., 2016; Onurkan Aliusta & Özer, 2017).

Learner-centered education includes instructional approaches that engage the student in

active construction of knowledge (Bailey & Colley, 2015; Lattimer, 2015; Somani &

Rizvi, 2018; Weimer, 2013). Teachers recognize the importance of students having an

active role in the learning process but often consider students as passive learners and

describe themselves as transmitters of knowledge (Bailey & Colley, 2015; Lattimer,

2015; Weimer, 2013). Students have a similar outlook as they perceive they lack control

over their education, including instruction and evaluation methods (Lattimer, 2015;

Weimer, 2013).

Local school administrators and teacher mentors in a Midwestern town identified

a gap in the practice of using LCTS. Secondary school administrators observed teachers

defaulting to teacher-centered strategies by primarily using a lecture and note-taking

approach (High School Assistant Principal, personal communication, January 16, 2019).

Surveys indicated that students saw themselves listening to the instructor much more than

being actively engaged in the learning process (High School Assistant Principal, personal

communication, January 16, 2019). Secondary school classrooms tended to be traditional,

with teacher-driven activities being the primary method of teaching (Academic Dean,

personal communication, January 25, 2019; Curriculum Director, personal

communication, January 17, 2019).

In traditional, or teacher-centered classrooms, students passively observe what the

teacher is doing rather than being active participants (Bailey & Colley, 2015; Lattimer,

2015; Weimer, 2013). Direct instruction can result in “low creative thinking and
 8
teamwork skills among students”, although these skills improve when paired with LCTS

such as problem-based learning (Carrabba & Farmer, 2018; Winarno, Muthu, & Ling,

2018, p. 119). One source of student motivation is curiosity; however, traditional

instructional strategies may dampen student curiosity because of the high level of control

teachers have in these classrooms (Carrabba & Farmer, 2018). Students who are passive

participants in the classroom are not motivated by what they are learning, leading to low

creativity and curiosity.

Novice and preservice teachers experience a disconnect between their knowledge

and use of LCTS. Studies indicated that preservice teachers need more exposure to LCTS

in their teacher preparation programs to successfully implement these strategies in their

own classrooms (Scarrow, 2017; Sendurur, 2018). The most helpful resources for new

teachers are support from school administrators, adequate resources, and mentors

(Edwards, 2017; Kelly et al., 2015). By understanding secondary teachers’ use of these

strategies in secondary classrooms, school administrators can create professional

development opportunities that support the use of LCTS and university teaching

programs can analyze the preservice teacher curriculum and determine any needed

adjustments in the area of LCTS.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate how secondary educators are using

LCTS in their instruction and what support they needed to use such strategies. There

appears to be a disconnect between teachers believing they are utilizing LCTS and

demonstrating the use of such strategies in their classroom practices (Arseven et al.,
 9
2016; Onurkan & Ozer, 2017; Scarrow, 2017). This study focused on secondary

educators and their perception of how they are using LCTS in their instruction, in

addition to the support they needed to use such strategies. The research paradigm for this

study was that of constructivism. The central assumption of constructivism was that the

participants bring their own reality to the study, based on their individual experiences,

and the researcher’s role was to understand the multiple perspectives of the participants

(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019).

The phenomena studied was teachers’ perceptions of LCTS and the support

needed to use such strategies. The findings of this research may contribute to the national

conversation, as well as to secondary schools by looking closer at the strategies used by

secondary teachers and determining if they apply their knowledge of LCTS in the

classrooms. This goal was accomplished by studying secondary teachers from a high

school in a midwestern city in the United States. Current research reports the need for

further investigation into the underlying reasons for discrepancies between knowledge

and skills of secondary educators regarding LCTS (Kaymakamoglu, 2018). Also,

researchers reported the need for the development of effective teacher training in the

adoption of LCTS (Kaymakamoglu, 2018; Onurkan Aliusta & Özer, 2017). By

understanding secondary teachers’ use of these strategies in secondary classrooms, school

administrators can create professional development opportunities that support the use of

LCTS and university teaching programs can analyze the preservice teacher curriculum

and determine any needed adjustments in the area of LCTS. This dissertation may

contribute to the field by its investigation of these issues.

 10
Research Questions

The research questions for this study were meant to determine teachers’

perspectives and experiences with learner-centered teaching strategies and the support

they needed to use the strategies in their classrooms. The purpose of the current study

was framed by the concept that teachers will move from remembering the information

about LCTS as preservice teachers to using the strategies as competent performers, who

apply their learning to certain situations. The following research questions were

developed in relation to the conceptual framework for this study, which was the Dreyfus

and Dreyfus (1986) model of skill acquisition.

1. How are secondary educators using LCTS in their classrooms?

2. What support do secondary educators perceive to need to use LCTS in their

classroom?

Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study was based on the Dreyfus and Dreyfus

(1986) model of skill acquisition, which described how learners acquire skills by formal

instruction and practice. According to this model, the learner passes through 5 stages of

professional practices - novice, advanced beginner, competent performer, proficient

performer, and expert (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Flyvbjerg, 2001). The Dreyfus and

Dreyfus model informed this research study as a conceptual framework for

“conceptualizing the development of teacher expertise, in a way that recognizes the role

of practicing and context, as well as the development and shifts toward expertise from

preservice teaching to experienced teaching” (Flyvbjerg, 2001, p. 107).

 11
Within the context of the skill acquisition model, the novice and advanced

beginner levels are relevant to preservice teacher education. At this level, preservice

teachers develop their knowledge of teaching practice, with a concentration of

“remembering the rules for specific skills” (Miles & Knipe, 2018, p. 106). In the

advanced beginner level, preservice teachers apply the knowledge learned in the novice

level to real-life situations such as practicum experiences and student teaching. As

graduates of a teacher preparation program, novice teachers are considered “competent

performers” within the context of the skill acquisition model (Miles & Knipe, 2018). As a

competent performer, novice teachers take personal responsibility for their decisions

made in the classroom, from instructional strategies to classroom management. Teachers

grow in their teaching expertise through professional development and personal

experience, and it is in this stage of learning that teachers become proficient performers.

At this stage, teachers use their experience to respond to situations and make decisions in

their classrooms (Miles & Knipe, 2018). Finally, as experts within this model, teachers

use their intuition to demonstrate a “flowing, effortless, performance” as they conduct the

teaching and learning in their classrooms (Miles & Knipe, 2018).

The research questions were designed to explore how secondary teachers use their

knowledge of LCTS in the classroom and what support they need to use such strategies.

The purpose of the study was framed by the concept that teachers will move from

remembering the information about LCTS as preservice teachers, to using the strategies

as competent performers who apply their learning to certain situations. The interview

protocol was constructed to include the relevant constructs of this framework.

 12
In addition to the Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) model of skill acquisition,

Weimer’s (2013) learner-centered teaching approach was used to frame the nature of the

study, literature review, and research questions. Weimer’s (2013) book was written with

higher education faculty as the intended audience and was part of the researcher’s

doctoral studies. The content of the book prompted questions by the researcher on how

secondary educators were using LCTS in their own practices.

According to Weimer (2013), the key changes teachers can make to their teaching

in order to incorporate learner-centered teaching strategies include (a) the role of teacher

as facilitator, (b) the balance of power shifting toward the students, (c) the function of

content as being uncovered versus covered, (d) the responsibility of learning being

primarily on the students, and (e) using evaluations for learning rather than for grades. In

learner-centered instruction, the teacher acts as a facilitator of learning and engages

students in the process. The second key change involves a shift of power in the

classroom, from the teacher to the students. Weimer (2013) described the balance of

power as one that is to be shared with the students and where students have some say in

what they are learning and how they will learn it. A common teacher practice is to cover

content; however, Weimer (2013) described content as something to be taught in depth,

which leads to more quality instruction, rather than quantity. In the fourth key change,

teachers need to create a climate in their classroom that encourages students to be

responsible for their learning, which leads to independent learners (Weimer, 2013). The

final key change to a more learner-centered approach is changing the purpose of an

evaluation from that of a grade to a way for students to assess if they are learning.
 13
Weimer (2013) argued that students need to turn their focus away from working for a

grade to how they can improve their own learning.

The research questions were designed to explore how secondary teachers use

LCTS in the classroom and what support they needed to use such strategies. The purpose

of the current study was framed by the concept that teachers will move from

remembering the information about LCTS as preservice teachers to using the strategies as

competent performers, who apply their learning to certain situations. In addition, the

dissertation was based on Weimer’s (2013) learner-centered approach. The 5 key changes

Weimer described were initially used to frame the nature of the study, research questions,

and literature review. After the study was completed, the results were compared to

Weimer’s key changes. The interview protocol was constructed to include the relevant

constructs of this framework. Data analysis was grounded in the framework by using in

vivo codes that included the relevant constructs of this skill acquisition theory.

Nature of the Study

The methodology for this study was a basic qualitative design that focused on

secondary teachers' use of LCTS in their classrooms. Researchers use qualitative methods

to understand "individuals, groups, and phenomena in their natural settings" (Ravitch &

Carl, 2016, p. 2). The rationale for selecting a basic qualitative design for this study was

because its purpose was to investigate what LCTS secondary educators were using in

their instruction. According to Ravitch and Carl (2016), qualitative research is the study

of phenomena, and the attempt to make sense of them through the meaning people bring

to them (p. 8). Yin (2016) listed interviewing as one method of qualitative data collection
 14
where the data is the participants’ viewpoint and explanation of the phenomena being

studied, which is teachers’ perceptions of LCTS and the support needed to use such

strategies.

The collection instrument for this study was one-to-one qualitative interviewing

that focused on the research questions of how secondary teachers are using LCTS in their

classrooms, and the support they needed to use these strategies in their classrooms.

According to Rubin and Rubin (2012), qualitative interviewing is an appropriate research

tool when a study’s research questions look to examine layers of discovery, as the

research questions for this study exemplify. Qualitative interviewing is the dominant

mode of interviewing in qualitative research, according to Yin (2016). It was an

appropriate method for this study because it presented an opportunity for a two-way

interaction between the researcher and participant on a broad topic (Yin, 2016).

The sample size for this study was 12 secondary education teachers purposefully

selected from a high school in a Midwestern city. The sample size was selected using

purposeful sampling from among faculty at the high school, resulting in participants from

different content areas with a range in years of experience and having graduated from

different teacher preparation programs. Purposeful sampling added credibility to the

qualitative study, reduced bias, and was useful when the category of participants was

larger than could studied in the available time and resources (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Data saturation was achieved by asking the same interview questions of each of

the participants until no new data or themes emerged (Fusch & Ness, 2015). This

qualitative analysis may provide a greater understanding of the use of LCTS in secondary
 15
classrooms, and the support teachers need to use these strategies. Potential risks and

burdens to the participants may include anxiety from being interviewed and questioned

about their teaching practices.

Definitions

The following list includes terms and definitions that are pertinent to this

dissertation:

Active learning: Pedagogical strategies that engage students in the learning

process (Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J., 2015).

Continuous professional development: The process by which teachers enhance or

acquire new knowledge, skills, or values in the field of education (Özdemir, 2019).

Educators: Persons, professional and paraprofessional, who work in schools;

includes school administrators, teachers, librarians, school counselors, and other support

staff (U.S. Department of Education, 2018).

Pedagogy: The method and practice of teaching, especially as an academic

subject or theoretical concept (“Pedagogy”, 2019).

Preservice teacher: University student who is enrolled in a teacher preparation

program (Sendurur, 2018).

Secondary education: Grades 6-12; typically includes middle and high school

level education (ND ESPB, 2017).

Social change: Actions that lead to the wellbeing of society (Yob, 2018).

Support: Resources provided by schools, for teachers, whose purpose is derived

from the goals of the school and teachers (De Vries, van de Grift, & Jansen, 2014).
 16
Teacher preparation program: University program that prepares students to

become licensed teachers (Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018).

Assumptions

The researcher assumptions were statements believed to be true and from which

the researcher could draw conclusions (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Yin, 2016). Based on

the researcher’s experience as a past secondary educator and current university instructor

who observes preservice teachers in the practicum setting, 3 primary assumptions were

made regarding this study. First, secondary educators primarily use teacher-centered

strategies, such as lecture, in their classroom, although they may claim to use more LCTS

(Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018). This assumption is based on the premise that teachers believe

they are using LCTS when, upon observation, they are using teacher-centered strategies.

In the context of this study, it was necessary to identify this assumption as the data

collected was from interviews gather teachers’ perceptions of their use of LCTS.

Second, teachers in certain content areas, such as Social Studies and English, are

more likely to incorporate LCTS in their classrooms, although mathematics and science

teachers are more likely to use teacher-centered strategies in their practices. This

assumption is based on the premise that some content areas lend themselves better to

learner-centered activities because students have background knowledge from which to

draw. The subjects of math and science may not lend themselves as well to strategies

such as discussion and collaboration. This assumption is necessary in the context of this

study because the participants were teachers from multiple content areas in secondary

education and may have affected their responses.

 17
Third, teachers who have recently graduated from a teacher-preparation program

are more likely to have had instruction on LCTS than those teachers who graduated a

greater number of years ago. This assumption is based on the premise that teacher

preparation programs are focusing their instruction on LCTS because of the abundance of

the benefits of these strategies. The importance of this assumption is that the participants

of this study had varying years of experience, with some having graduated from a teacher

preparation program within the last 10 years and other having graduated more than 10

years ago. Again, these varying years of experience may have affected the answers used

in data analysis.

Scope and Delimitations

The specific focus of this dissertation was chosen because of the researcher’s role

as observing secondary education preservice teachers in their practicum experiences. The

researcher’s observations were that secondary preservice teachers primarily used the

teacher-centered strategy of lecture in their practicum even though their teacher

preparation coursework emphasized the importance of LCTS (Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018).

When preservice teachers were questioned why they used the teacher-centered strategy,

they typically explain that the classroom teacher preferred the lesson to be taught in a

similar fashion to how they would have; hence, the lecture format. Because the researcher

only observes secondary education preservice teachers as a program director for

secondary education, elementary educators were not included in this study.

The researcher made intentional and specific choices that characterized the

boundaries of this study (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Yin, 2016). For this study, there
 18
were 3 delimitations. The first delimitation of this study pertained to the secondary school

in the Midwest and was selected because the researcher was a principal there in the past.

However, by the time the data collection process was underway, it had been over 5 years

since the researcher was a principal in that school. In addition, there were many new

faculty members at the school who were part of the study and never had the researcher as

a principal. The second delimitation of this study was the researcher being a professor at

a university where some of the teachers at the secondary school may have graduated from

a teacher preparation program or were earning master’s degrees. These delimitations

were included in the Informed Consent (see Appendix D) and informed the participants

that the researcher’s past and current roles had no bearing on the study.

The third delimitation is the population of the participants being limited to only

those in secondary education. The focus of this study was on the use of LCTS by

secondary educators; therefore, the participants were from a high school in a Midwestern

town. Elementary educators were not included in this study because they were outside the

scope of this study.

One conceptual framework related to this study and not investigated was the

constructivist theory of knowledge and learning. This theory focuses on developing skills

and competencies, which in this case would be the use of LCTS. With the purposeful

sampling of secondary educators with a range of years of experience, different teacher

preparation programs, and a variety of content areas, the knowledge produced by this

study could be applied to similar contexts such as elementary educators. Using the
 19
research strategies of purposeful sampling, thick description, and detailed information

could increase the transferability of the study.

Limitations

The purpose of this study was to investigate how secondary educators are using

LCTS in their instruction and what support they needed to use such strategies. When

researchers consider the limitations of a study, they must think about how the quality,

source, or types of data or how the data is analyzed might weaken the integrity of the

research methodology (Levitt, Bamberg, Frost, Creswell, Josselson, & Suarez-Orozco,

2018). This study contains certain limiting conditions, some of which are characteristic of

qualitative studies and others are specific to this study’s research design (Bloomberg &

Volpe, 2019). This qualitative interview study had 4 limitations. The first limitation was

that actual pedagogical practices were not be observed for this study. The research

questions focused on teacher perspectives and, therefore, observations of classroom

practices were not necessary. To ensure the participants were able to freely share their

experiences with LCTS, the researcher showed respect for the feelings and opinions

expressed by the participants during the interview process (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

The second limitation for this study was that teachers' perspectives were used to

draw conclusions about the use of LCTS for all secondary educators. Within the confines

of time and resources, this study included participants from a Midwestern high school,

which was in the same city as the researcher. This allowed the researcher ease of access

for interviewing participants. Most importantly, the site and participant selection matched

the research goals for this qualitative study (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).
 20
The third limitation was sample size; however, measures were taken to ensure

data saturation. For this study, the researcher anticipated needing between 12 and 15

participants to reach data saturation and 12 interviews accomplished data saturation

(Fusch & Ness, 2015). Data saturation was achieved by asking the same interview

questions of all 12 participants and when there were no new data and themes emerging, it

was decided that data saturation had been reached (Fusch & Ness, 2015).

Finally, the last limitation of this study was potential researcher bias as the

researcher was a former principal at the school where the study took place. To reduce

bias, the researcher reminded the participants of the purpose of the study and that the

researcher was no longer in a position of authority with them. Yin (2016) stated that the

conversational nature of qualitative research interviews could lead to the researcher

ignoring comments that are not a formal part of the interview. The researcher anticipated

when it might be tempting to exclude comments made by the participants and ensured the

inclusion of such comments in the data analysis (Yin, 2016). Bias can also occur in the

form of deficit orientation, where the researcher views the participants as lacking in

knowledge or skill (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). In order to prevent deficit orientation, the

researcher reminded the participants that they were the experts in their own experiences

and the ones who hold the wisdom (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Significance

Research shows a disconnect in how teachers perceive their use of LCTS and the

strategies observed being used in classrooms (Arseven et al., 2016; Onurkan Aliusta &

Özer, 2017). Scarrow (2017) found that teachers had difficulty identifying LCTS in their
 21
practice. The contributions of this dissertation may advance knowledge in the perceptions

of LCTS by secondary educators. This dissertation may advance the practice of

secondary educators using LCTS in their classrooms and what support they need to use

these strategies. It is important for school administrators to create professional

development opportunities that support the use of LCTS.

Students in a learner-centered environment experience high academic

achievement. Practices aimed at improving academic achievement have resulted in higher

graduation rates for high school students (Allensworth, Healey, Gwynne, Crespin, &

University of Chicago Consortium on School Research, 2016). High school graduation is

important because it gives students greater opportunities for college and employment, in

addition to improving health and life expectancies and decreasing incarceration rates

(Allensworth et al., 2016). By increasing academic achievement for all students, positive

social change occurs.

Summary

The research problem under investigation was that secondary education teachers

do not consistently demonstrate the use of learner-centered teaching strategies (LCTS) in

their classroom practices. The importance is that academic achievement is improved

using these strategies. The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate how secondary

educators are using LCTS in their instruction and what support they perceived to need to

use such strategies. The conceptual framework for this study is the Dreyfus and Dreyfus

(1986) model of skill acquisition, which described how learners acquire skills by formal

instruction and practice. The key research questions for this study focused on how
 22
secondary educators use LCTS and the support they need to use these strategies in their

classrooms. This study was a basic qualitative design that examined the classroom

practices of secondary teachers and the meaning of how they used LCTS. The collection

instrument was a one-one qualitative interview of 12 randomly selected secondary

education teachers from a Midwest high school. The results of the study were that

participants use LCTS by having students take ownership of their learning. They

accomplish this by allowing students to discover the knowledge, instead of teachers

directing the learning. When students take ownership of their learning, they monitor their

progress, engage with the material, exhibit curiosity, and learn by doing most of the

work. The teacher acts as a facilitator and resource during the use of LCTS. When

academic achievement increases for all students, positive social change occurs.

