* Corresponding author IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021, 281-296 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/) Available online at IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education) Website: http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee INVESTIGATION ON GENDER AND LEARNER-CENTERED TEACHING STRATEGIES TOWARD LEARNERS' WRITING PERFORMANCE Nursamsu Received: 27st May 2021; Revised: 13th October 2021; Accepted: 27th December 2021 ABSTRACT This research investigated the interaction effects between gender and Learner-Centered Teaching Strategies toward learners' writing performance. The study was a quasi-experiment using tests as the research instrument. The participants were 72 learners of the English Department at a state institution consisting of 34 males and 38 females. The class was classified into two parts: experiment groups consisting of self-directed learning class (SDL), discovery learning class (DL), and small group discussion class (SGD); and a control group: lecturing class (L). A two-way ANOVA was used for data analysis. The findings confirmed a significant difference by gender (F=10.629. Sig. 0.002<0.05); and Learner-Centered Teaching Strategies F=20.658. Sig. 0.000<0.050) on the learners' writing performance. It also indicated that females (means score 73.46) were higher than males (means score 64.45). In contrast, no interaction effect simultaneously occurred among gender and the Learner-Centered Teaching Strategies (F 2.70) = 2.301. Sig. 0.086>0.050). Both of them did not contribute simultaneously to writing performance. Lastly, the r squared was 0.574 indicating a high correlation of teaching strategies and gender (57%). The teachers were suggested to apply learner-centered teaching strategies in an L2 writing class at a higher education level. Keywords: gender; learners-centered teaching strategies, writing performance ABSTRAK Penelitian ini menyelidiki pengaruh interaksi antara gender dan strategi pengajaran terpusat pada peserta didik terhadap kinerja menulis peserta didik. Jenis penelitian ini adalah kuasi eksperimen dengan instrument yang digunakan adalah tes. Partisipan berjumlah 72 mahasiswa Jurusan Bahasa Inggris di sebuah universitas negeri yang terdiri dari 34 laki-laki dan 38 perempuan. Kelas diklasifikasikan menjadi dua bagian: kelompok eksperimen yang terdiri dari kelas self-directed learning (SDL), kelas discovery learning (DL), ; kelas diskusi kelompok kecil (SGD); dan kelompok kontrol: kelas kuliah (L). Anova dua jalur digunakan pada analisis data. Temuan mengkonfirmasi perbedaan yang signifikan terjadi untuk jenis kelamin (F = 10,629. Sig. 0,002 <0,05); dan strategi pengajaran terpusat pada peserta didik F=20.658. Sig. 0,000<0,050) terhadap kemampuan menulis siswa. Hal ini juga menunjukkan bahwa perempuan (rata-rata skor 73,46) lebih tinggi daripada laki-laki (rata-rata skor 64,45). Sebaliknya, tidak ada efek interaksi yang terjadi secara simultan antara gender dan strategi pengajaran terpusat pada peserta didik (F 2,70) = 2,301. Tanda tangan. 0,086>0,050). Keduanya tidak berkontribusi secara bersamaan pada kinerja menulis. Terakhir, nilai r kuadrat adalah 0,574 yang menunjukkan korelasi tinggi antara strategi pengajaran dan gender (57%). Para guru disarankan untuk menerapkan strategi pengajaran yang berpusat pada peserta didik di kelas menulis L2 di pendidikan tinggi. Kata kunci: gender; strategi mengajar berfokus ke siswa; kemampuan menulis How to Cite: Nursamsu. (2021). Investigation on Gender and Learners-Centered Teaching Strategies Toward Learners' Writing Performance. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 281-296. doi:10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 282-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license INTRODUCTION Although many studies have been on learner-centered learning in recent years, further research is still needed to fulfill higher education demand in the millennial era. The teaching strategy is lesson preparation, including arrangement, instructional goals, and an outline to implement the teaching strategy (Issac, 2010). Commonly, the professor spent most of the time lecturing in class; the students only watched and listened to the lesson. This is the typical model of lecturing class. The learners study individually in class, and working together is discouraged. Traditionally, teachers focused on lecturing in the classroom setting. This is called teacher-centered learning. In teacher-centered learning, teachers were dominant in the classroom setting. Teachers are information sources to monitor learners (Zohrabi et al., 2012). According to Acat and Dönmez (2009), teachers usually use particular