The policies and practices of teaching and learning speaking and listening may affect pupil outcomes in both direct and indirect ways. For example, the policies discussed may also have a direct and indirect effect in shaping teacher and pupil beliefs and actions in teaching and learning of speaking and listening. However, it is clear that this is not a simple relationship and that the role of teacher and pupil beliefs in language learning is an important consideration for how speaking and listening is taught and learnt.
Kagan (1992;p.85), in a seminal article, noted that “The more one reads studies of teacher belief, the more strongly one suspects that this piebald form of personal knowledge lies at the very heart of teaching”. This quotation neatly encompasses the two aspects of teacher belief which are important to my study: the nature of teacher beliefs and how teacher beliefs affect classroom practices. Both issues have been the topics of extensive and substantial academic
consideration in the literature in education and MFL studies (Poulson, Avramidis et al. 2001, Bernat and Gvozdenko 2005), psychology (Nespor 1987, Pajares 1992) and ELT (Freeman 1989, Richards and Nunan 1990, Johnson 1992, Tsui 2003).
Pajares (1992) considered the “messy construct” of teacher beliefs in a
substantial review of the literature and discussed the way that poor definition of what is meant by beliefs has caused difficulties in this area of study. Alexander, Schallert & Hare (1991; p.371) define knowledge as “all that a person knows or believes to be true” which suggests that there are some difficulties involved in attempting to disentangle teachers’ knowledge from their beliefs. Pajares (1992) argues that knowledge is based on objective fact, whereas belief is based on evaluation and judgment. Most authors agree that beliefs are created through a process of enculturation and social construction (Fleet 1979, Lasley 1980, Pajares 1992, Poulson, Avramidis et al. 2001) but while a number of studies describe how teacher beliefs appear resistant to change (Brousseau and Freeman 1988, Golombek 1998), more recent research, most usually in the teaching of languages to adults using a particular survey instrument devised by Horwitz (1988) (Beliefs about Language learning Inventory- BALLI) suggest beliefs about language may be susceptible to change over time. Other research in EAL (Bailey 1992) argues that changes in belief precede changes in instructional practices.
This evidence certainly emphasizes that relationship between teacher beliefs and teacher knowledge is complex. Studies of teacher beliefs (Munby 1984, Nespor 1987, Richardson 1994) suggest that the extent to which teachers adopt new instructional practices in their classrooms relates closely to the degree of alignment between their personal beliefs and the assumptions underlying particular innovatory teaching programmes or methods. However, two very substantial studies (although not specifically in languages teaching) have
observed inconsistencies in teachers’ beliefs and their observed practices where teachers do less than they claim, particularly in terms of alternatives to didactic teaching practices (Galton, Simon et al. 1980, Desforges and Cockburn 1987). In a pilot study of the Chinese English teachers theoretical orientations in language teaching by Zhan (2006) the author asserts that their findings showed that overall, the teachers’ beliefs, assumptions and knowledge (BAK) had no effect on either their focus on language skills or on the type of classroom activities they employ. This suggests that there may be other factors determining the teachers’ behaviour, but also that inconsistency may be attributed to the discrepancy between beliefs and the complex teaching reality (Fang 1996). But the data in my research
indicated that teachers’ beliefs do affect pupils’ beliefs and their perception of FL. Such studies have led to a strong feeling that an understanding of teachers’
beliefs is important in understanding teachers’ current classroom practices, such as their use of speaking and listening in classes, and in designing professional development programmes which seek to change those practices. Poulson et al. (2001), as a result of a substantial study of effective teachers of literacy,
emphasize the complex nature of the relationship between teacher’s beliefs and practices and explain that practices do not always come after beliefs because the relationship between the two is dialectical rather than unilateral.
A number of studies suggest that teacher beliefs have an important, pervasive role in the nature of the instruction which takes place in classrooms and in the professional lives of teachers (Kagan 1992, Freeman and Richards 1993, Xiao, Sharpling et al. 2011). A study about teachers’ beliefs by Rennie (1989; cited in Kagan, 1992, p.71) suggests that “teacher belief determined patterns of student
participation and the nature of instruction”. In one of the initial studies of language teacher’s beliefs , Horwitz (1988) argues that teacher’s views could have a strong influence on the students’ beliefs. Since the 1990s researchers have shown interest in the influences of teacher’s thoughts, decisions and judgments on ELT practices (Johnson 1992, Tsui 2003). In a study of pre-service ELT teachers, Johnson (1994) found teachers’ beliefs were largely based on their own learning experiences and may well have been responsible for ineffective
instructional practices. Freeman (2002) studied four ELT teachers, following the evolution of their beliefs, and found that it was issues of classroom management which led to tensions in the teachers’ thinking which clarified the need for genuine classroom interaction to promote language learning. Williams and Burden (1997) point out that although a syllabus or curriculum may be set down for teachers, it is personally shaped by the teacher’s own belief systems. Woods (1996) examining teaches’ EAL BAK about what language is and how it is learned and should be taught, found that two teachers, given a new curriculum, came up with two very different interpretations of what was to be taught and how. They interpreted curriculum innovation in terms of their BAK and also
interpreted theoretical and pedagogical concepts related to language learning in terms of their BAK. Zheng and Davison (2008), in an in-depth case study of three teachers in the PRC found that these teachers held a strong common core of shared beliefs about language and language learning but also showed significant differences. These beliefs significantly influenced their design and practices of ELT teaching. However, it was not clear how far these beliefs were constrained by the policy context, or their relationship to the beliefs of pupils.
This reviews the importance of teacher’s beliefs about language teaching. It emphasizes how beliefs may underpin what teachers do, the degree to which they can be changed and that these beliefs about language are, therefore, an important subject for study in themselves.