Secondary school administrators and teacher preparation programs would benefit from

the research by providing them knowledge for developing professional development that

supports the use of LCTS.

The next section provides an overview of the relevant body of literature regarding

LCTS and its use by secondary educators. The researcher reviewed over 125 peer-

reviewed research articles on LCTS, with 85 used for resources. The major themes that

emerged from the literature review include characteristics of learner-centered teaching

strategies, teacher-centered strategies, secondary education content areas, and teacher

preparation. Also, Chapter 2 contains the conceptual framework of the study, the

strategies used for the literature search, and key variables and concepts of the literature

review.
 23
Chapter 2: Literature Review

The research problem under investigation was that secondary teachers do not

consistently demonstrate their use of LCTS in their classroom practices. The purpose of

this study was to understand the use of LCTS secondary educators are using in their

instruction and what support they needed to apply such strategies. According to Scarrow

(2017), teachers could identify both learner-centered and teacher-centered methods.

However, they could not demonstrate the skills of learner-centered methods in their

practices. Researchers have found that although teachers express the belief that they are

utilizing LCTS in their classrooms, observations in these classrooms show teacher-

centered strategies are predominantly used (Arseven, et al., 2016; Onurkan Aliusta &

Özer, 2017). A disconnect occurs between what teachers believe they are doing (student-

centered) and what they are doing in the classroom (teacher-centered).

This chapter begins with a description of the library databases and search engines

used for the literature review, the key search terms used to identify relevant scholarship,

the research phenomenon, researchers of the phenomenon, and how the framework

benefits the study. Also included in this chapter is an exhaustive review of the current

literature related to LCTS and a description of studies that used a basic qualitative design.

Studies related to the research questions are reviewed and synthesized. The chapter

concludes with a summary of the major themes in the literature and what is known and

not known, related to LCTS. A description of how the dissertation will extend knowledge

related to a gap in practice in secondary education and how the gap connects to the

research method will conclude Chapter 2.

 24
Literature Search Strategy

For this dissertation, the researcher used multiple search strategies to locate

current research on learner-centered teaching strategies. Google Chrome (Scholar) was

used to search for terms related to the dissertation and non-data base articles that would

help lead to key terms and relevant research articles in the Walden Library databases. The

library databases used for this literature review were Education Source, ERIC, SAGE

Journals, Taylor and Francis Online. Also, Walden dissertations completed by Doctor of

Education graduates who had conducted qualitative studies with similar phenomena and

research questions were used for guidance and finding more key terms and research

articles for database searches.

The key search terms used in the literature review were LCTS, secondary

education, instructional methods, pedagogy, student engagement, instructional delivery,

direct instruction, and indirect instruction, professional development, teacher-centered

strategies, novice educators, preservice teachers, and student engagement. The terms

used to identify the research articles most relevant to the phenomenon were “LCTS” and

“student-centered strategies,” and the researcher used them in both Education Source and

ERIC library databases. The phenomenon of this dissertation was LCTS, which are

teaching methods in which the instructor is a facilitator, and the focus is on the students

and what they are learning (Weimer, 2013).

The researcher encountered several challenges during the search for literature.

Most of the research articles focused on the aspect that teachers were not using LCTS

but, generally, did not specify why that was happening. Also, common research findings
 25
were that teachers thought they were using LCTS, but the strategies did not consistently

demonstrate when researchers observed teachers during instruction. Again, there were

few studies focused on why that phenomenon was occurring.

Conceptual Framework

There were two conceptual frameworks used for this study. The first conceptual

framework was the Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) model of skill acquisition, which

describes how learners acquire skills by formal instruction and practice. The second

conceptual framework was on Weimer’s (2013) work on learner-centered teaching

strategies, and the 5 key changes that teachers need to incorporate to make their teaching

more learner-centered.

Model of Skill Acquisition

According to this model, the learner passes through 5 stages of

professional practice to become an expert in the desired skill – novice, advanced

beginner, competent performer, proficient performer, and expert (Dreyfus & Dreyfus,

1986; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Miles & Knipe, 2018). The Dreyfus and Dreyfus model informed

this research study as a conceptual framework for “conceptualizing the development of

teacher expertise, in a way that recognizes the role of practicing and context. It also

recognizes the development and shifts toward expertise from preservice teaching to

experienced teaching" (Flyvbjerg, 2001, p. 107).

Stage 1: Novice. In this stage, the student is taught the basic elements and rules of

the desired skill, without the full context of the skill. Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) used

the example of a person learning to drive. In the novice stage of skill acquisition, the
 26
student driver learns the basic elements, such as how to read the speed on a speedometer,

and the rules, such as shifting gears at a certain RPM (rotations per minute). In the

context of this study, a student in a teacher preparation program might learn the definition

of learner-centered teaching strategies and the psychological and pedagogical

frameworks of these strategies. At this level, preservice teachers develop their knowledge

of teaching practice, with a concentration of “remembering the rules for specific skills”

(Miles & Knipe, 2018, p. 106). The student might also learn about Weimer’s (2013) key

changes to instructional practice that lend themselves to learner-centered teaching. These

5 changes are: (a) the role of the teacher as a facilitator, (b) the balance of power shifting

from the teacher and shared with students, (c) the function of content changing from

teachers covering a certain number of topics to teachers offering a curriculum that is

uncovered by students and leads to deeper understanding and acquisition of life-long

skills, (d) the responsibility for learning falls primarily on the students, but not solely, and

(e) the purpose of evaluations changes from being done mainly for grades to being done

for students to evaluate their growth and direction for learning.

Stage 2: Advanced Beginner. As an advanced beginner, the student begins to

develop an understanding of the relevant context of the desired skill. Real-life

experiences, and examples of meaningful aspects of the skill, develop this understanding.

Continuing to use the case of the student driver, Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) explained

how the driver now applies the knowledge of shifting gears by using the sounds of the

engine and vehicle speed to decide when to shift the vehicle into another gear.
 27
In the advanced beginner level, preservice teachers apply the knowledge learned

in the novice level to real-life situations such as practicum experiences and student

teaching. In the context of teaching, the preservice teacher would extend their knowledge

of learner-centered teaching strategies by learning about specific examples such as

project-based learning, student collaboration, stations, and debates. They would begin to

practice those strategies in the real-life experience of practicum and student teaching,

where they observe skilled teachers using these strategies in the classroom and can apply

those strategies under the supervision of the experienced teacher.

Stage 3: Competence. As a person works toward competence in acquiring a skill,

they may experience many unpleasant feelings. The learner becomes overwhelmed with

the number of elements and procedures that are part of the desired skill. Because the

learner is still not able to determine what is essential or not, in a situation, the

performance of the skill becomes nerve-wracking and exhausting (Dreyfus & Dreyfus,

1986). It is through these uncomfortable experiences that the learner gains an

understanding of how to devise a plan to determine what elements are essential. Through

this understanding, decision making becomes less complicated.

Competent performers look for rules and procedures to use as they try to adapt the

skill to a real-life situation. However, the rules and procedures may not precisely fit the

case, and performers must decide how their prior learning best fits into their current

position. This stage is frightening to the competent performer because, unlike in the past

where the blame was placed on a lack of knowledge, the learner feels responsible for the

choices he or she makes. However, when things go well, the competent performer
 28
experiences feelings of elation that are not experienced by beginners (Dreyfus & Dreyfus,

1986).

Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) explained that the competent driver starts to consider

all the variables present when driving – road conditions, traffic, time constraints – and

adjust their speed accordingly. The driver no longer needs to think about when to shift

gears, as it happens automatically now. At this stage, the driver must decide whether he

or she is going too fast, subsequently letting up on the accelerator or stepping on the

brake, and when to perform these actions. The driver experiences feelings of relief when

successfully navigating a turn, or the driver arrives at his or her destination without an

accident.

In the context of teacher training, in the advanced beginner level, preservice

teachers apply the knowledge learned in the novice level to real-life situations such as

practicum experiences and student teaching. As graduates of a teacher preparation

program, novice teachers are considered “competent performers” within the context of

the skill acquisition model (Miles & Knipe, 2018). As a competent performer, novice

teachers take personal responsibility for their decisions made in the classroom, from

instructional strategies to classroom management.

Stage 4: Proficiency. As a learner moves from a competent performer to a level

of proficiency, emotional attachment to a task further advances the desired skill. When a

performer experiences a negative emotion while carrying out a task, it will inhibit him or

her from doing that task again. That choice will be strengthened and chosen repeatedly if

a positive emotion is evoked. Therefore, positive and negative emotional experiences will
 29
strengthen successful actions and inhibit unsuccessful ones. In the first 3 stages of skill

acquisition, the performer, at some level, relies on rules and principles to make decisions.

The proficient performer has had practice in selecting and performing tasks related to the

desired skill, resulting in decisions that are more continuous and based on situational

knowledge and judgment (Miles & Knipe, 2018).

Using the driver example, Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) described the proficient

driver as one who can feel if he or she is driving too fast for the current conditions and

circumstances. The driver does not need to think about the road conditions or traffic

situation to know, intuitively, the speed necessary for safe travel. The proficient driver is

more likely to safely negotiate a curve than a competent driver because less time is

needed to make essential decisions about tasks, such as braking.

Teachers grow in their teaching expertise through professional development and

personal experience, and it is in this stage of learning that teachers become proficient

performers. At this stage, teachers use their experience to respond to situations and make

decisions in their classrooms, such as when to use more teacher-centered instruction and

when to use more learner-centered instruction (Miles & Knipe, 2018). The primary mode

of professional development is through experience and engagement.

Stage 5: Expertise. Although the proficient performer has adequate experience to

determine what needs to do in a certain situation, they still need to decide how it is done.

The expert sees what needs to do and can fairly quickly determine how it is achieved.

The ability to make an immediate judgment is primarily due to a vast amount of

experience in contextual situations. The experts’ responses to situations are more intuitive
 30
than thought-based. The expert is also able to apply their skills to many different

situations. For example, as the driver becomes an expert, they feel the speed, as did the

proficient driver, but can react to negotiating the curve without any calculating thoughts

(Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986). Expert performers practice in intuitive ways, and their

performance is seamless when encountering many different situations. Finally, as experts

within this model, teachers use their intuition to demonstrate a “flowing, effortless,

performance” as they conduct the teaching and learning in their classrooms (Miles &

Knipe, 2018). Experienced teachers are considered experts if the students in their

classrooms are learning at their given capabilities.

The Dreyfus and Dreyfus model of skill acquisition informed this research study

as a conceptual framework for “conceptualizing the development of teacher expertise in a

way that recognizes the role of practicing and context, as well as the development and

shifts toward expertise from preservice teaching to experienced teaching” (Miles &

Knipe, 2018, p. 107). The model of skill acquisition promoted the development of this

dissertation’s literature review, research questions, and data analysis. Teacher expertise

develops through the practice of teaching strategies and developing that expertise from

preservice teaching to experienced teaching.

Learner-centered Teaching Approach

In addition to the Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) model of skill acquisition,

Weimer’s (2013) learner-centered teaching approach framed the nature of the

dissertation, literature review, and research questions. Weimer’s (2013) book was written

with higher education faculty as the intended audience and was part of the researcher’s
 31
doctoral studies. The content of the book prompted questions by the researcher on how

secondary educators were using LCTS in their practices.

According to Weimer (2013), the key changes teachers can make to their teaching

to incorporate learner-centered teaching strategies include (a) the role of the teacher as

facilitator, (b) the balance of power shifting toward the students, (c) the function of

content as being uncovered versus covered, (d) the responsibility of learning being

primarily on the students, and (e) using evaluations for learning rather than for grades. In

learner-centered instruction, the teacher acts as a facilitator of learning and engages

students in the process. The second key change involves a shift of power in the

classroom, from the teacher to the students. Weimer (2013) described the balance of

power as one shared with the students and where students have some say in what they are

learning and how they will learn it. Common teacher practice is to cover content;

however, Weimer (2013) described the content as something to be taught in-depth, which

leads to more quality instruction, rather than quantity. In the fourth key change, teachers

need to create a climate in their classroom that encourages students to be responsible for

their learning, which leads to independent learners (Weimer, 2013). The final key change

to a more learner-centered approach is changing the purpose of evaluation, being merely

for a grade, to a way for students to assess if they are learning. Weimer (2013) argued

that students need to turn their focus away from working for a grade to how they can

improve their learning.

The researcher designed the research questions to explore how secondary teachers

use LCTS in the classroom and what support they needed to use such strategies. The
 32
purpose of the current study was framed by the concept that teachers will move from

remembering the information about LCTS as preservice teachers to using the strategies as

competent performers, who apply their learning to certain situations. Also, Weimer’s

(2013) learner-centered approach was the basis of the dissertation. The 5 key changes

Weimer described framed the nature of the study, research questions, and literature

review.

The researcher designed the research questions to explore how secondary teachers

use their knowledge of LCTS in the classroom and what support they need to use such

strategies. The purpose of the study was framed by the concept that teachers will move

from remembering the information about LCTS as preservice teachers to using the

strategies as competent performers who apply their learning to certain situations. The

interview protocol included the relevant constructs of this framework. Data analysis was

grounded in the framework by using in vivo codes that include the relevant constructs of

this skill acquisition theory.

Literature Review Related to Key Concepts and Variable

An exhaustive literature review of the key phenomena of LCTS, teacher-centered

strategies, secondary education content areas, and teacher preparation are in the following

sections. The library databases and search engines used for this literature review were

Education Source, ERIC, SAGE Journals, Taylor and Francis Online, and Google

Chrome (Scholar). In total, the researcher reviewed approximately 125 articles, and 85

articles referenced. Most of the literature reviewed had a publication date within 5 years

of the start of this dissertation in 2018. The exception to this is the research comprising
 33
the conceptual framework, published in 1986. Information obtained from the Internet

included the definition of secondary education from the North Dakota Education

Standards and Practices Board.

The key search terms used in the literature review were LCTS, secondary

education, instructional methods, pedagogy, student engagement, instructional delivery,

direct instruction, and indirect instruction. The researcher used the terms “LCTS” and

“student-centered strategies” to identify the research articles most relevant to the

phenomenon and placed them in both Education Source and ERIC library databases. The

phenomenon of this dissertation is LCTS and is teaching methods in which the instructor

is a facilitator, and the students are self-motivated and independent learners (Bailey &

Colley, 2015; Weimer, 2013).

Learner-centered Teaching Strategies

The goal of using learner-centered teaching strategies is that students become

autonomous, self-directed, and self-regulated learners (Bailey & Colley, 2015; Weimer,

2013). To successfully shift teaching strategies from teacher-centered to learner-centered,

Weimer (2013) identified 5 key changes that needed to instructional practices. These key

changes include (a) the role of the teacher as facilitator, (b) the balance of power shifting

toward the students, (c) the function of content as being uncovered versus covered, (d)

the responsibility of learning being primarily on the students, and (e) using evaluations

for learning rather than for grades (Weimer, 2013).

Role of the teacher. The first key change to make instruction learner-centered is

for the teacher to be the facilitator of learning in the classroom (Weimer, 2013). When
 34
the teacher’s role is that of facilitator, students become more engaged in their learning,

according to Weimer (2013). As a facilitator, teachers guide students in collaborative

activities, meaningful discussions, and student-driven questions and answers. The

teachers are there to support students through the learning process, which should include

students struggling with the content and, ultimately, coming to a deeper understanding of

the content as a result of the struggle. As a facilitator or guide, the teacher considers

individual student’s needs, strengths, and weaknesses and adjusts the learning materials

in response to them. Ultimately, it is the student’s responsibility to master the material

and it is the teacher’s role to support the student in that endeavor (Weimer, 2013). The

following key principles guide facilitative teaching:

1. Teachers allow students to do the work.

2. Teachers do less lecturing on the content so students can discover it for

themselves.

3. Teachers design instruction based on student’s needs, strengths, and

weaknesses.

4. Teachers offer instruction that models how experts learn in specific content

fields.

5. Teachers facilitate opportunities for student collaboration so they can learn

from each other.

6. Teachers and students create a climate for learning.

7. Teachers use evaluation for purposes of student learning (pp. 72 – 84).

 35
Balance of power in the classroom. The second key change to instructional

practice outlined by Weimer (2013) was to change the balance of power in the classroom

from the teacher to the student. In a learner-centered classroom, students are autonomous

learners and have a say in what they learn and how they will learn it (Weimer, 2013).

Students are often resistant to this type of responsibility as it usually means more work

for them than the traditional method of teaching by lecture and note-taking (Weimer,

2013). When students and teachers share power, a greater sense of community and

collaboration develops in the classroom (Weimer, 2013). According to Weimer (2013),

examples of giving students power include allowing them to help decide classroom

policies, course content, and evaluation methods.

Function of content. The third key change to instructional practice outlined by

Weimer (2013) involves the function of the content and the role of teachers using it. In

many classrooms, teachers are concerned about covering all the content laid out in the

required curriculum. Weimer contented that content should not be covered; instead, it is

uncovered. When the curriculum is covered, it is done so quickly, and students do not

remember what they learned on a long-term basis (Weimer, 2013). When the curriculum

is uncovered, teachers focus on teaching content so that students can learn it, internalize,

and apply it to their lives, which results in deep learning (Weimer, 2013). To uncover

content, Weimer recommended that teachers teach students study skills, such as

summarizing and synthesizing, so they can apply the information they learn. Also,

teachers refrain from telling the information to students, and students should find the

information they need to solve authentic problems. The goal for changing the purpose of
 36
content should be for teachers to care less about the amount of content they cover, to use

the content to develop deep learning (Weimer, 2013).

Responsibility for learning. The fourth key change in instructional practice that

leads to learner-centered instruction is to allow students to take responsibility for their

learning (Weimer, 2013). Weimer contents that when teachers see students struggling to

learn content, many believe it is their responsibility to fix the problem. Teachers may fix

the problem by using extrinsic rewards such as extra credit or giving them additional

instruction to clarify the content (Weimer, 2013). However, Weimer does not believe

these practices motivate students. Instead, Weimer suggests that teachers create a climate

that encourages them to be independent and responsible for their learning by holding

students responsible for their actions and establishing consequences when students do not

complete their work. Teachers should be consistent in their actions and have high

standards for learning, all while showing students they care through establishing

relationships (Weimer, 2013). As stated earlier, students often resist accepting

responsibility for their learning because it is more work for them. Teachers need to work

toward this expected responsibility in small increments until the culture is established

(Weimer, 2013).

Purposes and processes of evaluation. The final key change to instructional

practice involves the purpose and processes of evaluations (Weimer, 2013). There are

two purposes for grading, according to Weimer. The first is to show if students mastered

the content, and the second is to motivate students to learn the material. These purposes

need to change because evaluations do not always measure all types of learning, nor do
 37
they assess higher-order thinking skills (Weimer, 2013). Students typically see

evaluations as a means to earn a grade instead of a way to improve their learning.

Teachers can help students see evaluations as a way to improve learning by allowing

them to analyze their work as a means of self-assessment, in addition to facilitating peer

assessments (Weimer, 2013). Weimer also contended that teachers need to make

evaluations less stressful for students by utilizing formative assessments, reviewing

material before tests, allowing students to use class notes during tests, and debriefing

after the tests to help students retain what they learned.

