Nature and characteristics of teachers’ beliefs

國

立 政 治 大 學

‧

N a tio na

l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y

5

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

The goal of this chapter is to review literature concerning grammar teaching, teachers’ beliefs and practices. It is further divided into five sections. The first section includes prominent features of teachers’ beliefs. Then, different approaches to

grammar teaching will be introduced in the second section. The third and the fourth section discuss the relationship between beliefs and practices, including congruency and tensions. Finally, the rationale of the present study and research questions will be presented in the fifth section.

2.1 Teachers’ beliefs in education

The study of teachers’ beliefs has long been regarded as a key to understanding how teachers approach their work. It is also well recognized that teachers’ beliefs influence their perceptions, judgments, and actual teaching practices (Borg, 2003;

Farrell & Bennis, 2013, Pajares, 1992; Pearson, 1985). The following sections present some crucial issues in previous literature about teachers’ beliefs.

2.1.1 Nature and characteristics of teachers’ beliefs

According to Borg (2003), teachers’ beliefs refer to the “unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching—what teachers know, believe, and think” (p. 81). Four key features of teachers’ beliefs characterized by previous researchers are enumerated below:

1. Beliefs are not easy to be observed directly: Since beliefs are affective in nature (Nespor, 1987), they have to be inferred from words and require multiple measures such as open-ended interviews and observations of behaviors (Borg, 2003; Pajares, 1992).

‧

2. Beliefs are both dynamic and static: Beliefs are dynamic because teachers would constantly redefine and revise their beliefs according to what they have experienced in that particular context (Negueruela-Azarola, 2011). As the teachers teach from day to day, what they believe and what they do keep interacting and influencing each other, making teachers adjust existed beliefs or practices little by little (Breen et al., 2001). However, some beliefs, especially the ones that derived from early experiences, are so deeply rooted that they are resistant to change (Green, 1971; Nespor, 1987;

Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968). For Instance, teachers who received traditional grammar translation English education were found to have difficulty conducting more student-centered, task-based teaching (Lai, 2004; Wu, 2006). It usually takes them a long time to adjust to new teaching trends which center on student participation and authentic communication (Feryok, 2008).

3. Beliefs exert strong influence on perceptions and actions: Beliefs usually have strong and lasting power on teachers’ perceptions, interpretations, and most importantly, their instructional decisions (Borg, 2003, 2009; Farrell

& Bennis, 2013; Johnson, 1992b, 1994). As Breen et al. (2001) pointed out, teachers’ beliefs influence how they “orchestrate the interaction between learner, teacher, and subject matter in a particular classroom context with particular resources” (p.473). Moreover, in order to keep the beliefs intact, human beings tend to create a set of explanations to consolidate them. To do so, they sometimes choose to ignore or distort the reality (Green, 1971;

Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). In Pajare’s (1992) words, it is the “filtering effect” of beliefs that “screens, redefines, distorts, or reshapes” one’s thinking process” (p.325). Nespor (1987) used the term “alternativity” to

‧

describe the phenomenon in which teachers verbalize their beliefs in ideal teaching models which are distinct from reality. Beliefs, in this regard, do not always reflect what teachers actually do because other issues can significantly override even strongly held beliefs.

4. Beliefs often come in groups, and beliefs of different groups occupy different priorities: Some scholars proposed the concept of “cluster” to explain the reason why people hold contradictory beliefs. In Pearson’s (1985) research, for example, two participating teachers both showed certain degree of incongruency between beliefs and practices in the area of student management. What is more, he also found that these teachers’

inconsistencies were in conflict with other sets of beliefs which are more relevant with one another.

Rokeach (1968) indicated that each belief differs in its intensity and power, which can be viewed with the central/peripheral dimension. Central beliefs, in Rokeach’s definition, possess the feature of “connectedness.” In other words, “the more a given belief is functionally connected or in communication with other beliefs, the more implications and

consequences it has for other beliefs and, therefore, the more central the belief” (p.5). On the other hand, peripheral beliefs are the ones with less connectedness, and are therefore lower in intensity.

Similarly, Green (1971) also believes that beliefs come “in little clusters” which act like a “protective shield that prevents any

cross-fertilization among them or any confrontation between them” (p.47).

He categorized different clusters of beliefs into the core/peripheral

dimension and elaborated this concept with more details. First, he defined core and peripheral beliefs according to the psychological strength they

‧

carry. Core beliefs are stronger in psychological strength, meaning that they are more significant to an individual than other beliefs. The

significance allows core beliefs to exert the most influence on individuals and predispose to trigger behaviors. In comparison, peripheral beliefs are the ones whose importance is not as high, and therefore are not that likely to turn into actions. Moreover, the relationship between the two kinds of beliefs, as Green (1971) argued, should be presented in the way of concentric circles. The circle in the center lies the core beliefs which are stronger in intensity; while the circles which are further from the center represent the less important peripheral beliefs. The further the beliefs locate in the concentric circle, the less psychological strength they have, and the less likely they can trigger behaviors. Green’s proposal has a few practical implications for studies about teachers’ beliefs: (1) It provides a clear conceptual framework to illustrate the difference between teachers’

beliefs and practices. (2) It explains the reason behind the “resistant to change” nature in teachers’ education literature (Wu, 2006). (3) Based on Green’s claim about the influence that core and peripheral beliefs can bring to one’s behaviors, it is necessary to include both in-depth interviews and classroom observations into studies of teachers’ beliefs.