Ejercicio de descripción: una lectura aprendida

beliefs

Having highlighted in Section 3.3 some methodological challenges that may contribute to inconsistent findings regarding the beliefs-practice relationship, I elaborate further on some of these complexities in the section that follows. Besides the challenges described earlier, another lies in accessing teachers’ ‘true’ beliefs: it is possible that people may be deceiving us deliberately, may be deceiving themselves, may be rationalizing their actions, or may be unaware of their own sub-conscious beliefs. Since belief is a latent construct and not directly observable, scholars agree they must be inferred by researchers (Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968), though there is a range of views regarding how the inferences are best drawn. Some argue that sub-conscious beliefs must be inferred from teachers’ actions15 (Rokeach, 1968; Zakaria, Care & Griffin, 2011; Basturkmen, 2012). However this assumes a direct correlation between beliefs and actions – which becomes problematic if the very purpose of the research is to determine whether such a relationship indeed exists (as in the present study). Thus, in this study, beliefs are defined strictly as what a person expresses in speech or writing (and separate from their actions), though these beliefs may be conscious (thus explicitly articulated) or sub-conscious (thus needing to be inferred from a holistic interpretation of what the person

15 _{Rokeach (1968) assumes this in his very definition of beliefs as “any simple proposition, conscious or}

unconscious, inferred from what a person says or does” (p.113-114), arguing that “we do not necessarily take at face value a person’s verbal endorsements….we have to infer what a person really believes from all the things he says and does” (1960, p.32).

73

says at different points in time). If faced with a discrepancy between teachers’ stated beliefs and their actions, rather than assuming the teacher must not really believe this (as Rokeach suggests), it is more useful to differentiate between different categories of beliefs based on the extent to which they are enacted, as done by Haney and McArthur (2002) and Ogan-bekiroglu & Akkoc (2009).16

Another challenge lies in teachers expressing what they feel are socially desirable or ‘correct’ responses, rather than their ‘true’ beliefs. Deshkal Society’s (2010) study of Indian teachers’ inclusion-related attitudes found significant discrepancies between teachers’ responses during formal, structured questionnaires or interviews, versus more informal open- ended discussions. A third challenge involves finding a balance between defining researcher- determined categories for investigation, versus letting themes emerge during the analysis. Cantu (2001) argues that too many preconceived categories damages the credibility of teacher belief studies, citing Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) distinction between ‘etic’ or outsider perspectives emphasised by positivistic paradigms, and ‘emic’ or insider perspectives preferred by naturalistic inquiries.

Past teacher belief studies have employed different methodologies for tackling the above challenges, with varying degrees of success. Earlier research relied more frequently on quantitative methods such as paper-and-pencil multiple-choice or Likert-type questionnaires for assessing teachers’ beliefs, and sometimes also teachers’ practice – which clearly gives a limited picture since based on self-reports of practice (e.g. Charlesworth et al, 1993; Hashweh, 1996). Some recent studies continue to use quantitative surveys which allow researchers to look at larger samples, such as Wilkins’s (2008) study of the mathematical beliefs of 530 primary teachers in two US districts, or Selvi’s (2006) study of democratic beliefs among 979 Turkish teachers. However, several have questioned the validity or reliability of quantitative surveys alone as accurate measures of teachers’ beliefs (Fang, 1996; Richardson, 1996). Teachers’ responses may be influenced by items constructed by researchers, which may not exactly align with teachers’ own words or interpretations (Kagan, 1990; Munby, 1984; Richardson, 1996). Moreover, surveys cannot capture the myriad contextual conditions under which specific beliefs become activated into attitudes or behaviours (Pajares, 1992). Phipps & Borg (2009) argue that questionnaires may elicit teachers’ idealistic views of what they think should happen, rather than what they actually find feasible to implement in their classrooms.

To counter these limitations, researchers increasingly relied on qualitative approaches, which Munby (1984) argued is a more legitimate approach to eliciting beliefs within a teacher-determined context. A commonly-used methodology involves combining interviews (ranging from structured to informal), classroom observations (real-time or videotaped) and document analysis (of teachers’ portfolios, lesson plans, reflective journals,

These authors categorize core beliefs as those both stated and enacted, versus peripheral beliefs which are stated but not enacted, for reasons worth examining why.