Research indicated that teachers understand the meaning of learner-centered

teaching strategies. However, when researchers’ observed teachers in their classrooms,

teacher-centered strategies were used more predominantly. Learner-centered education

includes instructional approaches that engage the student in the active construction of

knowledge (Lattimer, 2015; Somani & Rizvi, 2018; Weimer, 2013). Teachers recognize

the importance of students having an active role in the learning process but often consider

students as passive learners and describe themselves as transmitters of knowledge

(Lattimer, 2015; Weimer, 2013). Students have a similar outlook as they perceive they

lack control over their education, including instruction and evaluation methods (Lattimer,

2015; Weimer, 2013). Although these studies indicate students and teachers

acknowledging the passive roles of students, the reasons for this passivity were not

indicated.

In learner-centered instruction, the teacher acts as a facilitator of learning and

engages students in the process. The second key change involves a shift of power in the
 38
classroom, from the teacher to the students. Weimer (2013) described the balance of

power as one that is shared with the students and where students have some say in what

they are learning and how they will learn it. Common teacher practice is to cover content;

however, Weimer (2013) described the content as something to be taught in-depth, which

leads to more quality instruction, rather than quantity. In the fourth key change, teachers

need to create a climate in their classroom that encourages students to be responsible for

their learning, which leads to independent learners (Weimer, 2013). The final key change

to a more learner-centered approach is changing the purpose of evaluation, from merely a

grade, to a way for students to assess if they are learning. Weimer (2013) argued that

students need to turn their focus away from working for a grade to how they can improve

their learning.

LCTS are important for many reasons. First, the Common Core Standards

emphasize teaching strategies that engage students (Litman & Greenleaf, 2018; Stockard

et al., 2018). According to the Gallup Student Poll (2017) of United States students, only

47% of students reported they were engaged in their school-work and learning. The other

53% of students were “not engaged” (29%) or “actively disengaged” (24%). During

learner-centered instruction, students are active participants in their learning (Bailey &

Colley, 2015; Weimer, 2013). Learner-centered teaching strategies increase student

motivation and engagement significantly and statistically more than traditional or

teacher-centered instruction (Edwards, 2017; Scarrow, 2017). Although these studies

indicate a perceived lack of engagement on the students’ part, they do not indicate the

reason the students lacked engagement in their studies.

 39
The instruction, curriculum, and assessment of learner-centered teaching are

driven by student interests. For teachers to implement LCTS, they must have a deep

understanding of their students and be responsive in their use of teaching strategies

(Lattimer, 2015). In a learner-centered classroom, students appear motivated to learn,

eagerly participate in class, respect one another, and discuss the material with other

students (Lattimer, 2015). The curriculum draws from standards, in addition to the

interests of the students, and formative assessment assesses and responds to students’

differences (Lattimer, 2015). According to these studies, students are motivated to learn

when learner-centered teaching strategies are employed. However, new and experienced

teachers sometimes have difficulty implementing these strategies.

Many new teachers have been educating in the use of LCTS and expect to use

these strategies in their practice (Emre-Akdogan & Yazgan-sag, 2018; Mahmood &

Iqbal, 2018). However, they face the challenge of being novices in the subject content

knowledge and pedagogy (Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018). In particular, preservice

mathematics teachers have difficulties related to mathematical concepts while designing

their lesson plans (Emre-Akdogan & Yazgan-sag, 2018). Preservice teachers commonly

use teacher-centered approaches (Duru, 2015; Emre-Akdogan & Yazgan-sag, 2018).

Mahmood & Iqbal (2018) found that preservice teachers have limited experience in

practicing the learned strategies in actual school settings, and this may be the reason for

primarily using lecture as a teaching strategy. Preservice teachers are more likely to use

student-centered pedagogies when their professors use student-centered teaching methods

(Emre-Akdogan & Yazgan-sag, 2018; Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018). Although these studies
 40
indicate the important role professors have on preservice teachers, they did not address

the role classroom teachers hosting the preservice teachers had on the choice of strategies

used in the classroom. Mahmood and Iqbal (2018) recommend that schools create an

academic environment supporting LCTS teaching strategies for them to be used regularly

(Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018).

Effective professional development can assist teachers in implementing LCTS.

According to Burner, Madsen, Zako, and Ismail (2017), a university offered professional

development seminars focused on increasing student involvement and participation in the

learning process. As a result of the professional development, teachers reported that

students were more engaged in their lessons, participated more actively, and teachers

expressed professional satisfaction (Burner et al., 2017). The results of this study did not

indicate the role of content-specific pedagogy has in increasing student involvement and

participation.

Teacher-Centered Strategies

Unlike LCTS, where the role of the teacher is that of a facilitator, in teacher-

centered strategies, teachers exercise considerable control over the way students learn. In

teacher-centered strategies, the teacher acts as the primary source of knowledge,

conveying that knowledge to the students in the form of a lecture (Mahmood & Iqbal,

2018; Weimer, 2013). Also, the teacher controls the learning environment, such as what

and how the content will be learned, at what pace it is learned, and how it will be

assessed (Weimer, 2013). Direct instruction is considered one of those teacher-centered

strategies.
 41
As a teacher-centered strategy, direct instruction can be an effective way to teach.

Direct instruction refers to a wide scope of teaching strategies where the teacher presents

information in an “explicit, logically organized, and sequenced” manner (Stockard, et al.,

2018, p. 502). The assumption with direct instruction is that all students can learn with

well-designed instruction that includes ensuring students have mastered the material

before moving on to new material and that students have the prior knowledge needed to

learn new content (Stockard, et al., 2018). Direct instruction is an effective and efficient

form of instruction that allows students to learn new material in less time. In a meta-

analysis by Stockard et al. (2018), direct instruction positively impacted student

outcomes in most academic subjects. Direct instruction also reduces the achievement gap

between sociodemographic groups and students with developmental delays and autism

(Head et al., 2018; Stockard et al., 2018).

There are drawbacks to teacher-centered instruction, too. In traditional or teacher-

centered classrooms, students passively observe what the teacher is doing rather than

being active participants (Bailey & Colley, 2015; Lattimer, 2015; Weimer, 2013). Direct

instruction can result in “low creative thinking and teamwork skills among students,”

although these skills improve when paired with LCTS such as problem-based learning

(Carrabba & Farmer, 2018; Winarno et al., 2018, p. 119). One source of student

motivation is curiosity; however, traditional instructional strategies may dampen student

curiosity because of the high level of control teachers have in these classrooms (Carrabba

& Farmer, 2018). Students who are passive participants in the classroom are not

motivated by what they are learning, leading to low creativity and curiosity. The findings
 42
of these studies were that teacher-centered instruction lowered the creativity of students;

however, they did not indicate the quality of teacher-centered instruction that led to

decreased student creativity and curiosity.

When teacher-centered strategies were used, classrooms appear well-organized,

and students appear to be attentive. According to Lattimer (2015), students in a teacher-

centered classroom appear to be motivated by classroom rules, rather than the content. In

a teacher-centered classroom, classroom management appears to be effective. Teachers

and students appear respectful of each other in a teacher-centered classroom; however,

the dialog consists primarily of the teacher asking questions of students (Lattimer, 2015).

Students do not complete assignments because they have an interest in them but because

they are required. The curriculum is based primarily on standards and textbook content,

and assessment emphasizes the completion of tasks (Lattimer, 2015). Students who are

passive learners may not construct their knowledge as effectively as those who are active

learners.

Secondary Education Content Areas

Instruction that engages students is uncommon in U.S. secondary schools

(Greenleaf & Valencia, 2017). The lecture is the primary teaching method among

secondary educators, and taking notes is the primary learning activity for students

(Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018). Other methodologies include questioning, activities,

tests/quizzes, and demonstration and discussion (Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018). Lectures,

note-taking, demonstrations, and discussion are all examples of direct instruction.

Although these studies indicate that direct instruction may lead to lower student
 43
engagement, they do not address the academic achievement of the students. The use of

direct instructional strategies were shown to improve academic outcomes in academic

areas such as math and science (Baker & Robinson, 2018; Stockard et al., 2018; Zhang,

2017). Direct instruction is well suited for learning basic skills in the areas of math

science and vocabulary (Carrabba & Farmer, 2018). The use of teacher-centered

strategies were shown to be effective for student learning.

Secondary teachers often struggle with implementing LCTS. In a study by

Ndirangu (2017), science teachers in secondary classrooms were unsuccessful in the

implementation of LCTS in their classrooms. It was not a lack of effort on the teachers’

part that led to the failed implementation. Researchers found that negative administration

attitudes and ineffective professional development were the causes of unsuccessful

implementation (Ndirangu, 2017). Although teacher-centered strategies are used

primarily in secondary schools, there are benefits to teachers in using LCTS.

A shortage of teachers is a reality in the United States, especially in the areas of

math and science. School administrators understand the importance of recruiting and

retaining these teachers. Researchers found that science teachers who use LCTS are more

likely to persist in the science teaching profession for over 3 years (Wong & Luft, 2015).

Persistence in science teaching is a particularly important statistic, given that

approximately 50% of science teachers leave teaching within their first 5 years in the

classroom (Wong & Luft, 2015). Using LCTS could help retain teachers in subjects that

are in high demand.

 44
Retaining teachers is not the only possible benefit of using LCTS. These

strategies help students learn at a deeper level in math. In mathematics classrooms,

traditional methods focus on students acquiring the correct answer to assigned problems

(Lattimer, 2015). In student-centered classrooms, the emphasis is on students

understanding of the why and how of how to solve mathematics problems (Lattimer,

2015). LCTS, such as in-class problem solving and discussion sessions, enhance the deep

understanding of mathematics for students (Lattimer, 2015; Vajravelu & Muhs, 2016).

LCTS benefits students and teachers in mathematics and science, as well as other content

subjects.

The areas of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) are of

high importance in a world today. Using LCTS in these areas help students persist in

these courses. In a study of students enrolled in STEM courses, the findings showed that

students taught with only lecture were 1.5 times more likely to fail the courses than those

who taught with collaborative work and discussions, which are LCTS (Freeman, Eddy,

McDonough, Smith, Okoroafor, Jordt, & Wenderoth, 2014). In math classes where LCTS

were used, students experience higher achievement, improved attitudes, more interest in

math, and greater self-efficacy (Outlaw, Keene, & Downing, 2018). LCTS not only

increase academic performance in STEM classes but improve overall attitudes in students

(Brigati, 2018). With the importance of professionals in STEM careers, using LCTS may

help students in STEM courses be successful completers.

Learner-centered teaching strategies were effective in other content areas, such as

English/Language Arts. Students who are English Learners (EL) benefit from these
 45
strategies. Project-based learning (PBL) is a learner-centered instructional method and

facilitates student learning through realistic problem-solving activities. In a study by

Somani and Rizvi (2018), Pakistani students taught the English language using PBL

showed significantly more improvement in their writing skills than did those students

whose teachers used traditional methods of teaching. Also, these students showed

significant improvement in higher cognitive domains, compared to minimal improvement

in their traditional method counterparts (Somani & Rizvi, 2018). LCTS assist students in

the English/Language Arts and those who are English Learners.

Music is another content area in which LCTS are shown to be beneficial for

students learning. Band classes are prevalent music classes in secondary schools across

the United States (Whitener, 2016). These classes are typically teacher-centered because

they are “teacher/conductor-centered, teacher-transmitted, and content/repertoire-driven”

(Whitener, 2016, p. 220). One of the struggles of music teachers is to get their students to

understand the importance of learning music. Students taught with these teacher-centered

strategies are rarely taught to be independent musicians who deeply understand, create,

and respond to the art of music (Whitener, 2016). This is compared to a learner-centered

classroom where cooperative learning, a characteristic of learner-centered instruction,

improves students’ efforts to achieve, interpersonal relationships, and psychological

health (Whitener, 2016, p.232). Although teacher-centered strategies are the norm in

most music classes, using LCTS can help students truly understand the art of music.

The benefits of LCTS are not exclusively in academic achievement. These

strategies can assist the teacher in creating a learning community within their classroom.
 46
In a study by Chen (2016), the learner-centered strategy of a flipped classroom was an

intervention method in a high school health classroom. In a flipped classroom, students

do most of the reading, learning, and lectures at home by video; however, in class, time

was spent on the application of the lesson and collaboration with other students and the

teacher (Chen, 2016). Although there were no significant differences in the academic

outcomes in this study, Chen (2016) found that more group discussion occurred, and

students practiced their skills with immediate feedback from the instructor. Lee and Kim

(2018), who found that the flipped classroom model supported a student-centered

learning environment and developed a community of inquiring students, also supported

this finding. LCTS improve academic achievement and they have additional benefits that

enhance the community of a classroom.

Secondary education content areas have varying goals for their subject. In social

studies, the goal is to develop students into informed, democratic citizens (Saye,

Stoddard, Gerwin, Libresco, & Maddox, 2018). LCTS lead to the development of such

citizens. To accomplish this, teaching and learning require the construction of knowledge,

rigorous inquiry, complex explanations, and student products presented to the community

(Saye et al., 2018). In a study of 62 social studies classrooms, Saye et al. (2018) found

that most classrooms did not feature these characteristics in teaching and learning.

The goal for secondary educators of history is to make the subject relevant to

present events. History standards outline the importance of students understanding the

past so they can make decisions about the future (Van Straaten et al., 2016).

Unfortunately, research shows that many students consider history largely irrelevant (Van
 47
Straaten et al., 2016). Strategies that make history relevant to students have

characteristics of LCTS. They include teaching with analogies, developing essential

questions (a PBL component), studying themes or narratives longitudinally, and creating

scenarios and using history knowledge to make decisions and predict future outcomes

(Van Straaten et al., 2016). Although the goals of secondary education content areas

differ, what remains consistent is that LCTS can assist educators in obtaining those goals.

Teacher Preparation

Effective teacher preparation is important to the longevity of teachers in the

classroom. The better prepared a teacher is at the start of their career, the longer they will

stay in the profession (Darling-Hammond, Furger, Shields, & Sutcher, 2016; Podolsky,

Kini, Bishop & Darling-Hammond, 2016). Teachers who have not completed a teacher

preparation program are 2 to 3 times more likely to quit teaching than those who finished

a teacher preparation program before teaching (Darling-Hammond et al., 2016).

According to research, one of the 5 major factors that influence teachers’ decisions to

remain in the profession is preparation (Podolsky et al., 2016). An important component

of that preparation is in classroom management. Coursework in classroom management is

part of most teacher preparation programs. Although student engagement is a primary

goal of effective classroom management, teachers do not always associate their teaching

strategies to student behavior (Timor, 2015). Teachers who use “differentiated,

diversified, and interesting instructional methods” create a positive classroom

environment (Timor, 2015, p. 47). Teachers who use LCTS create a climate of

engagement and, ultimately, a well-managed classroom.

 48
Although LCTS were taught in most teacher preparation programs, many

preservice teachers do not subscribe to student-centered pedagogy. In a study on

pedagogy and preservice teachers, Sendurur (2018) found that most preservice teachers

used both student-centered and teacher-centered strategies, no one used student-centered

strategies alone, and a few used teacher-centered strategies solely. In that same study,

students with teacher-centered beliefs expressed how hard it was to maintain control of

the class and gain attention (Sendurur, 2018). That study supports the findings by Timor

(2015) that LCTS leads to better classroom management.

Novice and preservice teachers experience a disconnect between their knowledge

and use of LCTS, but there are ways to increase implementation of these strategies.

Studies indicated that preservice teachers need more exposure to LCTS in their teacher

preparation programs to successfully implement these strategies in their classrooms

(Scarrow, 2017; Sendurur, 2018). The most helpful resources for new teachers are

support from school administrators, adequate resources, and mentors (Edwards, 2017;

Kelly et al., 2015). Preservice teachers benefit from repeated exposure to LCTS through

the support of school administrators.

Novice Teachers

Many novice teachers have difficulty executing the strategies they learned in their

teacher preparation program once they get into their classroom. Many novice teachers

experience a disconnect between what they learned in their teacher preparation programs

and their experiences as a novice teacher (Edwards, 2017; Kelly et al., 2015). Kennedy

(1999) called the phenomenon of novice teachers abandoning their ambitious

 49
instructional ideals when faced with the realities of the classroom is called the “problem

of enactment” (as cited in Zimmerman, 2017). Although teacher preparation programs

include LCTS in their curriculum, using these strategies proves difficult once the

preservice teachers become novice teachers.

Veteran teachers are not the only ones who have difficulty carrying out LCTS in

their practices. Novice teachers can identify the characteristics of a learner-centered

classroom; however, they have difficulty in consistently using them in their classrooms

(Scarrow, 2017). Scarrow’s (2017) findings indicated that preservice teachers need more

exposure to learner-centered pedagogy to more fully enact them in their classrooms as

novice teachers.

The experiences a teacher has during their first year in the classroom can

determine the longevity of their career. First-year teachers reported stress, lack of

support, and feeling unprepared to deal with the academic and behavior problems with

their students (Darling-Hammond et al., 2016; Kelly et al., 2015; Timor, 2015). A

primary goal in classroom management is active student engagement. In a study by

Timor (2015), 80% of novice teachers indicated their preference toward using a student-

centered approach to classroom management, which included problem-solving strategies

and peer mediation, although they did not perceive their teaching to effective classroom

management. Novice teachers who used LCTS found it easier to keep students engaged,

thus having fewer classroom management problems (Edwards, 2017).

In addition to engaging students, novice teachers must respond to the differences

in their students. Novice teachers do not always feel prepared to meet the various needs
 50
of all their students (Smets, 2017; Subban & Round, 2015). Although they may have

learned about the learner-centered teaching strategy of differentiated instruction in their

teacher preparation program, novice teachers need intense professional development to

respond to the differences in their classroom (Smets, 2017). Smets’ (2017) findings

showed that teacher preparation programs and in-service training include a curriculum to

help teachers meet the needs of all their students.

Professional Development

Professional development is a means by which teachers continue to learn about all

aspects of teaching after they have entered the field. Because education is always

changing, teachers must learn about things such as curriculum and new teaching

strategies through professional development programs (Balta & Eryılmaz, 2019). Teacher

professional development is the process of teacher training that increases a teacher’s

subject matter knowledge and skills (Balta & Eryılmaz, 2019; Šimić

Šašić, Šimunić, Ivković, & Ključe, 2018). The purpose of professional development is to

prepare teachers to be effective in their classrooms and, ultimately, increase student

achievement (Balta & Eryılmaz, 2019; Bonghanoy et al., 2019;

Kiemer, Gröschner, Pehmer, & Seidel, 2015; King, 2016).

However, secondary educators often find that professional development is

irrelevant to them. Bonghanoy et al. (2019) found that secondary educators did not deem

professional development useful because it was not specific to their content area and,

therefore, not applicable to their classroom. Effective professional development has

specific characteristics that make it relevant to secondary educators (Balta & Eryılmaz,
 51
2019). First, the professional development must have a content focus with activities

specific to the subject matter. Second, teachers should have the opportunity to observe

expert teachers or be observed by an expert teacher in their content area. To follow up on

these observations, the expert and the teacher have interactive feedback and discussions

on the teaching methods used in the classroom. Similarly, an instructional coach helps

less experienced teachers by using demonstrations, observations, and conversations with

the new teachers as they implement new curriculum and teaching strategies. Another

characteristic of effective professional development is coherence, the extent to which

professional development training is consistent with teachers’ knowledge and beliefs. If

teachers do not have an adequate background in the topic or do not believe in what was

presented in the professional development, the training will not be effective. Finally,

professional development must be offered in a sustained and intensive manner, giving the

teachers adequate and immediate opportunities to practice the new skills they have

learned from professional development. Through the effective use of professional

development, secondary educators can use new knowledge to increase student success.

