Case 2: Flora
R. 2.2. Why are Some of Their Beliefs as FL Learners not Realized in Their
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
84
pay attention to students’ individual differences” was derived from her teaching experience. As to Flora, having overcome difficulty teaching students of different ages and explored ways to teach students in different areas, she believed that students vary in their preferences for and purposes of English learning. She held a belief that “Students vary in their preferences for and purposes of English
learning.” This study thus revealed that both of the two English teachers outside the formal educational system modified their teaching on grounds of their teaching experience. This finding is in accordance with those of other studies on in-service language teachers (e.g., Breen, 1991; Crookes & Arakaki, 1999).
Nevertheless, the two teachers’ beliefs derived from their teaching experience only focus on students’ conditions such as paying attention to their individual differences. Beliefs in cognitive aspect such as how to teach effectively by
adopting different pedagogical approaches were not found. The finding is different from those of the studies which emphasized the change of teacher’s beliefs in cognitive aspect (Liao, 2007; Nunan1992; Tsui, 2003) but is in accordance with the findings of some other studies that discovered teachers’ attention on students’
conditions (Bailey et al., 1996; Breen, 1991; Sanchez & Borg, 2014).
This study discovered that, although teachers from informal educational institutes may not have similar teaching experience as formal teachers, they also hold beliefs derived from their teaching experience, especially about students’
conditions.
R. 2.2 Why are Some of Their Beliefs as FL Learners not Realized in Their Teaching?
Some of Esther’s and Flora’s beliefs as English teachers indeed emerged from their learning experiences (see Appendix 5 and Appendix 8). Both of the two
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
85
teachers hold firm beliefs as English teachers related to their beliefs as FL learners derived from their learning experiences in cognitive aspect as well as in affective aspect. The finding is inconsistent with those of the existing studies (e.g.,
Goodman, 1988; Numrich, 1996; Shao, 2012; Wang, 2005)
Nonetheless, as aforementioned, some of the two teachers’ teaching decisions were inconsistent with their beliefs as FL learners, including the absence of their belief that the purpose of FL learning is to communicate (see Appendix 7 and Appendix 10). The underlying reasons behind the inconsistencies are their beliefs as English teachers and perceived problems in teaching contexts, which are discussed below.
Beliefs as English Teachers V.S. Beliefs as FL Learners
As discussed in chapter four, contradictions between their beliefs as FL learners and as English teachers were found in both of the two cases (see Appendix 7 and 10).
As the examinees of the two strict entrance examinations, the JHSEE and the JCUEE, both of the two teachers used to be under great academic pressure. After becoming English teachers, they demonstrated deep empathy for their students who were also under academic pressure. Obviously, they cared about their students’
conditions much more than their academic achievements, so their beliefs in affective aspect were prior to those in cognitive aspect. The finding is consistent with those of the previous studies (Nespor, 1987).
However, it is noteworthy that, although Flora did not think vocabulary memorization and grammar learning were enjoyable tasks, she still insisted on teaching her students vocabulary and grammar and claimed that the two elements were the foundations of her students’ English learning. On the surface, it seems that Flora cared about her students’ learning methods more than their feelings. In fact, this was related to her failure in the JCUEE. Because of her insufficient vocabulary
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
86
size and ignorance of grammar, she could not enter the university she liked. She felt regretful. She insisted on teaching her students vocabulary and grammar because she did not want them to repeat her mistake.
The study discovered that English teachers in the informal educational institutes who used to be the examinees of the JHSEE and the JCUEE would demonstrate empathy for students who were under academic pressure. They cared about students’ feelings of learning and hoped students would not repeat their mistakes.
Perceived Problems in Teaching Contexts V.S. Beliefs as FL Learners The two English teachers in the informal educational contexts did make teaching decisions diverged from their beliefs as FL learners by virtue of the problems they encountered in teaching contexts. They made such modifications because they tended to fulfill the requirements from the contexts. One of Flora’s statements well exemplified the situation, “Whatever [teaching] context I am in, I would adjust myself to it” (10/05/2013). The finding is in accordance with those of the reviewed studies (Basturkmen, 2012; Borg, 2003; Fang, 1996).
However, as presented in Appendix 7 and 10, the present study found only the problems which have been discovered by other studies, but also revealed other problems which have not been found in other educational contexts. The problems similar to the findings of other studies are: set syllabus and students’ heavy workload (Crookes, 1997; Farrell, 2003), restricting institutional policies (Farrell, 2003;
Gorsuch, 2000; Kurihara & Samimy, 2007; Pennington & Richards, 1997), and students’ low English proficiency level (Pennington & Richards, 1997). The other problems which have not been revealed in other educational contexts are: lack of English speaking environment, inappropriate teaching materials, and serious concern for parental expectation.
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
87
All the problems can be further categorized into five groups (See Table 5.1).
First, there was no English speaking environment in their students’ learning context.
Esther had difficulty having young children in the bilingual preschools learn English in context. Neither did Flora insist on teaching her students learning English through speaking. She asserted, “Without contexts, speaking [English] is meaningless”
(10/5/2013). Second, as aforementioned, limited by the teaching materials and syllabuses included in the curricula, both of the English teachers gave up on teaching their students English through speaking. Third, because of the school policies, the teachers had to prepare their students for school exams although they did not think it was necessary. Fourth, the teachers would make teaching decisions inconsistent with their beliefs as FL learners about some learning methods because they took students’ conditions into consideration. Finally, the last and most
important, both of the two English teachers felt that parental expectation for children’s academic achievements is the chief reason responsible for students’
academic pressure. In order to represent students’ achievements in English learning, teachers in informal educational institutes had to prepare them for school exams.
Table 5.1 The Teachers’ Perceived Problems in Their Teaching Contexts
Belonged Group Problem
1. Students’ learning context Lack of English speaking environment
2. Curriculum Set syllabus
Inappropriate teaching materials 3. School policy Restricting institutional policies 4. Students’ conditions Students’ heavy workload
Students’ low English proficiency level
‧
國立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
88
5. Parents’ expectation Serious concern for parental expectation
The present study revealed that the two English teachers outside the formal educational system did not adhere to their beliefs as FL learners because of the groups of perceived problems in the teaching contexts: (1) students’ learning context, (2) curriculum, (3) school policy, (4) students’ conditions, and (5) parents’
expectation.
R. 3. How do the Two Teachers’ Beliefs as English Teachers outside the Formal