textbooks, which are mostly grammar oriented and to compare the language structures of native and target languages. In teacher-centered learning, the questions were responded to directly by teachers without learners' involvement. The teachers control every learning experience (Nagaraju et al., 2013). In traditional teaching, teachers work harder than learners. Learners have less time to practice. Meanwhile, teachers have much time to practice. In contrast to teacher-centered learning, learner-centered learning changes the classroom atmosphere from teacher to student. In this case, learners-centered learning becomes a pioneer of developing the learning paradigm. Here, learners' activities are essential indicators in the learning process (Zohrabi et al., 2012). This learning was connected with flexible, experiential, and self-directed learning (Acat & Dönmez, 2009). Additionally. Karamustafaoglu (2009) also states that learner-centered methods involve learning models participating in the classroom setting. In learner-centered teaching, learners move from passive participants to active participants. A teaching model positioned the learner at the epicentrum of classroom activity. The teacher has to motivate and facilitate learners in learning. Learner-centered teaching employs various teaching methods. This model focuses on shifting the teachers' duty from information givers to facilitators and motivators in student learning. Learner-centered teaching strategies cover active learning, cooperative learning, and inductive learning. Nunan (2004, p. 8) stated that a learner- centered class involves students in the classroom setting in the learning IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 283-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license process. There are some reasons to take a learner-centered approach. It assists learners to study in their way. It put learning responsibility at learners and is seen as best practice internationally. Teaching will have a solid foundation to develop learning skills. The teachers' duty is as a facilitator in the classroom setting. Cheang (2009) studies on the related topic. The study revealed that the learner-centered method effectively improved motivation and learning strategies. In the present study, the study was restricted to three models of learner-centered teaching strategies, namely self-directed learning (SDL); discovery learning (DL); and group discussion (SGD). SDL is a learning model in which learners have the initiative to diagnose the needs of learning, determine objectives, choose learning materials, apply suitable learning methods, and make an assessment (Knowles, 1975, p. 18). SDL is a learning model when students formulate the goals (Fisher et al., 2001). Teachers provide scaffolding, mentoring, advising. Most SDL studies reveal that SDL can increase learners' self-assessment and motivation (Bourner, 2003; Dynan et al., 2008; Schmenk, 2005). Previous studies confirm that SDL deals with graduate education (Acar, 2014; Fisher et al., 2001; Fox, 2011; Sarmasoglu & Görgülü, 2014; Williamson, 2007). The findings confirmed that instructional environments have to be designed to improve learners' self-control skills. Edmondson et al. (2012) believed that learners using SDL effectively have more benefits than others. Ilhan- Beyaztaş (2014) also confirmed that successful learners become effective learners by determining goals, providing a learning atmosphere, and monitoring their studying. In addition, Karasakaloglu and Saracaloglu (2009) confirm that female students performed better in academic self-design than male students. The finding of relevant researches revealed that SDL is in congruent level thinking skills. Discovery Learning (DL) is a learning method providing learners to conclude. It means that learners were problem solvers in the learning process (Balım, 2009, p. 2). This idea is supported by Abrahamson and Kapur (2018), stating that discovery learning is a learning process that occurs when students are not presented with final lessons but are expected to organize themselves. Meanwhile, Wenning (2010) stated that DL is a learning model that enables learners to acquire knowledge. Small group discussion (SGD) is a cooperative learning method giving more chances to learners to collect ideas and knowledge. SGD is a group of IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 284-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license students working corporately to achieve specific goals (Brown, 2001). Moreover, Slavin (2006, p. 234) states that in SGD, learners work in four to six member groups to talk about a specific theme. It was stated that it is a situation in which students