Summary and Conclusions

This literature review provided a background to the study of the perceptions of

secondary educators on LCTS and what support they need to use such strategies. The

review of literature provided themes on LCTS, teacher-centered strategies, what

strategies were used in secondary content areas, teacher preparation in LCTS, the support

novice teachers need to implement these strategies in their practice, and professional

development. There are many benefits to learner-centered teaching strategies. Students

 52
play an active role in the learning process, engaging the students in the active

construction of knowledge. These strategies increase student motivation and engagement

significantly. Teachers who use these strategies act as facilitator and shift the

responsibility of learning to the students. If students lack background knowledge or skills,

LCTS are less effective.

Teacher-centered strategies include those where the teacher acts as the primary

source of knowledge and controls the environment. Students are passive learners and

show lower levels of creative thinking and collaboration skills. This type of instruction

does not engage students to the level of LCTS, but students will learn with a well-

designed lesson if they have the necessary prior knowledge.

Secondary educators across all content areas use mostly teacher-centered

strategies. The lecture is the primary teaching method among secondary educators

(Mahmood & Iqbal, 2018). Science teachers who used LCTS were more likely to stay

teaching over 3 years. Math teachers occasionally use LCTS, such as in-class problem

solving and discussions, to enhance learning. However, most math teachers who tried to

implement these strategies consistently failed to do so. Some English secondary

educators used project-based learning, a learner-centered strategy, and doing so improved

writing skills more so than those who used traditional teaching methods. Music classes

tend to be teacher-centered because the conductor/teacher controls all aspects of learning

music, not allowing students to become independent musicians who deeply understand

the art of music. Finally, physical education teachers found those who used LCTS were

able to get their students to participate in physical education.

 53
Learner-centered teaching strategies were taught in most teacher preparation

programs. However, preservice teachers have difficulty implementing these strategies in

their practicum experiences. Researchers agree that teacher preparation programs need to

place more emphasis on LCTS. When students graduate from a teacher preparation

program, they continue to have difficulty implementing LCTS as novice teachers.

Support from school administrators and effective professional development help novice

teachers implement LCTS in their classrooms.

The literature review revealed that most secondary educators do not use learner-

centered teaching strategies. What is not known is why this is, and the perceptions

secondary educators have on LCTS. This study will attempt to fill the gap in the literature

and knowledge on the perceptions of secondary educators related to LCTS.

 54
Chapter 3: Research Method

The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate how secondary educators are

using LCTS in their instruction and what support they need to use such strategies. The

findings of this research may contribute to the national conversation, as well as to

secondary schools, by looking closer at the strategies used by secondary teachers and

determining if they apply their knowledge of LCTS in their classrooms. This goal was

accomplished by studying secondary teachers from a high school in a Midwestern city.

Current research reports the need for further investigation into the underlying reasons for

discrepancies between knowledge and skills of secondary educators regarding LCTS

(Kaymakamoglu, 2018). Also, researchers reported the need for the development of

effective teacher training in the adoption of LCTS (Kaymakamoglu, 2018; Onurkan

Aliusta & Özer, 2017). This dissertation may contribute to the field by investigating these

issues further.

This chapter begins with the research questions, design, and rationale. It also

includes my role as the researcher and any biases or ethical issues that could affect the

study. Also, this chapter identifies the data collection instrument and any other sources of

data used to sufficiently answer the research questions. The chapter concludes with a

description of the internal and external validity of the study, in addition to ethical

procedures that were followed.

Research Design and Rationale

For this study, the researcher used the research tradition of a basic qualitative

design that focused on secondary teachers' use of LCTS in their classrooms. The rationale
 55
for choosing a basic qualitative design was because the purpose of this dissertation was to

investigate the phenomena of LCTS and secondary educators’ perceptions about them.

According to Ravitch and Carl (2016), qualitative research is the study of phenomena,

and the attempt to make sense of them through the meaning people bring to them (p. 8).

Qualitative research can also be described as a way to understand how people “cope in

their real-world settings” (Yin, 2016, p. 3). Also, Yin (2016) listed 5 features of

qualitative research:

1. Studying the meaning of people’s lives, in their real-world roles;

2. Representing the views and perspectives of the people in a study;

3. Explicitly attending to and accounting for real-world contextual conditions;

4. Contributing insights from existing or new concepts that may help to explain

social behavior and thinking; and

5. Acknowledging the potential relevance of multiple sources of evidence rather

than relying on a single source alone. (p. 9)

This study contained elements of all 5 of Yin’s (2016) features. The purpose of this study

was to gather data on the experiences of teachers in the use of LCTS in their role as

secondary educators (features 1 and 2). The third feature of Yin’s (2016) list was

represented by the delimitations of this study, in that the study site was a secondary

school in the Midwest, which took into account the institutional and environmental

conditions of the site where the participants experienced their real-life roles as secondary

educators. The results of this study added to the existing research on LCTS, thus fulfilling

Yin’s (2016) fourth element. Finally, this study collected data from 12 participants,
 56
which Yin (2016) described as valuable because collecting data from a variety of sources

that adds value to qualitative research.

The researcher developed the following research questions about the phenomena,

conceptual framework, problem, and purpose of this study:

RQ1. How are secondary educators using LCTS in their classrooms?

RQ2. What support do secondary teachers perceive to need to use LCTS in their

classrooms?

The central phenomenon of this qualitative study was the use of LCTS by

secondary educators. LCTS are teaching methods in which the instructor is a facilitator,

and the focus is on the students and what they are learning (Bailey & Colley, 2015;

Weimer, 2013). A learner-centered approach to teaching encourages students to be self-

motivated and independent learners (Bailey & Colley, 2015; Weimer, 2013). Arseven et

al. (2016) described the basic principles of learner-centered education as those in which

students were included in decisions regarding their learning and how they were assessed;

students’ interests, backgrounds, abilities, and experiences are valued; and, each student

is a partner in the teaching and learning process. The researcher used qualitative research

methods to explore how secondary educators used LCTS in their classrooms. Also, the

researcher explored teacher perceptions about the support they needed to use these

strategies in their classrooms.

Role of the Researcher

The role of the researcher is central to qualitative research. Ravitch and Carl

(2016) claimed the importance comes from the researcher’s role as the primary
 57
positionality and reflexivity during the entire research study (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Positionality refers to the researcher’s role in the context of the study, such as the

relationship with the participants and the setting for the study (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). For

this study, the author was the sole researcher. The researcher’s role included contacting

the secondary school administrators for approval to interview their teachers and to secure

the e-mail addresses of the school’s teachers. Also, the researcher contacted secondary

educators as participants and collected, recorded, transcribed, analyzed, and stored data

for this research study. The researcher was a former secondary science teacher and

principal at the school where data was collected. There was a potential for professional

relationships with participants as some of the teachers were former colleagues. The

researcher is currently a professor of education at a local university where some of the

participants are current or graduate students. It had been over 3 years since the researcher

was principal at said high school, so the participants no longer viewed the researcher in a

supervisory role. The researcher did not interview participants who were current graduate

students in her courses.

Ethical issues that could have arisen were the participants’ perceived power

differential based on past teacher-principal relationships and student-professor

relationships. The researcher managed this potential ethical issue by reminding the

participants that the researcher was asking the questions for research purposes only and

not to evaluate their performance as teachers. To create transparency, the researcher

informed participants of the goal of the research, the expectations of the participants, the

process and timeline for the interviews, the anonymity of their role as a participant, and
 58
who would be able to access the results of the study (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). It is

important to recognize bias in the role of a researcher. Yin (2016) stated that the

conversational nature of qualitative research interviews could lead to the researcher

ignoring comments that are not a formal part of the interview. The researcher anticipated

when it might be tempting to exclude comments made by the participants and ensured the

inclusion of such comments in the data analysis (Yin, 2016). Bias can also occur in the

form of deficit orientation, where the researcher views the participants as lacking in

knowledge or skill (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). To prevent deficit orientation, the researcher

reminded the participants that they were the experts in their own experiences and the ones

who hold the wisdom (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

Methodology

The methodology for this study was a basic qualitative design. The population for

this study was full-time secondary educators from a secondary school in the Midwest,

with varying years of experience and having graduated from different teacher preparation

programs. The sample size was 12 participants chosen from a staff of approximately 20

teachers. The data collection instrument was one-to-one qualitative interviewing of the

participants. The researcher recorded the interviews using the Rev app, then sent the

recordings to Rev to be transcribed. The researcher created themes and codes using

NVivo data analysis software and completed the analysis of the data.

Participant Selection

The sample population for this study was full-time secondary educators teaching

in a secondary school in the Midwest. This study employed a purposeful sampling

 59
strategy. The justification for using purposeful sampling was that it allowed the

researcher to deliberately select individuals who could answer the study’s research

questions because they were secondary educators teaching in a school in proximity to the

researcher (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The participant site selection was a local secondary

school in the Midwest. The site selection was relevant to the researcher because of the

proximity and availability of the faculty.

The criteria for selecting participants was that they were full-time educators at a

Midwest secondary school with varying years of experience and having graduated from

different undergraduate teacher preparation programs. Also, the study included

participants from various content areas. The researcher established that the participants

met the criteria by confirming with the principal of the participating teachers.

The sample size for this study was 12 secondary education teachers purposively

selected from a staff of approximately 20 teachers from a secondary school in a

Midwestern city. The researcher achieved data saturation by asking the same interview

questions of each of the participants, and when there was no new data nor themes that

emerged (Fusch & Ness, 2015). The researcher identified participants with the assistance

of the school’s principal, who knew the criteria and which teachers met those criteria.

Participants were contacted and recruited via their school e-mail, provided by the

principal, inviting them to participate in the research study. The researcher explained the

purpose of the study in the email, along with an overview of their role in the study, the

methodology for data collection, and information regarding confidentiality (see Appendix

B).
 60
Instrumentation

The collection instrument for this study was one-to-one qualitative interviews

focused on the research questions of how secondary teachers are using LCTS in their

classrooms, and the support they need to use these strategies in their classrooms.

According to Rubin and Rubin (2012), qualitative interviewing is an appropriate research

tool when a study’s research questions look to examine layers of discovery, as the

research questions for this study exemplify. The researcher recorded the interviews using

the Rev application on an I-phone, which were used to transcribe the interviews and,

ultimately, be the data that was analyzed by the researcher (Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

The researcher developed the data collection instrument and used it to interview

participants within the study (see Table 1) (De Vries et al., 2014; Francis, 2018; Scarrow,

2017). The validity of the content in the data collection instrument was established by

asking university professors trained in validity and reliability to review the interview

questions and, if needed, reword the questions (De Vries et al., 2014; Francis, 2018;

Scarrow, 2017). Based on the feedback of these professors, no changes were deemed

necessary.
 61

Table 1

Research Questions and Interview Questions Used for Data Collection

Research Questions Interview Questions

RQ1. How are secondary 1. How do you define LCTS?

educators using LCTS in 2. Describe pedagogical methods and
their classrooms? instructional practices that support that
definition
3. Would you describe yourself as a student-
centered or teacher-centered educator?
Explain.
4. What experiences during your teacher
education program helped to inform your
definition of teacher-centered teaching?
5. What LCTS are you using in your classroom?
a. Probe: provide an example of how you
use a learner-centered teaching
strategy in your instruction.

RQ2. What support do 1. How much exposure have you had to LCTS in
secondary teachers perceive your teacher preparation program or through
to need to use LCTS in their professional development?
classrooms? 2. How prepared do you feel to apply LCTS in
your instruction?
3. What obstacles have you encountered when
applying LCTS?
4. What support do you feel you need in order to
use LCTS?

Procedures for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Walden University is responsible for

ensuring that all Walden University research complies with the university's ethical

standards as well as U.S. federal regulations (Walden University, 2018). The researcher
 62
obtained ethics approval for a doctoral study from Walden University’s IRB before

recruiting participants and collecting data for the study. The researcher followed the IRB-

approved procedures for recruitment, participation, and data collection.

Recruitment

After receiving IRB approval, the researcher contacted the selected secondary

school principal to request permission to conduct the study with the school’s faculty.

Preliminary conversations had already been in progress between the researcher and

school administrators before the start of the study. The administration expressed approval

about the idea of participating in the study as the study’s purpose aligned with the

school’s improvement goals (High School Assistant Principal, personal communication,

January 16, 2019).

The procedures for participant recruitment of this study was that the researcher

contacted the principal of the chosen site, a secondary school in a Midwestern city. The

researcher requested the names and school email addresses of all faculty that met the

criteria of the study. After obtaining a list of names, the researcher emailed each faculty

members with information about the purpose of the study, an overview of their role in the

study, the methodology in which data was to be collected, and information regarding

confidentiality.

Participation

For this study, the researcher anticipated needing between 12 and 15 participants

to reach data saturation, and 12 interviews accomplished data saturation (Fusch & Ness,

2015). The researcher requested in the email that if the faculty member was willing to
 63
participate in the study, they send a response expressing their interest in participating in

the study. Twelve teachers responded within a few days of the researcher sending out the

email, and all twelve of those respondents participated in the study. After the data

collection was underway, another teacher expressed willingness to participate, but the

researcher did not, ultimately, need that teacher for the study. After receiving emails

expressing interest, the researcher contacted the teachers via email, welcomed them, and

explained the process of the study, and asked if they have any questions. Informed

consent was obtained by emailing the consent form to those identified by the school’s

administration as meeting the participant criteria. See Appendix D for Informed Consent

form.

Data Collection

The locations of the interviews were all chosen by the participants, which ended

up being in their classrooms. The researcher set up an interview time, in advance, with

each participant and met them in their classrooms at the agreed-upon time. The frequency

of data collection events (interviews) was one interview per study participant, although

participants could contact the researcher with additional information by the end of the

week interviews took place. A responsive interviewing style of qualitative interview was

employed by the researcher, with the researcher devising additional questions during the

interview to obtain depth and detail to the participants’ responses (Ravitch & Carl, 2016;

Rubin & Rubin, 2012).

The duration of the interviews was no longer than a half-hour, which the

researcher explained to the participants at the onset of the interviews. Setting a time limit
 64
on the interview showed respect for the participants (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The

researcher recorded the interviews using Rev, an Apple application, which also produced

a written transcript of the interview. The researcher had used this application before and

found it easy to use, and it provided an accurate transcript of a conversation. It also

provided a convenient location for storing both the audio recording and transcript, in the

event, the researcher desired repeated interactions with the recording and transcript.

Ravitch and Carl (2016) stressed the importance of researchers discussing the use of such

technology and possible issues that could arise with the research participants.

Researchers must also have a plan in case the data are compromised (Ravitch & Carl,

2016).

Data Analysis Plan

According to Levitt et al. (2018), data analysis strategies may include

interpretation, unitization, coding, and eidetic analysis in a qualitative study. The data

collection for this study consisted of 12 interviews with the participants. Each interview

question was developed by the researcher and aligned to the research questions. The

connection of the interview questions to each specific research question is demonstated in

Table 1 (see Appendix A). The interview protocol are included in Appendix C.

The first research question for this study was: How are secondary educators using LCTS

in their classrooms? The data for this research question was collected by asking the study

participants how they defined LCTS, their description of LCTS, and what types of LCTS

they were using in their classrooms. The second research question was: What support do

secondary educators perceive to need to use LCTS in their classrooms? The researcher
 65
collected data for RQ2 by asking participants about their exposure to LCTS in their

teacher preparation programs and professional development they had participated in since

becoming a licensed teacher. The researcher also asked them to share what specific types

of support they needed to use LCTS in their classrooms.

Saldaña (2016) pointed out that coding is one way to analyze data and is the

method the researcher plans to use to analyze data from the qualitative interviews with

the participants of this study. For this qualitative study, the researcher analyzed data at

two levels. At the first level, the data from the interviews and field notes were analyzed

using in vivo coding that Saldaña (2016) recommended for qualitative research. The first

cycle of coding involved the selection of direct language used by the participants that

reflected their overall response to the interview questions. These were either single words

or short phrases identified in the transcripts. Key words and phrases were highlighted in

the transcripts as the first round of in vivo coding and transcribed onto a Microsoft Word

document (see Appendix E).

The second cycle of coding involved pattern coding, where the researcher used

the frequency of words and phrases from the first cycle to identify patterns (Saldaña,

2016). A pattern emerged when the word or phrase occurred more frequently than others.

The researcher developed these patterns into themes. The researcher used NVivo 12 Plus

qualitative data analysis software to organize the data and as a means of inter-rater

reliability for the creation of codes, categories, and themes. The codes, categories, and

themes created by the researcher and the NVivo 12 Plus qualitative analysis software
 66
were similar and verified for validity and reliability by a statistics professor at a local

university.

The researcher used in vivo coding for the data analysis of the transcribed

interviews. Using in vivo coding, the researcher used words and short phrases from the

interview transcripts to identify patterns (Saldaña, 2016). When the researcher identified

patterns during the process of coding, categories began to emerge. Categories are groups

of codes based on “similarity and regularity” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 9). As the researcher

created categories from the coding process, themes emerged from the transcript data.

Themes are summary statements that show a relationship between two or more categories

(Rubin & Rubin, 2012). In addition to examining themes, the researcher analyzed

discrepant data to support alternative explanations that challenged the emerging themes.

According to Merriam and Tisdell (2015), researchers look for the preponderance of

evidence, and the discrepant cases can disconfirm or challenge the emerging findings.

Trustworthiness

In qualitative research, trustworthiness is also known as validity and refers to how

researchers assure their findings truly represent the participants’ experiences (Bloomberg

& Volpe, 2019; Ravitch & Carl, 2016). One way a researcher can ensure trustworthiness

is through credibility, which can be described as the accuracy of how the researcher

presented the phenomena (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The procedures in this study supported

trustworthiness, validity, and credibility by using the strategy of saturation in data

collection, establishing relationships, researcher reflexivity, member checks, and peer

debriefing.
 67
The researcher used the strategies of data saturation, establishing relationships

with participants, reflexivity, and member checks to achieve credibility. The researcher

achieved data saturation by asking the same interview questions of all 12 participants,

and when no new data and themes emerged, data saturation was achieved (Fusch & Ness,

2015). The researcher formed a relationship of trust and confidence by introducing

herself to the participants, describing the purpose of the study, asking questions without

showing judgment to the answers, and showing empathy when appropriate (Rubin &

Rubin, 2012). Finally, to combat the threat to validity, member checks, also known as

respondent validation, were employed (Ravitch & Carl, 2016; Yin, 2016). The researcher

emailed all 12 participants the themes and codes that resulted from data analysis and

asked for their feedback (Ravitch & Carl, 2016; Yin, 2016). Eight of the participants

responded with their acknowledgment that the themes and codes accurately represented

their input from the interviews. The other 4 participants did not respond to the request.

The extent to which the results of this study can be applied to a broader

population was established through purposeful sampling and thick descriptions of the

participants’ experiences (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The

researcher selected participants who were full-time educators at a Midwest secondary

school with varying years of experience and having graduated from different

undergraduate teacher preparation programs. Also, participants from various content

areas participated in the study. The participants provided thick, rich descriptions of their

experiences as supported by the average word count for each interview, which was

approximately 1,600 words per interview. The researcher used detailed information
 68
regarding the findings from the interviews so that readers of the study can make

comparisons with other similar contexts (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019).

The researcher ensured the dependability of the study by adhering to the entire

research process, including the purpose, research questions, research design, participant

selection, data analysis, and reporting the findings (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). A journal

was kept as an audit trail to ensure dependability by ensuring that the researcher regularly

reflected on the research activities and experiences during the research process

(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). The researcher used the journal as part of the data analysis

process to establish the dependability of the research findings.