74

assessments) (e.g. Bryan, 2003; Cantu, 2001; Haney & McArthur, 2002; Mansour, 2013; Ogan-Bekiroglu & Akkoc, 2009; Phipps & Borg, 2009). Another oft-cited method involves elicitation techniques, such as ‘repertory grid’ interviews (teachers describe their teaching in order to arrive at constructs important to them, and then rank these in terms of relevance – e.g. Munby, 1984), or stimulated recall (teachers are asked to comment on a classroom scenario or their own recorded practice – e.g. Nespor, 1987). Other qualitative methods include ethnographic case studies, life narratives, oral histories, think-aloud commentaries, metaphor analysis, concept maps, and paragraph-completion exercises (Phillip, 2007; Tatto & Coupland, 2003). However, most of these are only feasible with small samples, leading to highly context-specific findings that are difficult to generalize or to use for analysing shared cultural patterns across a group. Indeed, the majority of teacher belief studies are based on case studies of only a few teachers (Basturkmen, 2012; Forgasz & Leder, 2008) – many of them with sample sizes under ten (e.g. Brickhouse, 1990; Bryan, 2003; Haney & McArthur, 2002; Mansour, 2013; Nespor, 1987; Ogan-Bekiroglu & Akkoc, 2009; Phipps & Borg, 2009). Blumenfeld-Jones (1996), who attempts to study teachers’ cultural models, does so through studying only three teachers – which brings to question both the large-scale replicability and the validity of the ‘cultural’ dimension of his findings.

A third research paradigm that has gained prominence in recent decades is mixed- methods research, which combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to counter some of the above challenges and limitations17. This approach has been increasingly used by recent teacher belief studies, often combining Likert-scale surveys with interviews and/or classroom observations (e.g. Diviney, 2003; Kumar & Subramanian, 2012; O’Riordan 2006; Tan & Lan, 2011; Wen, Elicker & McMullen, 2011; Zakaria, Care & Griffin, 2011). In fact several teacher belief reviews have underlined the disadvantages of using any one method exclusively, concluding that mixed-methods approaches are the most appropriate for revealing the complex, multifaceted aspects of beliefs, allowing for richer and more accurate inferences (Chan & Elliott, 2004; Fang, 1996; Kagan 1990; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996). Ogan- bekiroglu & Akkoc (2009) note that multiple data sources provide a more composite picture of teachers’ beliefs and practices and can help prevent inconsistencies between the two due to measurement. Taking into account the above scholars’ recommendations, the present study has been designed as a mixed-methods study, discussed further in Chapter 4.

Conclusions

This chapter has mapped the existing research on teachers’ beliefs, including the theoretical frameworks utilised, the range of beliefs studied, findings on the relationship

For a thorough discussion of the emergent paradigm of mixed-methods research, see Tashakkori & Teddlie (2003, 2010)

75

between beliefs and practice, the role of culture in shaping teachers’ beliefs and practice, and the few such studies available in the Indian context. In so doing, it has identified several gaps in the existing literature that marks the present study as distinct from what has been done before. Firstly, this study hopes to contribute some light on the persisting murkiness surrounding the nature of teachers’ beliefs and their relationship to practice, culture, worldview and ideology. Next, the study hopes to offer a tentative framework of recommendations, unavailable at present, for teacher educators seeking to engage with Indian teachers’ beliefs. In terms of the conceptual field, few studies have focused on wider worldview beliefs that may influence teachers' educational practice; most have focused primarily on education-related beliefs. Further, in terms of scale, much of the literature has focused on individual teachers' beliefs, rather than analysing broader cultural patterns in the way beliefs are socially constructed. In terms of critical perspective, there has been little analysis of the political and ideological dimensions of teachers’ beliefs. Finally, in terms of its empirical field, little research on teacher beliefs and practice has been conducted in non-Western contexts, and even less specifically in India. By undertaking research into Indian teachers’ beliefs and their relationship to practice, culture, worldview and ideology, and proposing suggestions for how to engage with these beliefs, the present study seeks to contribute towards addressing each of the above gaps in the literature.

Given the extent to which the field of teacher beliefs research has developed in recent decades, it is a bit surprising that a focus on teacher beliefs has still not found its way into Indian educational research or teacher education programmes. The literature reviewed in this chapter would suggest that teacher beliefs must become a central focus of teacher education and of any attempts at pedagogical reform. However, the chapter has also pointed to various challenges involved in conceptualizing beliefs and in developing an appropriate methodology to study beliefs and their relationship to practice. The methodological and analytical approach chosen for the present study in an attempt to circumvent these challenges, is discussed in the chapter that follows.

76