exchange and share information with their group to find the solution to the task given. Wu (2008) confirms that SGD improves learners' participation in constructing knowledge. Anggraini and Soesatyo (2016) study the effect of SGD to improve students' scores in learning English for Senior High School. The finding revealed that Small Group Discussion successfully had a significant effect in improving students' results in learning and making students active during the learning process. Next, Putri et al. (2015) revealed that SGD performed better than the others in reading. Last, Juan (2014) shows that Group discussion increases learners to train the four language skills. Besides, SGD helps build the confidence and sense of participating in the classroom. Moreover, some investigations evidenced that gender differences contributed to writing achievement. Therefore, gender differences are another variable that contributed to this study. The current investigation revealed that men and women have differences in structures and function in the brain. For example, there are differences in the male and female cerebral cortex (Rabinowicz et al., 2002). Brains are more asymmetric in men but not in women (Frederikse, 1999). This data motivates the researcher to validate the previous findings. Therefore, the present study explores the interaction effects between gender and Learner-Centered Teaching Strategies toward writing ability. This study involved gender difference as a potential factor influencing learners' writing achievement. Based on the facts above, the questions were: (a) how does gender significantly affect the learners' writing performance? (b) how does learner-centered teaching strategy significantly affect the learners' writing performance? (c) is there any interaction between gender and learner- centered teaching strategy to the learners' writing performance? The aim is to investigate whether gender and learner-centered teaching strategies are simultaneous to the learners' writing performance? The distinction is that the study involves gender and learner- centered teaching strategy as variables that influence the learners' writing accuracy. METHOD The quasi-experimental design using factorial design was employed (Ary et al., 2010, p. 641). The design is suitable since it examined two IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 285-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license categorical variables. The participants involved were 72 learners of the English Department, consisting of 34 males and 38 females. The class was divided into two groups: experiment groups consisting of SDL class; DL class, SGD class; and a control group: lecturing class. The study applied a two-way analysis of variance to analyze data. The participants were self-directed learning (13) consisted of 8 males and five females; discovery learning (19) consisted of 8 males and 11 female; small group discussion (22) consisted of 12 males and ten female; and lecturing class (18) consisted of 6 males and 12 female, as illustrated in Table 1. Table 1. The Participants of the Study Types of Teaching Strategies Gender Total Male Female SDL 8 5 13 DL 8 11 19 SGD 12 10 22 Lecturing 6 12 18 Total 34 38 72 The first step to do the research was divided into two groups: experiment groups consisting of experiment 1, experiment 2, experiment 3, and a control class. Each class was given by the teacher a different treatment. Experiment class 1 was treated using self-directed learning (SDL); experiment class 2 was treated using discovery learning (DL); experiment class 3 was treated using small group discussion (SGD), and a control class was taught using lecturing (L). The instrument was a writing test. After being given treatment, the participants were assigned to write an essay of about 450-500 words on the selected topic. Before analyzing the data, the assumption tests were conducted before analyzing the data, such as testing the normality using the Kolmogorov Smirnoff test (Sig.0.200 > p. 0.050, and testing homogeneity using Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances (Sig. 0.870 > p.0.050 (Pallant, 2000, p. 2). The output revealed that the data were normally distributed and did not violate the homogeneity. The null hypotheses were: (a) L2 learners with different gender did not significantly differ in their writing performance; (b) L2 learners with different types of learner-centered teaching strategies did not significantly differ in their writing performance? (c) L2 learners with different gender and learner-centered teaching strategies did not significantly differ in their writing performance. A two-way analysis of variance was employed to analyze data on the effect of gender and learner- centered teaching strategies on learners' writing performance. Finally, interpretation of the result was made to see whether there was an effect or not gender and learner-centered teaching IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 286-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license strategies simultaneously on the learners' writing performance. