國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
72
In addition to questioning types, questioning strategies were found effective strategies in encouraging students’ oral participation and in promoting classroom interaction in Helen’s actual teaching. Although questioning was a good way to increase the amount of speaking learners do in the classroom, it was found that the reply called for did not always appear immediately after Helen’s question. In that case, Helen often deployed a variety of questioning strategies to elicit the students’
responses. Scrutiny of classroom data revealed that the participating teacher frequently employed the strategy of providing examples, giving key words, offering translation, providing sentence patterns, and waiting more time.
Obviously, if teachers are concerned with the quantity of student output, it is not enough to focus on the types of teacher questions. Questioning strategies must be considered as well. According to Mehan (1979), students do not always respond immediately after teacher’s questions. If the reply called for by the teacher does not appear, the teacher may employ questioning strategies until the expected reply is obtained. The questioning strategies include prompting replies, repeating elicitations, and simplifying elicitations.
Consistency and Inconsistency
The third research question addressed the consistency and inconsistency between the participating teacher’s beliefs and her actual classroom practices. The results of this study indicated that the participating teacher’s beliefs were
consistent with her classroom practices. Among the seven elements through which Helen’s beliefs and classroom practice were displayed, five of them showed consistency between her beliefs and actual practices. The five elements were: the significance of classroom interaction, choice of language, the purpose of
questioning, teachers’ questioning types and teachers’ questioning strategies.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
73
Helen held to her beliefs in the importance of classroom interaction and questioning, and she behaved in ways that were consistent with her beliefs. In her actual teaching, she utilized a number of strategies to promote her classroom interaction and increase her students’ participation in class. Findings from this study supported the previous research findings that teachers’ practices were generally consistent with their beliefs (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Fang, 1994;
Graden, 1996; Johnson 1992; Pajares, 1992). For example, Clark and Peterson (1986) reported that there was a reciprocal relationship between the domains of teachers’ actions and their thought processes. Another researcher, Pajares (1992), claimed that teachers’ beliefs were useful in understanding their behaviors. A substantial number of such studies supported the notion that teachers did possess beliefs towards teaching and that such beliefs tended to shape the nature of their instructional practices. In other words, teachers’ behavior was substantially influenced and even determined by teachers’ beliefs.
The consistency between beliefs and practices has also been supported by the research in the areas of literacy instruction. For example, Johnson’s (1992) study indicated that the majority of English as a Second Language teachers who possessed clearly defined theoretical beliefs provided literacy instruction which was consistent with their theoretical orientation and that teachers with different dominant theoretical orientations provided strikingly different literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. The findings were further confirmed by Fang (1996) who examined a fourth-grade language arts teacher’s beliefs about literacy and its effects on her students’ perception of literacy processes. Taken together, the small body of research mentioned above supported the notion that teachers’ beliefs helped shape their pedagogy. Specifically, it indicated that teachers taught in accordance with their beliefs. It further suggested that teachers’ beliefs not only
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
74
shaped the nature of classroom interaction, but had a great influence on students’
perception of literacy processes as well. Therefore, a better understanding of teachers’ beliefs is needed to understand why teachers do in their actual practices.
It will significantly contribute to enhancing educational effectiveness.
Although the above-mentioned studies have indicated that teachers’ beliefs and practices were consistent, a number of studies have highlighted that there were inconsistencies between teachers’ beliefs and their observed practices. For example, the present study found that in addition to the strong sense of
consistency between Helen’s stated belief and her actual practices, it was noted that the small-scale degree of inconsistency did exist. For instance, Helen’s beliefs of the language for communicative language use and group activities were not authenticated in her teaching. Her group activity turned out to be a whole class teaching. Meanwhile, her beliefs of communicative language use were only partially realized in her daily instruction. Helen believed interaction and communication were equally important, but she emphasized the drilling and sentence patterns in her teaching. It seemed that drill practices were more important than communicative activities in her mind.
In the stimulated-recall interview, Helen attributed the disparity between her beliefs and teaching practices to some contextual factors such as textbooks, time constraints, students’ low English proficiency, students’ diverse abilities and big class size. Due to the factors, she modified her beliefs to respond to the specific context where she worked.
The inconsistency between teachers’ beliefs and their practices was not unexpected. Earlier researchers have noted that the complexities of classroom life could constrain teachers’ abilities to attend to their beliefs and provide instruction which was consistent with their theoretical beliefs (Borg, 2003; Clark & Peterson,
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
75
1986; Fang, 1996). Constrained by some contextual factors, sometimes teachers’
classroom practices did not completely correspond to their beliefs. For example, Borg’s study (2003) indicated that the contextual factors, such as students, school, or curriculum may modify the beliefs or lead to the inconsistency between beliefs and action. Clark & Peterson (1986) pointed out teachers’ actions were often constrained by the physical setting or by external influences such as the school, the principal, the community, or the curriculum. The following section continued and discussed the factors that may contribute to the inconsistency between Helen’s beliefs and her actual classroom practices.