Instructors’ Perceptions and Barriers of Learner-Centered Instruction in English at the University Level
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper aims to examine the instructors’ perceptions of learner-centered instruction and possible barriers to implementing this instructional method in teaching English as a Foreign Language (EFL) at the university level in the Saudi Arabian context. To do this, four questions were posed. The first question investigates instructors’ perceptions of learner-centered instruction, and the second question examines the barriers that would face EFL instructors while implementing learner-centered instruction when teaching preparatory year students. The third and fourth questions are an attempt to investigate if there are any significant differences in instructors’ perceptions at (a=0.05) due to instructors’ qualifications and years of experience. The researchers developed a 4-likert scale questionnaire of two main parts: personal and professional-perceptions and barriers. The qualitative part includes an open-ended question for instructors to elaborate on possible barriers that would hinder implementing learner-centered instruction. The results of the first question indicated that instructors have a positive attitude toward learner-centered instruction. They believe that it is an effective way to enhance students’ learning. The second question reveals that instructors agree with all the barriers that hinder the implementation of this instructional method except one item related to their attitudes which have been demonstrated as positive in their responses to the first question. The third and fourth questions revealed no significant differences in instructors’ perceptions due to qualifications and years of experience which could be due to the institutional and educational context that haven’t supported instructors’ qualifications and years of experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".