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION findings The test was followed by 72 participants consisting of 34 males and 38 females, as seen in Table 2. Table 2. Participant classification Value Label N teaching strategies 1. SDL 13 2 DL 19 3 SGD 22 4 Lecturing 18 Gender 1 Male 34 2 Female 38 The participants were self-directed learning (13) consisted of 8 males and five females; discovery learning (19) consisted of 8 males and 11 females; small group discussion (22) consisted of 12 males and ten females, and lecturing class (18) consisted of 6 males and 12 female. The learners' writing performance was described in Table 2. Table 3. The learners' writing performance teaching strategies Gender Mean Std. Deviation N self- directed learning Male 73.3750 6.27780 8 Female 84.8000 5.76194 5 Total 77.7692 8.21740 13 discovery learning Male 59.3750 22.64596 8 Female 77.7273 10.72465 11 Total 70.0000 18.70829 19 small Male 68.3333 6.31497 12 teaching strategies Gender Mean Std. Deviation N group discussion Female 77.3000 7.93095 10 Total 72.4091 8.29032 22 Lecturing Male 56.8333 11.75443 6 Female 54.0000 10.18019 12 Total 54.9444 10.46828 18 Total Male 65.3824 13.85863 34 Female 71.0526 14.98097 38 Total 68.3750 14.64071 72 Figure 1. The learners' writing performance The output showed the summary of Descriptive Statistics from the analyzed data. It covered the means score, standard deviation, and the number of participants. This revealed that means score for learners’ writing performance based on gender and teaching strategies were: self-directed learning (male, 73.38; female 84.80; total 77.77); Discovery learning (male, 59.38; female 77.73; total 70.00); Small Group Discussion (male, 68.33; female 77.30; total 72.41); lecturing (male, 56.83; female 54.00; total 56.91). The learners' IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 287-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license writing performance was described in Figure 1. Testing Statistical Hypothesis To respond to the research questions, the two-way ANOVA table is described as illustrated in Table 3. Table 3. the two-way Anova: test between subjects Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Corrected Model 6541.543a 7 934.506 12.311 .000 Intercept 321453.213 1 321453.213 4.235E3 .000 Teaching strategies 4704.190 3 1568.063 20.658 .000 Gender 806.776 1 806.776 10.629 .002 Teaching strategies * gender 524.053 3 174.684 2.301 .086 Error 4857.957 64 75.906 Total 356680.000 72 Corrected Total 11399.500 71 a. R Squared = ,574 (Adjusted R Squared = ,527) The output showed the data to test the hypothesis. The first column showed the factors to be discussed in the study. The second column showed the total square. The third column showed the degrees of freedom (df). The fourth column showed the means squared. The fifth column showed the F value. The sixth column showed the Significance value. The result of the ANOVA test indicated that the corrected model was (F=12.311, p. 0.000<0.050). The model was valid to be investigated using a two-way analysis of variance. The intercept indicated (F=4.235E3, p. 0.000<0.050). The intercept was significant. The effect of teaching strategies toward writing accuracy was (F(3.71)=20.658. Sig. 0.000<0.050). Since it was smaller than 0.05, it was said that teaching strategies contributed to writing performance. Then, The effect of gender on the learners' writing performance was (F=1.71)=10.629. Sig. 0.002<0.05). Since it was lower than 0.05, it was said that gender also contributed to writing accuracy. However, the interaction effect between teaching strategies and gender on learners' writing performance was (F (3.71)= 2.301. Sig. 0.086>0.050). Since it was more significant than 0.05, it was said that gender and teaching strategies did not contribute to writing performance. There was no interaction between gender and teaching strategies to learners' writing performance. The error value was 75.906; it was categorized as minor: the smaller, the better of the model. In addition, the r squared was 0.574. it indicated a high correlation. The variability of teaching strategies and gender learners' writing performance was 57%. A further explanation was explained: IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 