A systematic review of the implementation of learner‐centred pedagogy in low‐ and middle‐income countries

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive descriptive overview of the implementation of learner‐centred pedagogy (LCP) in low‐ and middle‐income countries. Considerable time, money, and resources have been invested in LCP in many countries worldwide, and yet we still lack a comprehensive body of evidence regarding its implementation and outcomes. This systematic review aimed at going beyond the limitations of individual studies, confined by time, context and samples, in order to offer stronger applicability and generalisability to wider contexts. The dataset for analysis consisted of 94 journal articles published between January 2001 and December 2020, selected based on explicit inclusion/exclusion criteria. A team of three researchers utilised EPPI‐Reviewer and QSR NVivo to import, screen, and analyse the texts. The literature on LCP implementation was mapped by key variables such as country, educational setting, study participants, and methods. Firstly, the study found that despite LCP being explicitly promoted in numerous contexts, most classrooms were still predominately teacher‐centred. Secondly, the review identified a wide range of constraints and enablers of LCP implementation, spanning across the individual, classroom, school, policy, and wider society levels. Thirdly, although several positive and negative outcomes of LCP emerged from the study, the review found that the objective evidence on LCP outcomes was somewhat limited, indicating that there is an urgent need for additional research to evaluate LCP outcomes. A conceptual framework of LCP implementation is presented, and implications for policy and future research are discussed. The video abstract for this article is available at https://youtu.be/57EsnDUe_QQ. Rationale for this study Despite the worldwide spread of learner‐centred pedagogy (LCP), we currently lack a comprehensive body of evidence regarding its implementation and outcomes. Why the new findings matter The findings will help educational stakeholders decide whether and how LCP‐related reforms should continue, based on the enablers, constraints, and outcomes of LCP implementation identified in the review. Implications for educational researchers and decision‐makers Firstly, educational researchers will benefit from having a clear summary of existing research which identifies opportunities to further enhance our knowledge; in particular, there is an important gap in the literature in terms of research on the outcomes of LCP implementation over time. Secondly, educational decision‐makers will be better placed to decide (a) the extent to which they should continue to allocate limited resources towards the implementation of LCP‐related reforms; and (b) how they may learn from the cumulative findings of existing case studies to increase the chances of successful implementation.

Do we have to rethink inclusive pedagogies for secondary schools? A critical systematic review of the international literature

“…As discussed, learner‐centred pedagogies are often associated with implementation challenges and practical constraints (e.g. Sakata et al., 2022).…”

“…Such arguments are also present in debates around educational 'buzzwords' such as student-centred learning (SCL). For example, the notion of 'power-sharing' has been shown to be the least supported and/or practical aspect of SCL (Bremner, 2021a(Bremner, , 2021b, with many constraints to implementation (Sakata et al, 2022), especially in more conservative educational cultures (Wang, 2007).…”

University student-teachers’ diversity and attitudes toward classroom participation

“…LCP, being regarded as a home of student classroom participation, has been challenging to implement ([ [11] , [12] , [13] , [14] ]. The challenge compels many educators to use unidirectional teaching methods, which hardly allow interaction during teaching and learning [ 15 , 16 ]. The reasons usually put forth as an excuse include large class size, lack of resources, nature of the curriculum, and assessment [ 6 , [17] , [18] , [19] ].…”

“…Most classrooms have limited learning resources, large classes, and teachers inadequately trained [ 22 , 23 ]. Sometimes, LCP lacks the prominence it deserves [ 24 ], such as students’ readiness, interest, and active participation [ 16 , 25 ]. There is a virtual absence of discussions, group work, and questions and answers in LCP-related practices [ 14 , 16 ].…”

“…Sometimes, LCP lacks the prominence it deserves [ 24 ], such as students’ readiness, interest, and active participation [ 16 , 25 ]. There is a virtual absence of discussions, group work, and questions and answers in LCP-related practices [ 14 , 16 ]. Even when teachers try to practice LCP, students are inactive in participating in classroom talk [ 10 , 16 ].…”