The researcher of this study established confirmability by eliminating bias and

subjectivity from the interview and data analysis processes of the study (Bloomberg &

Volpe, 2019). Also, the researcher used reflexivity to understand how the researcher’s

assumptions impacted the analysis of the study’s findings. The researcher reminded the

participants of the researcher’s current role as a researcher and not as a former principal

or faculty member. Researcher reflexivity was an ongoing process throughout the study

with the researcher reminding the participants of the role as researcher, not former

teacher or principal of the school. Also, the researcher listened to the recording of each

interview upon completion to evaluate the researcher’s listening skills and comments

made during the interview. A research journal was also maintained and reviewed during

the entirety of the interview process.

 69
Ethical Procedures

To gain access to the selected research site and participants, the researcher

obtained approval from Walden University’s IRB (approval number 01-02-20-0729502).

The researcher ethically conducted this study, ensuring the anonymity and confidentiality

of the participants. Anonymity was maintained by identifying participants by an alpha-

numerical value (N1 – N12). Ethical issues that could have arisen are the participants’

perceived power differential based on past teacher-principal relationships and student-

professor relationships. The researcher managed this potential ethical issue by reminding

the participants that the researcher was asking the questions for research purposes only

and not to evaluate their performance as teachers. To create transparency, the researcher

informed the participants about the goal of the research, the expectations of the

participants, the process and timeline for the interviews, the anonymity of their role as a

participant, and who would be able to access the results of the study upon completion

(Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The researcher also reminded the participants that they could

withdraw from the study at any time. Although the researcher had been a principal of

some of the participants in the past, the participants were reminded that the relationship

no longer existed and that identifying information would not be included in the results of

the study.

The treatment of data collected and noted documentation for the study will be

locked in a file in the researcher’s home for 5 years after completion of the study. The

keys for the file can only be accessed by the researcher. Electronic files, such as

transcripts, codes, themes, and consents, are stored in software requiring passwords for
 70
access. These passwords are only known to the researcher. The researcher has sole access

to the locked file and software, maintaining the confidentiality of the participants.

Summary

The purpose of this dissertation was to investigate how secondary educators are

using LCTS in their instruction and what support they need to use such strategies. The

central phenomenon of this qualitative study was the use of LCTS by secondary

educators. The researcher used qualitative research methods to explore how secondary

educators were using LCTS in their classrooms. The researcher’s role included contacting

the secondary school administrators for approval to interview their teachers. Also, the

researcher contacted secondary educators as participants and collected, recorded,

transcribed, analyzed, and stored data for this research study. The methodology for this

study was a basic qualitative design, with the population being full-time secondary

educators from a secondary school in the Midwest. The sample size for this study was 12

secondary education teachers purposively selected from a staff of approximately 20

teachers from a secondary school in a Midwestern city. The collection instrument for this

study was one-to-one qualitative interviews that focused on the research questions of how

secondary teachers are using LCTS in their classrooms, and the support they needed to

use these strategies in their classrooms. The researcher obtained ethics approval for a

doctoral study from Walden University’s IRB before recruiting participants and

collecting data for the study. The researcher established trustworthiness by achieving data

saturation, using thick descriptions, creating trusting relationships with the participants of

the study, maintaining reflexivity, and utilizing member checks. Ethical procedures
 71
included obtaining IRB approval from Walden University and maintaining anonymity

and confidentiality of the participants. Data from the study will be secured and remain in

possession of the researcher for 5 years after the completion of the study.
 72
Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this study was to investigate how secondary educators were using

LCTS in their instruction and what support they needed to use such strategies. The key

components to learner-centered teaching strategies include (a) the role of the teacher as

facilitator, (b) the balance of power shifting toward the students, (c) the function of

content as being uncovered versus covered, (d) the responsibility of learning being

primarily on the students, and (e) using evaluations for learning rather than for grades

(Weimer, 2013). Secondary educators from a high school in the Midwest described their

understanding and experiences about LCTS through in-depth interviews to provide

insights on the following research questions.

RQ1. How are secondary educators using LCTS in their classrooms?

RQ2. What support do secondary teachers perceive to need to use LCTS in their

classrooms?

This chapter contains a description of the results of the study, in addition to the

methodology of the study, the setting of the study and data collection procedures. It also

includes a thorough explanation of how the data was analyzed, the results of the study,

and the evidence of trustworthiness. In addition, a summary of the answers to the

research questions is provided.

Setting

The researcher conducted this study with 12 secondary educators from a high

school in the United States Upper Midwest. This school was chosen to be the site of the

study because of the proximity to the researcher and the past connections between the
 73
researcher and the school (researcher as former teacher and administrator). The school, in

existence since 1916, enrolled 341 students in grades 9-12 for the 2019-2020 school year.

Demographics

The faculty included 24 full- and part-time teachers at the time of the study. The

participant pool included teachers with varying years of experience, teaching in various

content areas, and graduates from a variety of universities’ teacher preparation programs.

The participants’ years of experience ranged from one year to over 30 years, with half the

participants having more than ten years of experience and half having less than ten years

of experience. The teachers who participated each taught in their licensed content areas of

English/Language Arts, Social Studies, Mathematics, Science, Foreign Languages,

Business, and Religion. Most of the participants had graduated from teacher preparation

programs at public and private universities within the state of the study’s school location.

Eight of the participants were female, and 4 were male.

At the time of the study, the entire faculty of the school was participating in their

second year of professional development on incorporating project-based learning (PBL)

in their classrooms. The program used for this professional development was Cultivate

21, whose mission is to provide educators with the tools to meet the needs of 21st Century

learners (Cultivate 21). Cultivate 21’s professional development encourages educators to

use the 4 C’s (critical thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity) to make

learning real and relevant using projects, activities, and life lessons (Cultivate 21). The

purpose of this study, to investigate how secondary educators were using LCTS in their

instruction and what support they needed to use such strategies aligned with the school’s
 74
continuous improvement goal to have teachers incorporate more LCTS in their

instruction.

Recruitment Process

The total number of invitations to participate in the study was 19, which was the

number of full-time teachers at the school during the study. The researcher sent

invitations to potential participants using the Participant Recruitment email (see

Appendix B). Twelve teachers agreed to participate in the study, one teacher responded

later in the study expressing willingness to participate, and 6 did not respond to the

invitation. All 12 participants preferred to be interviewed in their classrooms so that is

where the interviews were conducted. The participants chose the interview times, which

was during one of their preparation periods, with the exception of two interviews, one

which was during the teacher’s lunch and the other after school.

Data Collection

The procedures for the data collection complied with the Walden University IRB

guidelines (approval number 01-02-20-0729502). The researcher also gained permission

from the school’s principal to conduct the study. After receiving permission to conduct

the study, the researcher obtained a list of potential participants with email addresses

from the principal of the study site. After receiving the list, the researcher contacted all

potential participants via email. The original intent of the number of participants for the

study was 12 – 15, depending on when data saturation was reached. Participant

recruitment and data collection began immediately after obtaining IRB approval. The

researcher sent invitations to 19 teachers at the high school asking them to participate in
 75
the study. Twelve teachers responded to the email and expressed interest in participating

in the study. The researcher emailed these teachers a consent form asking them to read it

over carefully and if they were still willing to participate, respond in an email with “I

consent.” All twelve teachers consented and agreed to participate in the study, one

teacher responded after the interviews concluded and expressed a willingness to

participate, and 6 did not respond to the invitation. All 12 participants chose to interview

in their classrooms at the school, which is where the researcher conducted the interviews.

In face-to-face interviews, the participants were asked the same 9 questions (see

Appendix C), with probing or clarifying questions asked when necessary. The researcher

achieved data saturation with 12 participants.

Interview Process

At the beginning of each interview, the researcher reminded the participants of the

purpose of the study and that they were free, at any time, to stop the interview for any

reason. The researcher informed participants that the interviews would be no more than

30 minutes in length and asked if they had any questions before the interview started.

With the consent of the participants, the researcher recorded interviews using the Rev

application on the researcher’s phone. In addition to recording the interviews, the

researcher created field notes throughout each interview. The interviews lasted between 6

minutes and 20 minutes, with the average interview time being approximately 15

minutes. The shortest interview (6 minutes) was at the end of the school day on a Friday.

Conducting the interview on a Friday afternoon, in addition to that day being the

participants’ child’s birthday, may have influenced the short responses given by the
 76
participant. In another interview, the participant was not feeling well, which may have

affected the responses. During the other ten interviews, there were no personal nor

organizational conditions that appeared to influence the participants or their experience at

the time of the study. The researcher conducted the interviews during the participants’

planning period, during lunch, or after school on two separate days during the same

week.

Interview questions. There were 9 open-ended interview questions designed to

engage participants in a dialogue focused on discovering their experiences on how they

are using learner-centered teaching strategies and what support they need to use these

strategies. The interview began with the researcher asking the participants if they had any

questions about the informed consent they had agreed to by email, or any other questions

about the interview process. The researcher reminded the participants that the interview

would take no longer than a half hour and they were free to stop the interview at any time

and for any reason. Participants were also reminded that the researcher was the only

person to the recordings and that they would be deleted after the transcription process

was completed. The researcher asked participants general questions about their years of

experience, the content area in which they taught, and how many years ago they had

graduated from a teacher preparation program. Table 2 presents the two research

questions and 9 interview questions associated with each.

 77
Table 2

Research Questions and Interview Questions Used for Data Collection

Research Questions Interview Questions

RQ1. How are secondary 1. How do you define LCTS?

educators using LCTS in 2. Describe pedagogical methods and
their classrooms? instructional practices that support that
definition
3. Would you describe yourself as a student-
centered or teacher-centered educator?
Explain.
4. What experiences during your teacher
education program helped to inform your
definition of teacher-centered teaching?
5. What LCTS are you using in your classroom?
a. Probe: provide an example of how you
use a learner-centered teaching
strategy in your instruction.

RQ2. What support do 6. How much exposure have you had to LCTS in
secondary teachers perceive your teacher preparation program or through
to need to use LCTS in their professional development?
classrooms? 7. How prepared do you feel to apply LCTS in
your instruction?
8. What obstacles have you encountered when
applying LCTS?
9. What support do you feel you need in order to
use LCTS?
 78
Data Analysis

After completing the interview, the data analysis phase started by having the

interview recordings transcribed by the Rev transcription service. Rev is an Apple

application audio recording and transcription service, with a guaranteed turnaround time

of fewer than 12 hours with 99% accuracy of the transcriptions. In vivo and pattern

coding, in addition to the qualitative data analysis software, NVivo (version 12), was

used to delineate emergent themes.

Organizing the Data

Upon completion of the transcripts, which was less than two hours from

submitting the audio recordings, interview transcripts were reviewed for accuracy by the

researcher using field notes and audio recordings of the interviews. The researcher broke

down the responses in the transcripts into codes, categories, and themes (Saldaña, 2016).

Each transcript was read in its entirety, then it was read again, and key words and phrases

were highlighted. Recurring words and phrases structured the emergent themes. In Vivo

coding was used because it revealed the ontologies that address the participants’ reality

(Saldaña, 2016). The research questions for this study aligned with this type of coding

because they are ontological questions, addressing the participants’ perceptions about

LCTS (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The researcher coded the responses and transformed the

raw data into a collection of themes that represented the experiences of the secondary

educators’ use of learner-centered teaching strategies.

 79
Data Coding

Coding is one way to analyze data and is the method used by the researcher to

analyze data from the qualitative interviews with the participants of this study (Saldaña,

2016). For this qualitative study, the researcher analyzed data at two levels. At the first

level, the data from the interviews and field notes were analyzed using in vivo coding that

Saldaña (2016) recommended for qualitative research. During the second level of data

analysis, the researcher used pattern coding to identify the frequency of words and

phrases (Saldaña, 2016).

In Vivo coding. The first cycle of coding involved the selection of direct

language used by the participants that reflected their overall response to the interview

questions. These were either single words or short phrases identified in the transcripts.

The reasearcher highlighted key words and phrases in the transcripts as the first round of

in vivo coding. These keywords and phrases were put into a document and listed by

interview questions (see Appendix E).

Pattern coding. The second cycle of coding involved pattern coding, where the

researcher used the frequency of words and phrases from the first cycle to identify

patterns (Saldaña, 2016). The researcher created spreadsheets with the codes in columns

and the participants’ identifier in rows. The researcher made an “x” in under each code in

the transcripts. A pattern emerged when the word or phrase occurred more frequently

than others, which was identified by the totals at the bottom of each code’s column (see

Appendix F). The researcher used these patterns to develop themes.

 80
The researcher used NVivo 12 Plus qualitative data analysis software to organize

the data and for inter-rater reliability in the creation of codes, categories, and themes. The

software created nodes, which were used to identify emergent themes. The passages that

were identified as nodes were compared to the researcher’s themes and used to create

tables. Interview questions 1-7 answered RQ1 and interview questions 8, and 9 answered

RQ2. Themes were grouped by research question and placed in a spreadsheet, which the

researcher converted into a table in Microsoft Word (see Appendix F). Transcripts, codes,

and themes were reviewed, again, in the context of each interview and research question.

The researcher analyzed the data throughout the interview process, and, as a

result, determined that data saturation occurred after interviewing 12 participants.

Therefore, it was not necessary to interview any additional participants, as was proposed

in the original number of 12-15 participants. The researcher reached data saturation

earlier than the 12th interview but determined that it would be beneficial to complete all

twelve interviews in the event the data did not sufficiently answer each interview

question.

Results

The results of this study yielded insights on how teachers are using LCTS and the

support they needed to implement these strategies. From the broadest perspective,

teachers believed students should have ownership of their learning, and their role, as a

teacher, was to be a guide in the learning process. More specifically, teachers gave

examples of the LCTS they used, such as PBL’s, discussions, debates, student-choice

activities, and using online resources.

 81
In response to RQ2, participants identified content-specific professional

development as a resource that would assist them in using LCTS. Content-specific

training through AP, NMSI, NEED, and STEM was recognized as effective professional

development because they gave specific strategies according to the teachers’ content

areas. Participants also identified peer observations and mentoring as a resource they felt

would help them effectively use LCTS in their classrooms.

Themes for RQ1

The first research question for this study was: How are secondary educators using

LCTS in their classrooms? In order to answer this question, the researcher asked the

participants to define LCTS and describe instructional practices that supported that

definition. Also, the researcher asked participants if they identified as being learner-

centered or teacher-centered educators. Finally, the researcher asked participants what

LCTS they used in their classroom and how prepared they felt to use LCTS. The themes

that emerged for the first research question were student ownership, teacher as facilitator,

engaged learners, PBL, student choice, active learning, online resources, practicum, and

student teaching, and authentic problems.

Student ownership. The participants shared similar beliefs about students having

ownership of their learning by defining LCTS as those strategies in which students were

the owners of their education. Participant N01 stated, “I would define them as having the

students taking ownership of their learning. So, instead of me standing in front saying,

‘This is what you should learn,’ it’s them trying to find it themselves or discover it

themselves”. Participant N04 added, “someone from outside the classroom would see
 82
students as the driver and teacher as more of a tour guide.” Another participant described

LCTS as instruction that was tailored to the students and expressed the reflective

question, “…how much of the day was spent lecturing and how much of the class are

students actively engaged with the material?” (N02). The strategies participants gave as

examples that supported this definition included student-driven questions, ideas,

activities, and assessments. Some participants described activities where students knew

the objectives for the lesson and could choose how to accomplish the objectives.

Teacher as facilitator. Another common component of the definition of LCTS

was that the teacher was a facilitator of learning. Participant N06 stated, “I define them as

the students are doing the most work, and the teacher is there to facilitate.” Participant

N07 added, “I define it as the students take the major role in their learning, and I’m just

there as a guide to point them in the right direction.”

Engaged learners. The third predominant theme to the definition of LCTS was

engaged learners. Participants used phrases such as “engaging with the material,”

“students doing the most work,” and “monitoring their own progress” to describe what

engaged learners are doing when using LCTS in the classroom. Participants gave

examples of engaged learners as when students were involved in PBL’s, student-choice

activities, mock trials, discussions, debates, stations, and using online resources. The

study site school was in its second year of professional development on the

implementation of project-based learning, and PBL was the most used example of LCTS

used in the classroom.

 83
Student-centered instruction. Nine out of twelve participants described

themselves as student-centered teachers or that their goal was to be more student-

centered. Some participants confidently answered that they were student-centered in their

instruction, such as when Participant N08 confidently stated, “I am student-centered, for

sure!”. Others shared that they were working toward being more student-centered.

Participant N01 stated, “I strive to be much more student-centered, but it's been a

process.” Participant N05 added, “I’m progressing more and more towards student-

centered, but I started as teacher-centered.” Although no one claimed to be teacher-

centered in their instruction, some participants acknowledged they were more teacher-

centered than learner-centered. Participant N07 admitted, “I try to be student-centered,

but I’m still more teacher-centered in my instruction.” The other 3 participants described

themselves as both learner-centered and teacher-centered educators. Participant N03

shared, “A lot of my practice is learner-centered, but my instruction also tends to be

teacher-centric.” Also, Participant N04 shared, “my goal is definitely to be student-

centered. some days, it seems I’m more teacher-centered. So, I would say I’m a hybrid.”

Preparation. When the researcher asked participants how prepared they felt to

implement LCTS in their classrooms, half of them felt “prepared,” 5 participants felt

“somewhat prepared,” and one did not feel prepared at all. Many of those who felt

“somewhat prepared” said they were “more confident than in the past” (Participants N01

and N09), “More prepared than when I got out of college” (N05), and “more prepared

than when I started teaching” (N03). The researcher asked participants what experiences

prepared them for using LCTS, considering both teacher preparation and professional
 84
development once they were fully licensed teachers. All but one participant reported

having had exposure to LCTS during professional development. This aligns with the fact

that the study site school was in its second year of PBL training. Four of the 12

participants identified content-specific training such as AP, NMSI, NEED, and STEM as

exposure to LCTS in professional development. Half of the participants did not

remember or recognize learning about LCTS during their teacher preparation programs.

Of note, these participants graduated from their teacher preparation programs more than

10 years ago. The other half of the participants expressed that they learned about these

strategies during practicum and student teaching experiences. Those who had experiences

with LCTS in their teacher preparation program did so primarily in a practicum

experience or during student teaching. Participant N02 shared, “When I went through

student teaching, I got to do a project-based learning opportunity, and that taught me a lot

about tailoring things to students, and how much time lecturing is too much time and

things like that.” Participant N06 added, “One of my [teacher preparation program]

teachers was really good… had a good amount of background on student-centered

[learning]”. Participant N09 responded to what informed her definition of LCTS with,

“… my different practicums”. Five of the 12 participants did not recall learning about

LCTS in their teacher preparation courses. These 5 participants all graduated from their

teacher preparation programs more than 10 years ago.

Themes for RQ2

The second research question was: What support do secondary educators perceive

to need to use LCTS in their classrooms? The researcher asked participants what
 85
obstacles they had encountered when implementing LCTS and what support they needed

to use LCTS. The themes that emerged as a result of the participants’ answers to this

question were content-specific professional development, time and resources, and

collaboration with experts.

Content-specific professional development. The most common response from

participants when asked what support was needed to use LCTS was content-specific

professional development (8 out of 12 participants). Multiple participants discussed the

benefits of participating in programs such as Advanced Placement (AP), National Math

and Science Initiative (NMSI), and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM)

workshops. Participant N01 had participated in several content-specific professional

development sessions and stated, “I had NMSI and AP training… those two pieces of

training changed so much about how I taught and looked at things… and they were

specific to English… and that has been instrumental in helping me become a better

teacher.” Another participant expressed appreciation for the professional development

training but acknowledged struggling on how to incorporate the strategies in a specific

content area. Participant N05 stated that “knowing about them (NMSI, STEM)” is an

obstacle to utilizing the professional development offered by these initiatives. Two

participants added that they were members of Facebook groups whose members shared

content-specific strategies and found their participation in these groups very helpful.