288-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Gender did not affect writing performance To respond to the first research question: "(a) does gender significantly affect the learners' writing performance?" the two-way analysis of variance table explained the answer, as explained in Table 3 above. The output indicated that the F value of gender was (F=10.629. Sig. 0.002<0.05). It was said that there was a difference in writing performance because of gender factors. In this case, female was higher than male in their writing performance. The average male score was 66.45, and female was 73.46, as illustrated in Table 4. Table 4. Gender factor Gender Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Male 66.448 1.540 63.371 69.525 Female 73.457 1.500 70.460 76.453 The output showed the difference in means score on learners' writing performance between males and females. It indicated that the means score of male was 64.45 and female was 73.46. Then, the Pairwise Comparison Table revealed that the mean difference was 8.978* and p. 0.002. There was a significant difference among males and females on writing performance (F=10.629, p.0. 002<0.05)., as illustrated in Table 5. Table 5. Pairwise Comparisons analysis (I) gend er (J) gend er Mean Differen ce (I-J) Std. Erro r Sig. a 95% Confidence Interval for Differencea Lowe r Boun d Uppe r Boun d m f -8.978* 2.75 6 .00 2 - 14.48 4 - 3.472 f M 8.978* 2.75 6 .00 2 3.472 14.48 4 Teaching strategies did not affect writing performance. Table 3 also indicated that the effect of learner-centered teaching strategies on the learners' writing performance was (F=20.658. Sig. 0.000<0.050). Since it was lower than 0.05, it was said that learner-centered teaching strategies affected learners' writing performance. The null hypothesis expressing that learner- centered teaching strategies did not contribute to writing performance was rejected, and the alternative hypothesis expressing that learner-centered teaching strategies significantly affected the learners' writing performance was accepted. Then, it was concluded that there was a difference in writing performance bacause of the learner- IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 289-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license centered teaching strategy factor. SDL, DL, and SGD differed significantly in their writing performance. The mean score of self-directed learning/ SDL (79.09), discovery learning/ DL (72.49), small group discussion/SGD (72.82) compared with lecturing (55.42), as explained in Table 6. Table 6. Learner-Centered Teaching Strategies (Dependent Variable: Writing Performance) Learner- Centered Teaching Strategies Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound Self Directed Learning (SDL) 79.088 2.483 74.126 84.049 Discovery learning (DL) 72.489 2.024 68.445 76.532 Small Group Discussion (SGD) 72.817 1.865 69.090 76.543 Lecturing (L) 55.417 2.178 51.065 59.768 The output showed the difference in means scores on learners' writing performance among SDL, DL, SGD, and Lecturing. It indicated that the means score of experiment groups: SDL (79.09), DL (72.49), SGD (72.82), performed better than the control group: Lecturing (55.42). It was said that Learner-centered Teaching Strategies performed better than Teacher-Centered Teaching Strategies. EFL learners with different gender and learner-centered teaching strategies do not differ significantly in their writing performance. The output of Table 3 also indicated that the F value of gender and learner-centered teaching strategies was (F=2.301. p. 0.086>0.050). This meant no interaction between gender and learner- centered teaching strategy to the learners' writing performance. It meant that both gender and learner-centered teaching strategy did not simultaneously affect their writing performance, as explained in Table 7. Table 7. Teaching strategies * gender teaching strategies gender Mean Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound Upper Bound (SDL) male 73.375 3.080 67.221 79.529 female 84.800 3.896 77.016 92.584 (DL) male 67.250 3.080 61.096 73.404 female 77.727 2.627 72.479 82.975 (SGD) male 68.333 2.515 63.309 73.358 female 77.300 2.755 71.796 82.804 (L) male 56.833 3.557 49.728 63.939 female 54.000 2.515 48.976 59.024 This indicated that all independent variables (gender and learner-centered teaching strategies) did not contribute simultaneously to writing performance. Then, the r squared was 0.574. it indicated a high correlation. Next, a post hoc test was employed to see the IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 290-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license difference among variables, as described in Table 8. Table 8. Multiple Comparisons of Writing Performance (I) teaching strategie s (J) teaching strategie s Mean Differenc e (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Lowe r Boun d Uppe r Boun d (SDL) DL 4.4534 3.1359 1 .49 2 -3.8186 12.725 5 SGD 5.3601 3.0478 1 .30 3 -2.6795 13.399 8 L 22.8248* 3.1711 0 .00 0 14.459 9 31.189 6 (DL) SDL -4.4534 3.1359 1 .49 2 - 12.725 5 3.8186 SGD .9067 2.7286 0 .98 7 -6.2909 8.1043 L 18.3713* 2.8656 6 .00 0 10.812 2 25.930 5 (SGD) SDL -5.3601 3.0478 1 .30 3 - 13.399 8 2.6795 DL -.9067 2.7286 0 .98 7 -8.1043 6.2909 L 17.4646* 2.7689 8 .00 0 10.160 5 24.768 8 (L) SDL -22.8248* 3.1711 0 .00 0 - 31.189 6 - 14.459 9 DL -18.3713* 2.8656 6 .00 0 - 25.930 5 - 10.812 2 SGD -17.4646* 2.7689 8 .00 0 - 24.768 8 - 10.160 5 The output showed the mean (MD) difference between SDL and DL was 4.4534 (Sig. 0.492) > p.0.05. It meant there was no difference between Self Directed Learning (SDL) and Discovery learning (DL) to writing performance. Then, the MD between SDL and SGD was 5.3601 (Sig. 0.303) >0.05. It meant that there was no difference between Self Directed Learning (SDL) and Small Group Discussion (SGD) to writing performance. On the contrary, the MD between SDL and Lecturing was 22.8248* (Sig. 0.000) 0.050). Both of them did not contribute simultaneously to writing performance. Lastly, the r squared was 0. 574 indicating a high correlation, and the variability of teaching strategies and gender was 57%. This finding was in accordance with Lu et al. (2008), Anggraini and Soesatyo (2016), Putri et al., (2015) Juan (2014), Balım (2009), Schmenk (2005), Fox (2011); Sabarun and Tazkiyatunnafs (2020), Nursamsu (2021), Edmondson et al. (2012), Ilhan-Beyaztaş (2014), Karasakaloglu and Saracaloglu (2009), Saban (2008), and Demirtaş and Özer (2007). The finding confirmed that Learners- Centered Teaching Strategies outperformed better than teachers- Centered learning. The finding also followed Cheang (2009), mentioning that the learner-centered method effectively improved motivation and learning strategies. This was also in line with several investigations (Indrianti, 2012; Kidwell & Triyoko, 2012). This was possible due to some factors. First, Learners- Centered Teaching method assisted learners to study in their way. It put learning responsibility at learners. Second, Learners- Centered Teaching method gave a solid foundation to develop learning skills. The teachers' duty was as a facilitator in the classroom setting. Third, it provided an insightful overview of learners' learning needs as input to syllabus design, material planning, and classroom instruction practice. The finding suggested that learners- centered teaching methods should be applied in L2 writing classes. Teachers should use learners centered learning methods appropriately based on the materials discussed. This finding accurately described the importance of gender difference and learner-centered teaching strategies in L2 writing. Based on the results, some recommendations were proposed. First, learner-centered teaching strategies could be the alternative method in L2 writing class. Therefore, writing teachers should use various methods using learners' centered teaching in the classroom setting. Second, writing teachers should consider the gender difference in IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 292-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license arousing learners' motivation to write better. This was also an essential part of the writing process. Some elements affecting the learners' achievement in learning writing include aspirations of the soul, learners' ability, the condition of learners, environmental conditions of learners, dynamic elements in learning writing, and teachers' efforts in learning writing. Other researchers and academicians can conduct similar research to a more significant number of samples with different academic levels or use other elements that may affect learning writing outcomes. Since this study limited the learning outcomes to students' writing tests, future researchers may also expand to a broader definition of learning outcomes to investigate the following research profoundly. It was also recommended that the other researchers conduct similar research studies in different levels of education, perspective, and paradigm. The limitations of the present study leave gaps for future investigators to fill in through further investigations. REFERENCES Abrahamson, D., & Kapur, M. (2018). Reinventing discovery learning: a field-wide research program. Instructional Science, 46(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-017- 9444-y Acar, C. (2014). Investigation of Science Teacher candidates' Self Directed Learning Skills in Terms of Several Variables. Pamukkale University. Acat, B., & Dönmez, İ. (2009). To compare student centred education and teacher centred education in primary science and technology lesson in terms of learning environments. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1805–1809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2009. 01.320 Anggraini, A. F., & Soesatyo, Y. (2016). Implementation of small group discussion method in improving learning results students of x-4 classes at the science in SMA Negeri Bandar Kedungmulyo Jombang. Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to Research in Education (Eighth Edi). Wadsworth, Cangage Learning. Balım, A. G. (2009). The effects of discovery learning on students' success and inquiry learning skills. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research Egitim Arastirmalari- Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 35(35), 1–20. Benson, P. (2003). Learner autonomy in the classroom. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Practical English language teaching. McGraw Hill. Bourner, T. (2003). Assessing reflective learning. Education Training, 45(5), 267–272. Bown, J. (2009). Self-regulatory strategies and agency in self-structured language learning: A situated view. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 293-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license The Modern Language Journal, 93(4), 570–583. Brown, H. D. (2001). Teaching by principles: An interactive approach to language pedagogy. Pearson Education Company. Cadorin, L., Bressan, V., & Palese, A. (2017). Instruments evaluating the self-directed learning abilities among nursing students and nurses: a systematic review of psychometric properties. BMC Medical Education, 17(1), 229. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017- 1072-3 Demirtaş, H., & Özer, N. (2007). The relationship between prospective teachers' time management skills and academic achievement. Inter. J. Sponsored Int. Assoc. Educ. (INASED), 2, 34–37. Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford. Oxford University Press. Druckman, D., & Ebner, N. (2018). Discovery learning in management education: Design and case analysis. Journal of Management Education, 42(3), 347–374. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177 /1052562 917720710 Dynan, L., Cate, T., & Rhee, K. (2008). The impact of learning structure on students' readiness for self-directed learning. Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 96–100. Edmondson, D. R., Boyer, S. L., & Artis, A. B. (2012). Self-directed learning: a meta-analytic review of adult learning constructs. International Journal of Educational Research, 7. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F02734753 13494010 Fisher, M., King, J., & Tague, G. (2001). Development of a self-directed learning readiness scale for nursing education. Nurse Education Today, 21(7), 516–525. https://doi.org/10.1054/nedt.2001.058 9 Fox, K. (2011). Veteran Elementary Teachers' Experiences With Self- Directed Learning: An Interpretive Study. The University of Maine. Frederikse, M. E. (1999). Sex Differences in the Inferior Parietal Lobule. Cerebral Cortex, 9(8), 896–901. https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/9.8.89 6 Hendry, G. D., & Ginns, P. (2009). Readiness for self-directed learning: Validation of a new scale with medical students. Medical Teacher, 31(10), 918–920. https://doi.org/10.3109/01421590802 520899 Ilhan-Beyaztaş, D. (2014). Learning Approaches of Successful Students' and Their Suggestions About Effective Learning. Hacettepe University. Indrianti. (2012). Developing Student- centered Grammar Materials for Beginners' Level Indonesian. Electronic Journal of Foreign Language Teaching, 9(1), 380–401. eflt.nus.edu.sg/v9s12012/indrianti.pd f Issac, J. C. (2010). Methods and Strategies of Teaching: an overview. Pondicherry University Press. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 294-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Jones, L. (2007). The students-Centered Classroom. Cambridge University Press. Juan, L. (2014). Study on the Group Discussion-Based English Reading Teaching. Higher Education of Social Science. Karamustafaoglu, O. (2009). Active Learning Strategies in Physics Teaching. Online Submission, 1(1), 27–50. Karasakaloglu, N., & Saracaloglu, A. S. (2009). The relationship between academic self-concept along with achievement, attitudes toward Turkish lesson of prospective elementary school teachers [Yüzüncü Yil University]. https://doi.org/10.1501/Dilder_00000 00045 Kidwell, T. J., & Triyoko, H. (2012). Implementing a Student-Centered Pedagogy: Doing so in the Indonesian Teaching-Learning Context. Register, 5(1). http://eprints.stainsalatiga.ac.id/91 Knowles, M. (1975). Self-directed learning: A guide for learners and teachers. Association Press. Lopes, J. B., & Cunha, A. E. (2017). Self- directed professional development to improve effective teaching: Key points for a model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 68, 262–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.09. 