Participant N04 offered an insight into professional development, “Okay, we are given a

broad strategy, but how can I incorporate that into my specific subject matter”?
 86
Time and resources. The theme of time and resources emerged when the

researcher asked participants about the obstacle’s teachers have when they implement

LCTS and what support they need to implement the strategies. Participants wanted more

time to teach (longer class periods or block scheduling) and more time to find resources

for teaching LCTS. Participant N03 stated, “A modified block schedule would allow me

to see students for longer periods a couple of days a week so I could front-load during the

shorter periods and have more activities during the longer periods.” Two participants

explained that they are often asked to substitute teach during their planning periods,

which takes time away from exploring resources that would help them implement more

LCTS.

The participants who thought resources would help support them in their use of

LCTS gave examples such as technology, money, and pre-made resources. A few

participants relayed that not every teacher has access to computers, and those that did

have computers expressed the need for professional development in the effective use of

technology. Other participants defined resources in budgetary terms and referred to

budget constraints as an obstacle to using LCTS.

Collaboration with experts. When asked what support teachers need to

implement LCTS, collaboration with experts emerged as a predominant theme.

Collaboration with experts included mentorship and coaching by other teachers or

experts. Participant N02 stated, “I think it’d be good to have a coach, somebody who is

really well-practiced in employing these strategies.” Participant N05 added, “I had a

really good mentor so that mentorship helped.” Collaboration with experts also meant
 87
observing other teachers’ classes where learner-centered teaching strategies are

effectively implemented, as expressed by Participant N07, “I would like to observe my

(content) area… to see a class using these strategies in my content area”. Also,

participants expressed the desire to “collaborate with other teachers,” “use the experts

within our building,” and “work with the talented teachers around me” (Participants N10,

N11, and N04). Table 3 represents the themes and codes that correspond to each research

question.

Table 3

Themes and Codes

RQ Themes Codes
RQ1 Student Ownership Discover it themselves
Ownership of their learning
Directly involved
Students take a major role
Monitor their own progress
Students control where they’re going

Teacher as a facilitator Tour guide

Facilitator
Resource

Engaged learners Engaging with the material

Curiosity
Instruction centered around their
involvement
Active learning
Students doing the most work

RQ1 Student-centered instruction Focus on the students

How students learn best
Discussion
Choice
Stations
Debates
Mock trials
 88
PBL
Collaboration
Labs
Active learning
Online resources
Hands-on

Preparation Practicum experience

Student teaching
Professional development
Prepared
Somewhat prepared
Not prepared

RQ2 Content-specific PD NMSI

NEED
AP
STEM
PBL
Time and Resources More teaching time
Computers/technology
Planning time
Limited budget
Pre-made resources

Collaboration with experts Coach

Observe in the content area
Mentorship
Peer experts

Evidence of Trustworthiness

In qualitative research, trustworthiness is also known as validity and refers to how

researchers assure their findings truly represent the participants’ experiences (Bloomberg

& Volpe, 2019; Ravitch & Carl, 2016). One way a researcher can ensure trustworthiness

is through credibility, which is the accuracy of how the researcher presented the

phenomena being studied (Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The procedures in this study supported

trustworthiness, validity, and credibility by using the strategy of saturation in data

 89
collection, establishing relationships, researcher reflexivity, member checks, and peer

debriefing.

Credibility

The researcher used the strategies of data saturation, establishing relationships

with participants, reflexivity, and member checks to achieve credibility. The researcher

achieved data saturation by asking the same interview questions of all 12 participants,

and when there were no new data and themes emerging, the researcher decided that data

saturation had been reached (Fusch & Ness, 2015). The researcher established a

relationship of trust and confidence by introducing herself to the participants, describing

the purpose of the study, asking questions without showing judgment to the answers, and

showing empathy when appropriate (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). Finally, to combat the threat

to validity, member checks, also known as respondent validation, were employed

(Ravitch & Carl, 2016; Yin, 2016). The researcher emailed all 12 participants of the

study the themes and codes that resulted from data analysis and asked for their feedback

(Ravitch & Carl, 2016; Yin, 2016). Eight of the participants responded with their

acknowledgment that the themes and codes accurately represented their input from the

interviews. The other 4 participants did not respond to the request.

Transferability

The extent to which the results of this study can be applied to a broader

population was established through purposeful sampling and thick descriptions of the

participants’ experiences (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The

researcher selected participants who were full-time educators at a Midwest secondary

 90
school with varying years of experience and having graduated from different

undergraduate teacher preparation programs. Also, all the participants in this study were

from various content areas. The participants provided thick, rich descriptions of their

experiences as supported by the average word count for each interview, which was

approximately 1,600 words per interview. The researcher used detailed information

regarding the findings from the interviews so that readers of the study can make

comparisons with other similar contexts (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019).

Dependability

The researcher ensured the dependability of the study by adhering to the entire

research process, including the purpose, research questions, research design, participant

selection, data analysis, and reporting the findings (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). A journal

was kept as an audit trail to ensure dependability by ensuring that the researcher regularly

reflected on the research activities and experiences during the research process

(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). The researcher used this journal as part of the data analysis

process of establishing the dependability of the research findings.

Confirmability

The researcher of this study established confirmability by eliminating bias and

subjectivity from the interview and data analysis processes of the study (Bloomberg &

Volpe, 2019). Also, the researcher used reflexivity to understand how the researcher’s

assumptions impacted the analysis of the study’s findings. The researcher reminded the

participants of the researcher’s current role as a researcher and not as a former principal

or faculty member. Researcher reflexivity was an ongoing process throughout the study
 91
with the researcher reminding the participants of the role as researcher, not former

teacher or principal of the school. Also, the researcher listened to the recording of each

interview upon completion to evaluate the researcher’s listening skills and comments

made during the interview. A research journal was also maintained and reviewed during

the entirety of the interview process.

Summary

The first research question was: How are secondary educators using LCTS in their

classrooms? The teachers in this study use LCTS by having students take ownership of

their learning. They accomplish this by allowing students to discover the knowledge,

instead of teachers directing the learning. When students take ownership of their learning,

they monitor their progress, engage with the material, exhibit curiosity, and learn by

doing most of the work. The teacher acts as a facilitator and resource during the use of

LCTS.

The secondary educators in this study offered several examples of the LCTS they

use in the classroom. The most common example was project-based learning (PBL),

which was not surprising as the participants were in their second year of PBL

professional development offered through the site study school. Other examples were

debates, mock trials, Jigsaw, discussion, student-generated questions, stations, flipped

classrooms, and online resources (i.e., Khan Academy).

Although all participants were able to define LCTS and give examples of how

they are used in the classrooms, fewer than half of the teachers in this study felt fully

prepared to use the strategies. Teachers who graduated from teacher preparation
 92
programs in the past 10 years learned about LCTS, primarily, in their practicum and

student teaching experiences. Those who graduated more than 10 years ago did not

remember learning about LCTS in their teacher preparation programs but had gained

their knowledge through professional development. In addition to the PBL professional

development, teachers cited training with NMSI, STEM, AP, and NEED.

The second research question was: What support do secondary educators perceive

to need to use LCTS in their classrooms? Overwhelmingly, the teachers in this study

cited content-specific professional development as a means of support for using LCTS in

their classrooms. As mentioned above, teachers who engaged in NMSI, STEM, AP, and

NEED training felt this to be most beneficial. Related to this, teachers expressed the

desire to observe and collaborate with other teachers/mentors who use LCTS successfully

in their classrooms.

Some teachers felt that time and resources were needed to implement LCTS in

their classrooms further. Time is always at a premium for teachers and these participants

expressed that they were often asked to substitute teach for fellow teachers during their

preparation periods, not allowing for time to explore teaching strategies. Others felt that

money for more computers and ready-made teaching resources would help them

implement LCTS more readily. The school had multiple carts with computers but there

were not enough computers for each student to have access to one throughout the day.

Finally, many teachers perceived resistance in their students when learner-

centered teaching strategies were used. Teachers hypothesized that students were

accustomed to a traditional lecture and note-taking format of teaching and were resistant
 93
to the hard work required when LCTS were employed. When teachers encountered the

resistance from students, they found themselves using more teacher-centered approaches

in their instruction

The following chapter will contain the researcher’s interpretation of the findings

of this study. In addition, the limitations to the study and recommendations for further

research are discussed. Finally, implications for positive social change, and a message

that captures the key essence of this study is found at the end of the chapter.
 94
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

There are many benefits to students when teachers use LCTS. Learner-centered

teaching strategies and student-centered education motivate students intrinsically to

construct meaning for knowledge and encourage students to be self-motivated and

independent learners (Lattimer, 2015; Walker, 2015; Weimer, 2013). Although these

teaching strategies are known to be effective for student learning and teachers can

identify LCTS, teachers do not always demonstrate the skills of these strategies in their

practice (Arseven et al., 2016; Onurkan Aliusta & Özer, 2017; Scarrow, 2017; Weimer,

2013). Teachers express the belief that they are utilizing LCTS, but observations of these

classrooms do not support that belief (Arseven et al., 2016; Onurkan Aliusta & Özer,

2017; Scarrow, 2017). In secondary schools, educators teach a specific content area and

rely heavily on teacher-centered strategies, rather than LCTS (Greenleaf & Valencia,

2017).

The purpose of this study was to investigate how secondary educators used LCTS

in their instruction and what support they needed to use such strategies. Secondary

educators were asked their perceptions about LCTS and what kind of support they needed

to use these strategies. The first research question was: How are secondary educators

using LCTS in their classrooms? The results of the study found that secondary educators

used LCTS in their classrooms by having students take ownership of their learning. They

accomplished this by allowing the students to discover the knowledge instead of teachers

directing the learning. When students took ownership of their learning, they monitored

their progress, engaged with the material, exhibited curiosity, and learned by doing most
 95
of the work. The teacher was a facilitator and resource during the use of LCTS. The

second research question was: What support do secondary educators perceive to need to

use LCTS in their classrooms? The participants in this study cited content-specific

professional development as a means of support for using LCTS in their classrooms.

They also expressed the desire to observe and collaborate with other teachers/mentors

who use LCTS successfully in their classrooms. Some participants felt that time and

resources were needed to implement LCTS in their classrooms further. The findings

gained from this study may provide teacher preparation programs and school

administrators with the insight they can use to develop curriculum and professional

development on LCTS.

Interpretation of the Findings

The purpose of this study was to investigate how secondary educators used LCTS

in their instruction and what support they needed to use such strategies. The overall

findings of this study indicated that secondary educators were using LCTS in their

classrooms by having students take ownership of their learning, with the teachers being

facilitators and students monitoring their learning, being engaged with the material,

exhibiting curiosity, and learning by doing the most work. The participants used many

different LCTS in their classrooms. The most common strategy was project-based

learning, which aligned with the fact that the faculty in the school was in their second

year of PBL professional development. Participants were also using LCTS such as

discussions, collaboration, debates, mock trials, student-generated questions, stations,

flipped classrooms, and online resources (i.e., Khan Academy).

 96
Although participants were able to define LCTS correctly and identify several

strategies that were considered learner-centered, fewer than half of them felt fully

prepared to use such strategies consistently in their classrooms. Most of the participants

in this study recognized that they used both learner-centered and teacher-centered

strategies but wanted to try to be more student-centered in their instruction. The PBL

professional development had helped them learn more about that specific LCTS, but they

felt they had more to learn to use different LCTS in their specific content areas. None of

the participants in this study used only teacher-centered instructional strategies. However,

some were more prepared to use LCTS than others.

The participants who had graduated from a teacher preparation program in the

past 10 years stated they had learned about LCTS in their coursework but had only

applied their knowledge during their practicum and student teaching experiences. It was

during these experiences that they began to understand what kind of strategies constituted

LCTS more fully and the positive impact using these strategies had on engaging students.

This finding aligned with the conceptual framework of Dreyfus and Dreyfus (1986) and

the model of skill acquisition, which described how learners acquire skills by formal

instruction and practice. According to the model, the learner passes through 5 stages in

professional practices – novice, advanced beginner, competent performer, proficient

performer, and expert (Flyvbjerg, 2001). Those who are in teacher preparation programs

are considered novices, according to this model. As they progress through their student

teaching and into their first years of teaching, they are considered advanced beginners.
 97
The model of skill acquisition promoted the development of this study’s literature

review, research questions, and data analysis. Teacher expertise develops through the

practice of teaching strategies and developing that expertise from preservice teaching to

experienced teaching. The participants in this study identified the importance of the PBL

professional development in which they had been participating. They recognized PBL as

a learner-centered teaching strategy and had successfully implemented a PBL in the

courses they taught. This recognition of learning how to apply their knowledge of PBL in

their classrooms aligns with the model of skill acquisition of moving from an advanced

beginner to a competent performer (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Flyvbjerg, 2001). To

move from a competent performer to proficient performer, study participants expressed

the need to engage in professional development specific to their content area. They also

recognized that being able to observe other teachers who are competent in using learner-

centered teaching strategies would help them, more consistently, implement the strategies

in their classrooms.

The findings indicated that teachers cited content-specific professional

development as a means of support for using LCTS in their classrooms. Additionally,

they identified a means of support as observing and collaborating with other

teachers/mentors who use LCTS successfully in their classrooms. Participants felt that

more time to plan for LCTS and additional resources in technology and content was

needed to implement LCTS in their classrooms further.

The study participants described using LCTS in their classrooms by having

students take ownership of their learning and the teacher as a facilitator and resource
 98
during the use of LCTS. This finding confirms the current literature description of LCTS

as the shift of ownership in learning from the teacher to the student (Bailey & Colley,

2015; Weimer, 2013). Bailey and Colley (2015) and Weimer (2013) described learner-

centered teachers as those who create a classroom culture where students are responsible

for their learning and that the teachers act as a facilitator to student learning. Participants

described student ownership in their learning as students who monitored their progress,

engaged with the material, exhibited curiosity, and learned by doing most of the work.

This finding is confirmed by multiple studies that indicate LCTS increases student

motivation and engagement (Bailey & Colley, 2015; Edwards, 2017; Scarrow, 2017).

The participants in this study described working toward student ownership of

learning by allowing the students to construct knowledge instead of teachers directing the

learning. This finding was also supported in the literature, indicating that learner-centered

education includes instructional approaches that engage the student in the active

construction of knowledge (Lattimer, 2015; Somani & Rizvi, 2018; Weimer, 2013).

Weimer (2013) also described learner-centered teaching as the teacher not being the

center of the learning process but, instead, supporting the students’ learning experiences.

The purpose of the second research question was to find out what support

secondary educators needed to implement LCTS in their classrooms. The participants in

this study cited content-specific professional development as a means of support for using

LCTS in their classrooms, which was confirmed from the results of multiple research

studies. For example, according to Balta and Eryılmaz (2019), a characteristic of

effective professional development for secondary educators is that it is content-specific

 99
and includes activities that focus on subject matter content and how students learn that

content. Also, Bonghanoy et al. (2019) found that when professional development was

structured to meet the specific needs of teachers, they become empowered, creative, and

resourceful increasing student engagement and knowledge retention.

Study participants also expressed the desire to observe and collaborate with other

teachers/mentors who use LCTS successfully in their classrooms. This finding was also

supported by current research, which identified effective professional development as

secondary teachers having the opportunity to observe expert teachers or be observed by

an expert (Balta & Eryılmaz, 2019). The ensuing interactive feedback and discussions

help teachers implement curriculum and new teaching methods that could be used in their

classrooms (Balta & Eryılmaz, 2019).

Finally, participants felt that time and resources were needed to implement LCTS

in their classrooms. Some participants expressed that planning time was often limited

because of the study site school’s policy of having teachers substitute teach for absent

teachers during their planning periods. Others cited that researching LCTS took the time

they did not have in their normally busy schedule. Participants also expressed that

resources, such as ready-made materials and technology, were needed to support the use

of LCTS. These findings are confirmed and add to the current research. For example,

recent studies found that the most helpful resources for new teachers support from school

administrators, adequate resources, and mentors (Edwards, 2017; Kelly et al., 2015).

The findings of this study revealed the participants’ perceptions of LCTS included

the need for support in the form of content-specific professional development, observing
 100
and collaborating with other teachers/mentors who use LCTS successfully in their

classrooms, and more time and resources to implement LCTS in their classrooms.

Although the participants generally appreciated the current professional development of

project-based learning, they expressed the desire for content-specific professional

development such as that provided by NMSI, STEM, AP, and NEED training. These

perceived means of support may develop the skills of secondary educators for

implementing LCTS.

Limitations of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate how secondary educators are using

LCTS in their instruction and what support they needed to use such strategies. When

considering the limitations of this study, the researcher thought about how the quality,

source, or types of data and how the data was analyzed might weaken the integrity of the

research methodology (Levitt et al., 2018). This qualitative interview study had 4

limitations, as outlined in Chapter 1. These limitations applied throughout the study.

However, knowing these limitations, the researcher worked to ensure they had minimal

impact on the results of the study.

The first limitation was that the study did not include observations of actual

pedagogical practices. The research questions focused on teacher experiences and,

therefore, observations of classroom practices were not necessary. Although participant

observation was often coupled with in-depth interviewing, insightful data can come from

interviews alone (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The researcher used qualitative interviewing to

collect data from the participants’ responses. Participants were each asked the same
 101
questions during the interview process (see Appendix C). However, follow-up or

clarifying questions were asked of participants to confirm the researcher’s understanding

of the response (Yin, 2016).

The second limitation of this study was that teachers' perspectives were used to

conclude the use of LCTS for all secondary educators. Within the confines of time and

resources, this study included participants from a Midwestern high school, which was in

the same city as the researcher. This allowed the researcher ease of access for

interviewing participants. The extent to which the results of this study can be applied to a

broader population was established through purposeful sampling and thick descriptions of

the participants’ experiences (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Ravitch & Carl, 2016). The

researcher selected participants who were full-time educators at a Midwest secondary

school with varying years of experience and having graduated from different

undergraduate teacher preparation programs. Also, the study included participants from

various content areas. The purposeful sampling and thick description of the participants’

experiences allow the readers of this study to decide whether similar results would apply

to their settings and communities (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019).

The third limitation was sample size; however, measures were taken to ensure

data saturation. The sample size was 12-15, and data saturation was reached with 12

participants. The sample size for this study was 12 secondary education teachers

purposively selected from a staff of approximately 20 teachers from a secondary school

in a Midwestern city. The researcher achieved data saturation by asking the same
 102
interview questions of each of the participants, and when there was no new data nor

themes that emerged (Fusch & Ness, 2015).

The final limitation of this study was potential researcher bias as the researcher

was a former principal at the school where the study took place. To reduce bias, the

researcher reminded the participants of the purpose of the study and that the researcher

was no longer in a position of authority with them. It was important to recognize bias in

the role of a researcher. Yin (2016) stated that the conversational nature of qualitative

research interviews could lead to the researcher ignoring comments that are not a formal

part of the interview. The researcher anticipated when it might be tempting to exclude

comments made by the participants and ensured the inclusion of such comments in the

data analysis (Yin, 2016). Bias can also occur in the form of deficit orientation, where the

researcher views the participants as lacking in knowledge or skill (Ravitch & Carl, 2016).

To prevent deficit orientation, the researcher reminded the participants that they were the

experts in their own experiences and the ones who hold the wisdom (Ravitch & Carl,

2016).