009 Lu, Z., Huang, X., & Sun, J. (2008). The Teacher's Roles in a Student-Centered Audio-Video Speaking Class. International Journal of Pedagogies and Learning, 4(4), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.5172/ijpl.4.4.78 Lunyk-Child, .O. I., Crooks, D., Ellis, P. J., Ofosu, C., O'Mara, L., & Rideout, E. (2001). Self-directed learning: faculty and student perceptions. Journal of Nursing Education, 40(3), 116–123. Murphy, T., Malloy, J., & O'Brien, S. (2010). Discovery Learning. Nagaraju, C., Madhavaiah, G., & Peter, S. (2013). Teacher-Centred Learning and StudentCentred Learning in English Classroom: the Teaching Methods Realizing the Dreams of Language. International Journal of Scientific Research and Reviews, 2(3). Nunan, D. (2004). Practical English Language Teaching. Higher Education Press. Nursamsu. (2021). The Effect of Graphic Organizers in Argumentative Essay across Different Proficiency levels at Higher Education. Multicultural Education, 7(9). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.55141 92 Ornstein, A. C., & Lasley, T. J. (2000). Strategies for Effective Teaching. MC Graw Hill. Putri, Y., Suparman, U., & Suka, R. G. (2015). The Use of Small Group Discussion Technique Increase Students' Reading Comprehension. Online Journal. IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 295-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Rabinowicz, T., Petetot, J. M.-C., Gartside, P. S., Sheyn, D., Sheyn, T., & de Courten-Myers, G. M. (2002). Structure of the Cerebral Cortex in Men and Women. Journal of Neuropathology & Experimental Neurology, 61(1), 46–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnen/61.1.46 Rushton, S. P. (2003). Two preservice teachers' growth in self-efficacy while teaching in an inner-city school. The Urban Review, 35, 167– 189. Saab, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M. (2007). Supporting communication in a collaborative discovery learning environment: The effect of instruction. Instructional Science, 35(1), 73–98. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007 /s11251-006-9003. Saban, A. I. (2008). An investigation of elementary school teaching department students' metacognition awareness and motivation in terms of some socio-demographic variables. Ege Egitim Dergisi, 9, 35–38. Sabarun, A. S., & Tazkiyatunnafs, E. (2020). The Effectiveness of Direct and Indirect Feedback on Learners' Writing Performance across Different Gender and Cultural Background. Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, 11(04). https://doi.org/10.31838/srp.2020.4.3 0 Sanches. (2009). Definition of Small Group. Sarmasoglu, S., & Görgülü, S. (2014). Self- directed learning readiness levels of nursing students. Hacettepe University. Schmenk, B. (2005). Globalizing learner autonomy. TESOL Quarterly, 39(1), 107–118. Shen, W., Chen, H., & Hu, Y. (2014). The validity and reliability of the self- directed learning instrument (SDLI) in mainland Chinese nursing students. BMC Medical Education, 14(1), 108. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920- 14-108 Slavin, R. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Theory and Practice. Pearson Education Inc. Sofeny, D. (2017). The effectiveness of discovery learning in improving English writing skill of extroverted and introverted students. Jurnal Penelitian Humaniora, 18(1), 41. https://doi.org/10.23917/humaniora.v 18i1.3639 Sulistyawati, A. E. (2012). The use of cooperative learning in small group discussion in genre-based reading class. Diponegoro University Semarang. Weimer, M. (2013). Learner-centered teaching. Jossey-Bass. Wenning, C. J. (2010). Levels of inquiry: Using inquiry spectrum learning sequences to teach science. Journal of Physics Teacher Education Online, 5(4), 11–19. Wu. (2008). Effective Activities for Teaching English Idioms to EFL Learners. http://iteslj.org/ Techniques/WuTeachingIdioms.html IJEE (Indonesian Journal of English Education), 8(2), 2021 296-296 http://journal.uinjkt.ac.id/index.php/ijee | DOI: http://doi.org/10.15408/ijee.v8i2.20793 P-ISSN: 2356-1777, E-ISSN: 2443-0390 | This is an open access article under CC-BY-SA license Zohrabi, M., Torabi, M. A., & Baybourdiani, P. (2012). Teacher- centered and/or Student-centered Learning: English Language in Iran. English Language and Literature Studies, 2(3).