Recommendations

Much research still needs to be done on the instructional strategies secondary

educators use and the effectiveness of those strategies. Current research reported the need

for further investigation into the knowledge and skills of secondary educators regarding

LCTS (Kaymakamoglu, 2018). The purpose of this study was to investigate how

secondary educators used LCTS in their instruction and what support they needed to use

such strategies. This study included data from 12 secondary educators with varying years
 103
of experience, teaching in various content areas, and graduates from a variety of

universities’ teacher preparation programs. The results of the study provided a

generalization of the secondary educators’ perceptions of LCTS and the support needed

to implement these strategies. Three recommendations for future studies reflect on the

limitations of this study and teacher preparation programs, as outlined in the literature

review.

The first limitation of this study was that actual pedagogical practices were not

observed in the participants’ classrooms. In this study, the researcher collected data using

the methodology of qualitative interviewing. A recommendation for future studies would

be to add classroom observations to the methodology to compare the teachers’

perceptions of LCTS and their actual use of the strategies in the classroom. Multiple

studies revealed that teachers express the belief they are utilizing LCTS, but observations

of these classrooms do not support that belief (Arseven et al., 2016; Onurkan Aliusta &

Özer, 2017; Scarrow, 2017). Observing teachers as they conduct instruction in their

classrooms could give the researcher a firsthand account of the teaching strategies being

employed rather than relying on the teachers’ perspective or interpretation (Bloomberg &

Volpe, 2019). Another data collection tool would be to interview or survey high school

students to compare their perceptions of LCTS with those of their teachers. One of the

findings of this study was that teachers had experienced resistance from students when

they employed LCTS in their classrooms. Asking students about their perspectives when

LCTS are used in the classroom would possibly provide insight into why resistance

occurs among students and what teachers could do to minimize that resistance.
 104
The second limitation of this study was that teachers' perspectives were used to

conclude the use of LCTS for all secondary educators. The results of this study were

limited to the perspectives of 12 secondary educators. A recommendation for future

studies would be to conduct a similar study using a quantitative approach so that more

participants could be used in the study. The extent to which the results of this study are

applied to a broader population could be accomplished through a quantitative study

(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Ravitch & Carl, 2016). A quantitative research study using a

survey that gathers the perceptions of secondary educators could increase the number of

possible participants and, therefore, the scope of the study findings.

The final recommendation for future study pertains to teacher preparation

programs. Novice and preservice teachers experience a disconnect between their

knowledge and use of LCTS. Studies indicated that preservice teachers need more

exposure to LCTS in their teacher preparation programs to successfully implement these

strategies in their classrooms (Scarrow, 2017; Sendurur, 2018). The results of this study

found that secondary educators gained most of their knowledge about LCTS during their

practicum and student teaching experiences. Future studies may be on how to construct

those experiences to move preservice teachers from the knowledge level of LCTS to the

application of such strategies.

Implications

Secondary educators understand the definition of LCTS and can identify these

strategies in their classrooms. The model of skill acquisition by Dreyfus and Dreyfus

(1986) applies to teachers and how they progress from learning the definition of LCTS in
 105
their preservice teacher education programs to developing the skills to practice these

strategies in their classrooms. Teachers pass through 5 stages of professional practice -

novice, advanced beginner, competent performer, proficient performer, and expert

(Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1986; Flyvbjerg, 2001). The Dreyfus and Dreyfus model informed

this research study as a conceptual framework for “conceptualizing the development of

teacher expertise, in a way that recognizes the role of practicing and context, as well as

the development and shifts toward expertise from preservice teaching to experienced

teaching" (Flyvbjerg, 2001, p. 107). Participants in this study identified that the most

valuable experience in their teacher preparation program regarding LCTS was during

practicum and student teaching experiences. They also identified content-specific

professional development as the best way to support them in effectively implementing

LCTS in their classrooms. This study has contributed to the existing research on LCTS,

how secondary educators use them in their classrooms, and what support teachers need to

implement the strategies. Students in a learner-centered environment experience higher

academic achievement. By increasing academic achievement for all students, positive

social change occurs. More research is needed on the use of LCTS by secondary

educators (Kaymakamoglu, 2018). This study extends the knowledge about LCTS and

used by teachers, administrators, and teacher preparation programs to ensure effective

professional development is available to secondary educators. Teachers and

administrators can use the finding that content-specific professional development was

deemed most useful as a resource to implement LCTS when they choose professional

development opportunities and resources. Teacher preparation programs can use the
 106
finding that practicum and student teaching experiences are where most preservice

teachers learn about LCTS when planning these placements and experiences in their

programs. Effective learner-centered teaching strategies help students learn. When

students are effectively learning, positive social change occurs.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to investigate how secondary educators used LCTS

in their instruction and what support they needed to use such strategies. This qualitative

study involved interviewing twelve secondary educators about their perspectives of

LCTS and examining their responses. The overall findings of this study indicated that

secondary educators used LCTS in their classrooms by having students take ownership of

their learning, with the teachers being facilitators and students monitoring their learning,

students being engaged with the material, exhibiting curiosity, and learning by doing the

most work. These findings were congruent with Weimer’s (2013) methodology in

learner-centered teaching. The common components of this study to Weimer’s (2013)

learner-centered teaching strategies included (a) the role of the teacher as facilitator, (b)

the balance of power shifting toward the students, and (c) the responsibility of learning

being primarily on the students. Secondary educators should provide their students with

opportunities to take ownership of their learning as teachers take on the role of facilitator.

Several strategies constitute being learner-centered, so secondary educators need to

become comfortable implementing these strategies in their classroom. Although direct

instruction has its place in effectively helping students gain new knowledge, LCTS
 107
enables students to engage in deep learning that involves an application, synthesis, and

evaluation of that knowledge.

The findings of this study also indicated that teachers considered content-specific

professional development an important means of support for using LCTS in their

classrooms. This study brings to light the value of professional development

opportunities for teachers that meet their specific needs. Similar to the importance of

differentiating instruction for students, professional development should be differentiated

for teachers, as well. Additionally, teachers identified a means of support as observing

and collaborating with other teachers/mentors who use LCTS successfully in their

classrooms. These findings are important for school administrators as they plan

professional development opportunities for their teaching staff. Through the process of

teacher evaluations, principals are aware of the teachers who use LCTS. Through this

awareness, principals should facilitate partnerships that include time for teachers to

observe each other using LCTS in their classrooms, in addition to collaboration time.

Finally, participants felt that more time to plan for LCTS and additional resources

in technology and content was needed to implement LCTS in their classrooms. As

budgets become tighter, teachers are asked to take on more responsibility and extra

duties. Teachers in this study were often asked to substitute teach for fellow teachers who

took away valuable planning time. School administrators must decide how to make the

limited time available to teachers the most valuable for them. When teachers have

opportunities to partake in effective professional development and given the time and

resources to collaborate with other effective educators, students will be the beneficiaries
 108
in terms of increased academic achievement. When all students have access to teachers

who are provided these opportunities, social change occurs.

 109
References

Allensworth, E. M., Healey, K., Gwynne, J. A., Crespin, R., & University of Chicago

Consortium on School Research. (2016). High school graduation rates through

two decades of district change: The influence of policies, data records, and

demographic shifts. Research Report. In University of Chicago Consortium on

School Research. University of Chicago Consortium on School Research.

Retrieved from ERIC.

Arseven, Z., Sahin, S., & Kiliç, A. (2016). Teachers’ adaptation level of student centered

education approach. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(29), 133-144.

Retrieved from ERIC.

Bailey, G., & Colley, H. (2015). ‘Learner-centered’ assessment policies in further

education: Putting teachers’ time under pressure. Journal of Vocational Education

& Training, 67(2), 153-168. doi:10.1080/13636820.2014.983956

Baker, M. A., & Robinson, J. S. (2018). The effect of two different pedagogical delivery

methods on students’ retention of knowledge over time. Journal of Agricultural

Education, 59(1), 100-118. doi:10.5032/jae.2018.01100

Balta, N., & Eryılmaz, A. (2019). The effect of the “teacher-led PD for teachers”

professional development program on students’ achievement: An experimental

study. Teacher Development, 23(5), 588-608.

doi:10.1080/13664530.2019.1659176

Bloomberg, L. D., & Volpe, M. (2019). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road

map from beginning to end. Sage Publications.

 110
Bonghanoy, G. B., Sagpang, A. P., Alejan, R. A., Jr., & Rellon, L. R. (2019).

Transformative professional development for mathematics teachers. Journal on

Mathematics Education, 10(2), 289-302. doi:10.22342/jme.10.2.6882.289-302

Brigati, J. (2018). Student attitudes toward active learning vs. lecture in cell biology

instruction. The American Biology Teacher, 80(8), 584-591.

doi:10.1525/abt.2018.80.8.584

Burner, T., Madsen, J., Zako, N., & Ismail, A. (2017). Three secondary school teachers

implementing student-centred learning in Iraqi Kurdistan. Educational Action

Research,25(3), 402-419. doi:10.1080/09650792.2016.1162186

Carrabba, C., & Farmer, A. (2018). The impact of project-based learning and direct

instruction on the motivation and engagement of middle school students. Online

Submission, 1, 163-174. Retrieved from ERIC.

Chen, L. (2016). Impacts of flipped classroom in high school health education. Journal of

Educational Technology Systems, 44(4), 411-420.

doi:10.1177/0047239515626371

Corkin, D. S., Coleman, S. L., & Ekmekci, A. (2018). Navigating the challenges of

student-centered mathematics teaching in an urban context. The Urban Review, 1-

34. doi:10.1007/s11256-018-0485-6

Cultivate 21. (n.d.). Company Profile. Cultivate 21. Retrieved from

https://www.Cultivate21.com

Darling-Hammond, L., Furger, R., Shields, P.M., & Sutcher, L. (2016). Addressing

California’s emerging teacher shortage: An analysis of sources and solutions.

 111
Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. Retrieved from

https://learningpolicyinstitute. org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/03/LPI-Report-

AddressingCA_TeacherShortage. pdf.

De Vries, S., van de Grift, W. J., & Jansen, E. P. (2014). How teachers’ beliefs about

learning and teaching relate to their continuing professional

development. Teachers and Teaching, 20(3), 338-357.

doi:10.1080/13540602.2013.848521

Dreyfus, H. & Dreyfus, S. (1986). Mind over machine: The power of human intuition and

expertise in the era of the computer. New York, NY: Free Press.

doi:10.1109/MEX.1987.4307079

Duru, S. (2015). A metaphor analysis of elementary student teachers' conceptions of

teachers in student- and teacher-centered contexts. Eurasian Journal of

Educational Research (EJER), (60), 281-300. doi:10.14689/ejer.2015.60.16

Edwards, S. (2017). Like a chameleon: A beginning teacher’s journey to implement

active learning. RMLE Online, 40(4), 1-11. doi:10.1080/19404476.2017.1293599

Emre-Akdogan, E., & Yazgan-sag, G. (2018). An investigation on how prospective

mathematics teachers design a lesson plan. Ondokuz Mayis University Journal of

Education, 37(1), 81–96. doi:10.7822/omuefd.313310

Erdogdu, M. Y. (2019). The mediating role of school engagement in the relationship

between attitude toward learning and academic achievement. International

Journal of Education and Literacy Studies, 7(2), 75–81.

doi:10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.7n.2p.75
 112
Eronen, L. (2018). Students acquiring expertise through student-centered learning in

mathematics lessons. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 62(5), 682–

700. doi:10.1080/00313831.2017.1306797

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Making Social Science Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. doi:10.1017/S0003055402294319

Francis, L. (2018). Instructional strategies that homeschooling parents use to teach their

children mathematics (Order No. 10839191). Available from Dissertations &

Theses @ Walden University. (2079254551). Retrieved from

https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/2079254551?accountid=14872

Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., &

Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in

science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of

Sciences of the United States, (23), 8410. doi:10.1073/pnas.1319030111

Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative

research. The qualitative report, 20(9), 1408-1416. Retrieved from ERIC.

Gallop Student Poll (2017). Engaged today – ready for tomorrow. Retrieved from

https://news.gallup.com/topic/gallup_student_poll.aspx

Gatbonton, E. (2008). Looking beyond teachers’ classroom behavior: Novice and

experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Language Teaching

Research, 12(2), 161–182. doi:10.1177/1362168807086286

Greenleaf, C., & Valencia, S. (2017). Missing in action: Learning from texts in subject-
 113
matter classrooms. In D.A. Applean & K.A. Hinchman (eds.), Adolescent

literacy: A handbook of practice-based research. New York, NY: Guilford.

Head, C. N., Flores, M. M., & Shippen, M. E. (2018). Effects of direct instruction on

reading comprehension for individuals with autism or developmental disabilities.

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 53(2), 176–

191. Retrieved from ERIC.

Kaymakamoglu, S. E. (2018). Teachers' beliefs, perceived practice and actual

classroom practice in relation to traditional (teacher-centered) and constructivist

(learner-centered) teaching. Journal of Education and Learning, 7(1), 29-37.

doi:10.5539/jel.v7n1p29

Kelly, A. M., Gningue, S. M., & Qian, G. (2015). First-year urban mathematics and

science middle school teachers: Classroom challenges and reflective

solutions. Education and Urban Society, 47(2), 132-159.

doi:10.1177/0013124513489147

Kiemer, K., Gröschner, A., Pehmer, A.-K., & Seidel, T. (2015). Effects of a classroom

discourse intervention on teachers’ practice and students’ motivation to learn

mathematics and science. Learning and Instruction, 35, 94–103.

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.10.003

King, F. (2016). Teacher professional development to support teacher professional

learning: Systemic factors from Irish case studies. Teacher

Development, 20(4), 574–594. doi:10.1080/13664530.2016.1161661.

Kolman, J. S. & Goodwin, A. L. (2017). Learner-centered mentoring: Building from

 114
student teachers’ individual needs and experiences as novice

practitioners. Teacher Education Quarterly, 44(3), 93–117. Retrieved from

https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eue&AN=124101581&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Konold, T., Cornell, D., Jia, Y., & Malone, M. (2018). School climate, student

engagement, and academic achievement: A latent variable, multilevel multi-

informant examination. AERA Open, 4(4). doi:10.1177%2F2332858418815661

Lattimer, H. (2015). Translating theory into practice: Making meaning of learner centered

education frameworks for classroom-based practitioners. International Journal of

Educational Development,45, 65-76. doi:10.1016/j.ijedudev.2015.09.012

Lee, Y. H., & Kim, K. J. (2018). Enhancement of student perceptions of learner-

centeredness and community of inquiry in flipped classrooms. BMC medical

education, 18(1), 242. doi:10.1186/s12909-018-1347-3

Levitt, H. M., Bamberg, M., Frost, D. M., Creswell, J. W., Josselson, R., & Suarez-

Orozco, C. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary,

qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: The APA

Publications and Communications Board task force report. The American

Psychologist, (1), 26. doi:10.1037/amp0000151

Litman, C., & Greenleaf, C. (2018). Argumentation tasks in secondary English language

arts, history, and science: Variations in instructional focus and inquiry space.

Reading Research Quarterly, 53(1), 107–126. doi:10.1002/rrq.187

Louden, J. T. (2018). Novice teachers' perspectives of learner-centered reading

 115
Instruction (Order No. 10812403). Available from Dissertations & Theses @

Walden University. (2038477298). Retrieved from

https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search-proquest-

com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/docview/2038477298?accountid=14872

Mahmood, N. & Iqbal, Z. (2018). Challenges faced by prospective teachers during

teaching practice: Connecting theory to practice. Bulletin of Education &

Research. 2018;40(2):113-136. https://search-ebscohost-

com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=132437716&si

te=ehost-live&scope=site. Accessed April 6, 2019.

Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and

implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Miles, R., & Knipe, S. (2018). “I sorta felt like I was out in the middle of the ocean”:

Novice teachers’ transition to the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher

Education, 43(6), 104–121. doi:10.14221/ajte.2018v43n6.7

Murthy, S., Iyer, S., & Warriem, J. (2015). ET4ET: A large-scale faculty professional

development program on effective integration of educational technology. Journal

of Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 16–28. Retrieved from

https://search-ebscohost-

com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=109155618&si

te=eds-live&scope=site

Ndirangu, C. (2017). Teachers’ attitude towards implementation of learner-centered

methodology in science education in Kenya. Educational Research and

 116
Reviews, 12(20), 996–1007. doi:10.5897/err2017.3326

North Dakota Education Standards and Practices Board (2017). Program approval

standards. Retrieved from

https://www.nd.gov/espb/sites/www/files/documents/FINAL-INTASC-Standards-

August-2017.pdf

Oliver, K. L., Oesterreich, H. A., Aranda, R., Archeleta, J., Blazer, C., de la Cruz, K.,

Robinson, R. (2015). “The sweetness of struggle”: Innovation in physical

education teacher education through student-centered inquiry as curriculum in a

physical education methods course. Physical Education & Sport Pedagogy, 20(1),

97–115. doi:10.1080/17408989.2013.803527

Onurkan Aliusta, G., & Özer, B. (2017). Student-centered learning (SCL): Roles

changed? Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(4), 422-435.

doi:10.1080/13540602.2016.1205014

Outlaw, B. A., Keene, K. A., & Downing, G. A. (2018). Students’ experiences in an

undergraduate mathematics class: Case studies from a learner-centered

precalculus class. Conference Papers -- Psychology of Mathematics & Education

of North America, 986–989. Retrieved from https://search-ebscohost-

com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=133248741&si

te=ehost-live&scope=site

Özdemir, S. M. (2019). Implementation of the lesson study as a tool to improve students’

learning and professional development of teachers. Participatory Educational

Research, 6(1), 36–53. doi:10.17275/per.19.4.6.1

 117
Palazón, J., & Giráldez, A. (2018). QR codes for instrumental performance in the music

classroom. International Journal of Music Education, 36(3), 447–459.

doi:10.1177/0255761418771992

Pedagogy. (2019). In Oxford Online Dictionary. Retrieved

from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/pedagogy

Piaget, J. (1999). Judgement and reasoning in the child. doi:10.4324/9780203207260

Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Bishop, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Solving the teacher

shortage: How to attract and retain excellent educators. Retrieved from

https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/solving-teacher-shortage

Puzio, K., Newcomer, S. N., & Goff, P. (2015). Supporting literacy differentiation: The

principal’s role in a community of practice. Literacy Research and

Instruction, 54(2), 135–162. doi:10.1080/19388071.2014.997944

Qureshi, S., Bradley, K., Vishnumolakala, V. R., Treagust, D., Southam, D., Mocerino,

M., & Ojeil, J. O. S. E. P. H. (2016). Educational reforms and implementation of

student-centered active learning in science at secondary and university levels in

Qatar. Science Education International, 27(3), 437-456. Retrieved from ERIC.

Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2016). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual,

theoretical, and methodological. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Rodriguez, A. J. (n.d.). Managing institutional and sociocultural challenges through

sociotransformative constructivism: A longitudinal case study of a high school

science teacher. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 448–460.

doi:10.1002/tea.21207
 118
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd

ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Saye, J. W., Stoddard, J., Gerwin, D. M., Libresco, A. S., & Maddox, L. E. (2018).

Authentic pedagogy: Examining intellectual challenge in social studies

classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 50(6), 865–884.

doi:10.1080/00220272.2018.1473496

Scarrow, R. (2017). Pedagogical methods used by probationary elementary

teachers (Order No. 10255914). Available from Dissertations & Theses @

Walden University. (1864788094). Retrieved from ERIC.

Sendurur, E. (2018). The pedagogical beliefs and instructional design practices: Pre-

service IT teachers’ case. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research (EJER),

(75), 59–78. doi:10.14689/ejer.2018.75.4

Sharick, S. L. (2016). Case study on how high school teachers incorporate technology in

the classroom to meet 21st century student learning needs (Order No. 10169634).

Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Walden University. (1847999462).

Retrieved from ERIC.

Šimić Šašić, S., Šimunić, A., Ivković, A., and Ključe, A. (2018). The correlation of

perceptions of professional roles and teacher beliefs with the quality of teacher

interaction. Journal of Research in Science, Mathematics and Technology

 119
Education, 1(2), 207–227. doi:10.31756/jrsmte.125

Smets, W. (2017). High quality differentiated instruction--A checklist for teacher

professional development on handling differences in the general education

classroom. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 5(11), 2074–2080.

doi:10.13189/ujer.2017.051124

Somani, R., & Rizvi, M. (2018). Project based learning over traditional method of

language teaching: A quasi experiment design in EFL classrooms. Literacy

Information and Computer Education Journal, 9(2), 2895 – 2906.

doi:10.20533/licej.2040.2589.2018.0381

Stockard, J., Wood, T. W., Coughlin, C., & Rasplica Khoury, C. (2018). The

effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of

research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507.

doi:10.3102/0034654317751919

Subban, P., & Round, P. (2015). Differentiated instruction at work. Reinforcing the art of

classroom observation through the creation of a checklist for beginning and

preservice teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(5).

doi:10.14221/ajte.2015v40n5.7

Timor, T. (2015). Perception of discipline of novice teachers in light of student-centered

approach and the teacher-centered approach. The International Journal of

Pedagogy and Curriculum, 22(4), 35-50. doi:10.18848/2327-

7963/cgp/v22i04/48887

U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Definitions. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/race-

 120
top/district-competition/definitions

Vajravelu, K., & Muhs, T. (2016). Integration of digital technology and innovative

strategies for learning and teaching large classes: A calculus case

study. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 2(2), 379–

395. doi:10.21890/ijres.67867

Valiandes, S., & Neophytou, L. (2018). Teachers’ professional development for

differentiated instruction in mixed-ability classrooms: Investigating the impact of

a development program on teachers’ professional learning and on students’

achievement. Teacher Development, 22(1), 123–138.

doi:10.1080/13664530.2017.1338196

Van Straaten, D., Wilschut, A., & Oostdam, R. (2016). Making history relevant to

students by connecting past, present and future: A framework for

research. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 48(4), 479–502.

doi:10.1080/00220272.2015.1089938

Walden University. (2018). Research Ethics & Compliance: Research Ethics Review

Process. Retrieved from

https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/researchcenter/orec/application

Walker, T. D. (2015). Differentiating learner outcomes: A student- centered approach

with value added benefits. Journal of the World Universities Forum, 8(4), 9-18.

doi:10.18848/1835-2030/cgp/v08i04/56874

Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching: Five key changes to practice. San

Franscisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

 121
Whitener, J. (2016). Using the elements of cooperative learning in school band classes in

the United States. International Journal of Music Education, 34(2), 219–233.

doi:10.1177/0255761414541865

Winarno, S., Muthu, K. S., & Ling, L. S. (2018). Direct problem-based learning (DPBL):

A framework for integrating direct instruction and problem-based learning

approach. International Education Studies, 11(1), 119–126.

doi:10.5539/ies.v11n1p119

Wong, S., & Luft, J. (2015). Secondary science teachers’ beliefs and persistence: A

longitudinal mixed-methods study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(7),

619–645. doi:10.1007/s10972-015-9441-4

Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage

Publications.

Yin, R. K. (2016). Qualitative research from start to finish. Guilford Publications.

Yob, I. M. (2018). Conceptual framework for a curriculum in social change. Journal of

Social Change, 10(1), 71–80. doi:10.5590/JOSC.2018.10.1.06

Zhang, D. (2017). Effects of visual working memory training and direct instruction on

geometry problem solving in students with geometry difficulties. Learning

Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 15(1), 117–138. Retrieved from

https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1141989&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Zimmerman, A. S. (2017). Knots in thinking and the problem of enactment: Exploring

the classroom thinking of three novice teachers. Mid-Western Educational

 122
Researcher, 29(4). Retrieved from https://www.mwera.org
 123
Appendix A: Research and Interview Questions

Table 2

Research Questions and Interview Questions Used for Data Collection

Research questions Interview questions

RQ1. How are secondary 1. How do you define LCTS?

educators using LCTS in 2. Describe pedagogical methods and
their classrooms? instructional practices that support that
definition.
3. Would you describe yourself as a student-
centered or teacher-centered educator?
Explain.
4. What experiences during your teacher
education program helped to inform your
definition of teacher-centered teaching?
5. What LCTS are you using in your classroom?
a. Probe: provide an example of how you
use a learner-centered teaching
strategy in your instruction.

RQ2. What support do

1. How much exposure have you had to
secondary teachers perceive
to need to use LCTS in their LCTS in your teacher preparation program
classrooms? or through professional development?
2. How prepared do you feel to apply LCTS
in your instruction?
3. What obstacles have you encountered
when applying LCTS?
4. What support do you feel you need in
order to use LCTS?
 124
Appendix B: Participant Recruitment Email

Dear (participant name),

As a current doctoral candidate at Walden University, I am conducting interviews

as part of a research study to investigate how secondary educators are using LCTS in
their instruction and what support they need to use such strategies. As a secondary
educator, you are an ideal participant because you have first-hand information from your
own perspective as a classroom teacher. The data collection method will be qualitative
interviewing, so your role would be simply to give your perspective about LCTS in
response to questions I ask in the interview. Any additional information you want to add
will be welcomed!
The interview will take around 30 minutes, is very informal, and can take place in
a location that is most convenient for you. I am simply trying to capture your thoughts
and perspectives on LCTS and the support needed to use such strategies. Your responses
to the questions will be kept confidential. Each interview will be assigned a number code
to help ensure that personal identifiers are not revealed during the analysis and write up
of findings.
There is no compensation for participating in this study. However, your
participation will be a valuable addition to my research, and findings could lead to an
increase in public understanding of LCTS in secondary education. If you are willing to
participate, please contact me so we can set up a day and time that best suits both of our
schedules.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at
[email protected] or 701-220-9513.
Kind regards,

Carmen Cain
Walden University Doctoral Candidate
 125
Appendix C: Interview Protocol

1. How do you define LCTS?

2. Describe pedagogical methods and instructional practices that support that

definition
3. Would you describe yourself as a student-centered or teacher-centered educator?
Please explain.

4. What experiences during your teacher education program helped to inform your
definition of teacher-centered teaching?

5. What LCTS are you using in your classroom?

a. Probe: provide an example of how you use a learner-centered teaching
strategy in your instruction.

6. How much exposure have you had to LCTS in your teacher preparation program
or through professional development?

7. How prepared do you feel to apply LCTS in your instruction?

8. What obstacles have you encountered when applying LCTS?

9. What support do you feel you need in order to use LCTS?

 126
Appendix D: Informed Consent

CONSENT FORM

You are invited to take part in a research study about how secondary educators are
using LCTS in their instruction and what support they need to use such strategies. The
researcher is inviting full-time educators at St. Mary’s Central High School to be in the
study. I obtained your name/contact info via the school administration. This form is part
of a process called “informed consent” to allow you to understand this study before
deciding whether to take part.

This study is being conducted by a researcher named Carmen Cain, who is a doctoral
student at Walden University. You might already know the researcher as a former
principal and current university professor, but this study is separate from those roles.

Background Information:
The purpose of this study is to investigate how secondary educators are using LCTS in
their instruction and what support they need to use such strategies.

Procedures:
If you agree to be in this study, you will be asked to:
• Provide your experiences and perspectives in response to interview questions
• Provide additional insight you have that may not be asked in interview questions
• Participate in an interview that will take no longer than 30 minutes and will be
conducted in a location of your choice within the community

Here are some sample questions:

• Describe pedagogical methods and instructional practices that support that
definition
• Would you describe yourself as a student-centered or teacher-centered
educator? Explain.
• What experiences during your teacher education program helped to inform your
• definition of teacher-centered teaching?
• What LCTS are you using in your classroom?

Voluntary Nature of the Study:

This study is voluntary. You are free to accept or turn down the invitation. No one at
Light of Christ School, University of Mary, or Walden University will treat you differently if
you decide not to be in the study. If you decide to be in the study now, you can still
change your mind later. You may stop at any time.

Risks and Benefits of Being in the Study:

Being in this type of study involves some risk of the minor discomforts that can be
encountered in daily life, such as fatigue, feelings of doubt, or nervousness. Being in this
study would not pose risk to your safety or wellbeing.

This study will advance the practice of secondary educators using LCTS in their
classrooms and what support they need to use these strategies. It is important for school
 127
administrators to create professional development opportunities that support the use of
LCTS. Students in a learner-centered environment experience higher academic
achievement. By increasing academic achievement for all students, positive social
change occurs.

Payment:

As a token of gratitude, a $10 Amazon gift card will be given to each participant in the
study.

Privacy:
Reports coming out of this study will not share the identities of individual participants.
Details that might identify participants, such as the location of the study, also will not be
shared. The researcher will not use your personal information for any purpose outside of
this research project. Data will be kept secure by locking all documents with interview
answers, transcripts, codes, themes, and identifying information in a drawer at the
researcher’s office. Keys to this draw can only be accessed by the researcher. Electronic
documents will be kept confidential by them being housed in password-protected
programs. Data will be kept for a period of at least 5 years, as required by the university.

Limits to confidentiality include a duty to report. If the researcher feels that the participant
shares a strategy that has been used and would be deemed abusive to the student, the
researcher is obligated to report the abuse.

Contacts and Questions:

You may ask any questions you have now. Or if you have questions later, you may
contact the researcher via email at [email protected] or by phone at 701-220-
9513. If you want to talk privately about your rights as a participant, you can call the
Research Participant Advocate at my university at 612-312-1210. Walden University’s
approval number for this study is IRB will enter approval number here and it expires
on IRB will enter expiration date.

Obtaining Your Consent

The researcher will give you a copy of this form to keep.

If you feel you understand the study well enough to make a decision about it, please
indicate your consent by replying to this email with the words, “I consent.”
 128
Appendix E: Codes

Q1 codes:
Students:
• Ownership of their own learning
• Discover it themselves
• Tailored to the students
• Engaging with the material
• Kids are directly involved
• Designed around their active involvement
• Students as the driver
• Freedom
• Curiosity
• Active
• Students doing the most work
• Students take a major role in their learning
• Students take ownership of learning
• Students control where they’re going
• Monitor their own progress
• Student is the focus
• Focus is on how individual learner learns best

Teachers:
• Tour guide
• Facilitator
• Guide
• Teacher is a resource
• The knowledge
• Teacher is facilitator

Q2 codes:
• Discussion
• Student-driven questions and ideas
• Choice
• Station activities
• Debates
• Mock trials
• PBL
• PBL
• Active instruction
• Flipped classrooms
 129
• Collaboration
• Socratic seminar
• Students accomplish objectives in their own way
• Active learning
• Hands-on
• Discussion
• Demonstration
• Jigsaw
• Learning on their own (students)
• Implicit instruction with activities
• Projects
• PBL’s
• Solutions to real-world problems
• PBL
• Choice of assessment
• Choice of assignment
• Role-playing
• Projects
• Online resources
• Find answers to own questions
• Instant feedback

Q3 codes:
• Strive to be more student-centered
• Student centered
• A lot is learner-centered but a lot is teacher centric
• Goal is to be more student-centered
• Progressing more and more towards student-centered
• I try to be student-centered but more teacher-centered
• Goal is to be more students centered; I’m still more teacher-centered
• Student-centered, for sure
• Student-centered
• A mix (both teacher and learner-centered)
• Started out as teacher-centered but working way toward more student centered

Q4 codes:
• Practicums
• Classroom management courses
• Practicum experiences
• Student teaching
• Practicum
• Learned knowledge but never saw it applied
 130
• I don’t know of any
• Student teaching
• Very little
• Nothing
• Practicums
• Methods classes
• Some from professors and some from peers
• Practicum
• I don’t remember any

Q5 codes:
• Socratic method
• Harkness discussions
• Guided reading questions
• Mock trial
• Stations
• Choice of how assessments are graded
• Student choice activities
• Assignment choice
• Tiered or scaffolded assignments
• Explore purposeful examples
• Group assignments
• Labs
• Hands-on activities
• Jigsaw
• Stations
• Free voluntary reading
• Projects
• PBL’s
• PBL’s
• Solving authentic problems
• Inquiry-based projects
• Hands-on assessment
• Role-playing
• Videos
• Projects
• Create projects
• Use Khan Academy
• Find answer themselves

Q6 codes: (focus on PD)

• Training for AP courses
 131
• NMSI training
• PBL
• NMSI training
• PD at school on PBL (redundant for two years)
• PD at school on PBL
• NMSI training
• PBL PD
• STEM Energy program
• NEED program (National Energy Education Development Project)
• PD on PBL (Cultivate 21)
• Tech cafes
• PBL (Cultivate 21)
• Master’s degree program
• PBL PD
• Administrative help
• PBL (Cultivate 21)
• PBL

Q7 codes:
• More prepared than when I started teaching
• Pretty prepared – teacher prep, practicum, longterm subbing
• Intellectually prepared, not always resource-prepared
• On a scale of 1-10, right in the middle
• More prepared than when I got out of college
• I felt prepared coming out of student teaching but then it was a learning curve doing it
on my own in my classroom
• More confident than in the past; sometimes go back to my old ways
• I feel very prepared
• Compared to my first year, I feel a lot better prepared
• I feel prepared
• Not overly prepared

Q8 codes:
• Trying to get kids motivated and not procrastinate on PBL – but I need to do a better job
with due dates
• Let go of control (as teacher)
• Letting go of control
• Allowing students more responsibility
• Didn’t like it – I liked lecturing and talking about my subject
• Time
• Budget constraints
 132
• Student’s lack of willingness – expect to be spoon-fed; expect direct instruction; learned
helplessness
• Time – need to do a better job of prioritizing (planning)
• PD is about giving a broad strategy and have difficulty incorporating it into my subject
area
• Change is hard for students when they’re accustomed to more traditional teaching
• Budget, supplies
• Time, resources, energy (when prep hours are used for subbing)
• Time, energy, fear of failure
• Different way of teaching – students aren’t used to it, are uncomfortable with it
• Be physically present to every student
• Pushback from the students
• Resources
• Need ideas
• Students are resistant -want to be “told”
• Uncomfortable with LCTS as a teacher

Q9 codes:
• PD, NMSI, FB groups have been very helpful because they’re specific to my content area
• A coach – someone whois really well-practiced in employing these strategies
• PD specific to English (content area)
• Inclusion of technology
• Students taking ownership
• More time in schedule (block schedule)
• Time to build relationships with students (advisory period)
• Technology – have PD in effective use of technology
• PD on how to incorporate into everyday lessons into specific subject (content area)
• Not knowing about the opportunities like NMSI, STEM
• Budget
• Mentorship – getting ideas from another teacher in same subject area
• Time to find resources
• More information and training geared toward content
• To observe in my content area – see a class using these strategies in my content area
• Computers in my classroom
• PD that gives wide variety of strategies
• Ability to use space around the school (i.e. gym)
• Content specific PD
• Pre-made resources
 133
Appendix F: Data Summary Tables

IQ1. Teacher definition of LCTS

Student: Teacher:
Participant Ownership Focus on Active resource facilitator
Identifier students learning
N01 x
N02 x
N03 x x
N04 x
N05 x
N06 x x
N07 x x
N08 x x x
N09 x
N10 x
N11 x x
N12 x
TOTAL 5 (42%) 5 (42%) 4 (33%) 1 (8%) 5 (42%)
 134
IQ2. Pedagogical methods that support definition

Participant Discussion Student- Student Project Active Online

Identifier generated choice based learning resources
questions activity learning (debates, (flipped
mock classrooms,
trials, jigsaw)
stations)
N01 x x x x
N02 x x
N03 x x x x
N04 x
N05 x x x
N06 x
N07 x x
N08 x x
N09 x x
N10 x
N11 x x
N12 x
TOTAL 4 (33%) 2 (17%) 4 5 (42%) 5 (42%) 5 (42%)
(33%)
 135
IQ3. Described self as teacher- or student-centered

Participant Teacher Strive to be Student Both teacher

Identifier centered student centered and learner
centered centered
N01 X
N02 X
N03 X
N04 X
N05 X
N06 X
N07 X
N08 X
N09 X
N10 X
N11 X
N12 X
TOTAL 0 6 (50%) 3 (25%) 3 (25%)
 136
IQ4. Teacher preparation that helped inform definition

Participant Practicum or Teacher prep Did not learn in

Identifier student teaching courses teacher prep
N01 X
N02 X
N03 X
N04 X
N05 X
N06 X
N07 X
N08 X
N09 X
N10 X
N11 X
N12 X
TOTAL 5 (42%) 2 (17%) 5 (42%)
 137
IQ5. LCTS used in the classroom

Discus Mo Stati Stude Tiered Solve Collabor La Jigs Projects Onlin

Partici sions ck ons nt or authe ation bs aw /PBL e
pant trial choic scaffol ntic resou
Identif s e ded probl rces
ier activi assign ems
ties ments
N01 x x
N02 x x
N03 x x
N04 x x
N05 x x x
N06 x x x x
N07 x x
N08 x x
N09 x
N10 x x x
N11 x x
N12 x
TOTA 3 2 2 5 1 (8%) 4 2 (17%) 1 1 3 (25%) 2
L (25%) (17 (17 (42% (33% (8 (8% (17%
%) %) ) ) %) ) )
 138
IQ6. LCTS exposure in teacher prep program and professional development
Professional Development Teacher Preparation
Participant Content- PBL Advanced Admin Didn’t Student
Identifier specific Degree help; tech recognize teaching;
training café; it or see practicum
(NMSI; previous it
STEM; PD
NEED; (other)
AP)
N01 x x x
N02 x x x
N03 x x x
N04 x x
N05 x x x
N06 x x
N07 x x
N08 x x x
N09 x x
N10 x x
N11 x x X
N12 x x
TOTAL 4 (33%) 11 1 (8%) 2 (17%) 6 (50%) 6 (50%)
(92%)
 139
IQ7. Level of Preparation
Participant Not prepared Somewhat Prepared
Identifier Prepared
N01 x
N02 X
N03 X
N04 X
N05 X
N06 X
N07 X
N08 X
N09 X
N10 X
N11 X
N12 X
TOTAL 1 (8%) 5 (42%) 6 (50%)
 140
IQ8. Obstacles to using LCTS in the classroom

Participant Letting Like Resources Student Need Fear

Identifier go of teacher- and time resistance subject- of
control centered specific failure
instruction PD
(comfort
level)
N01 x x
N02 x x
N03 x x
N04 x x x
N05 x
N06 x x
N07 x x
N08 x
N09 x
N10 x
N11 x x x
N12 x x
TOTAL 2 2 (17%) 6 (50%) 6 (50%) 5 1
(17%) (42%) (8%)
 141
IQ9. Support Needed

Participant Content- Technology Student Observe/collaborate Resources

Identifier specific ownership in my content area and time
PD (coach/mentor)
N01 x
N02 x x x x
N03 x x
N04 x
N05 x x x
N06 x
N07 x x
N08 x x
N09 x
N10 x x
N11 x
N12 x
TOTAL 8 (67%) 3 (25%) 1 (8%) 4 (33%) 5 ( 42%)