Use the following outline structure as you move through the assignment: Thoughts regarding the examination of language teaching beliefs (a few sentences) 1. I believe that… a.Specify and summarize SLA

Use the following outline structure as you move through the assignment: Thoughts regarding the examination of language teaching beliefs (a few sentences) 1. I believe that… a.Specify and summarize SLA
Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 Changing values: what use are theories oflanguage learning and teaching? Malcolm MacDonald a,*, RichardBadger a, Goodith White b aCenter for English Language Teaching(CELT), University of Stirling, Airthrey Castle, Stirling, Scotland FK9 4LA, UK bSchool of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK Received 29 December 1999; received in revised form 8 June 2000; accepted 30 August 2000 Abstract This paper is a response to the common perception by student teachers that the research and theory courses on their program are overtheoretical and unrelated to classroom practice. While there is some support for a categorical distinction between theory and practice in language education, it is suggested that the beliefs, assumptions and knowledge ofteachers are in fact inextricably bound up with what goes on in the classroom. We investigate two groups ofstudent teachers studying at undergraduate and postgraduate level to become teachers ofEnglish to speakers ofother languages. We examine the extent to which a research and theory course which both groups took in second language acquisition influenced key beliefs which students held relating to language learning during their period of study.r2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords:Teacher beliefs; Teacher education; Second language acquisition 1. Introduction The contribution ofsecond language acquisition (SLA) research to English language teaching and to teacher education remains problematic (Ellis, 1997; Lightbown, 1985). While one ofthe inten- tions ofSLA research is to improve language pedagogy (Ellis, 1997), and most SLA researchers have at some time been language teachers (Tarone, Swain, & Fathman, 1976), teacher education programs in general and SLA courses on teachereducation programs in particular are often said to be either excessively theoretical (Brown, 1983; Brumfit, 1983; Lightbown, 1985) or not ‘relevant’ to what goes on in the classroom (Eykin in Markee, 1997). Markee goes so far as to say that ‘‘most potential consumers ofSLA research are frequently repelled by its disregard for real world issues’’(1997, p. 88). Some ofthis criticism might be perceptual; but some ofit could be grounded in the nature ofSLA research itself. In a recent review of50 examples ofSLA research, it emerged that only 15 were actually carried out in authentic language class- rooms (Nunan, 1991). So it is not surprising that Stephen Krashen has concluded that theory is ‘‘rejected by most language teachers’’ (Krashen, 1983, p. 255). *Corresponding author. Tel.: +44-1786-467933; fax: +44- 1786-466-131. E-mail addresses:[email protected] (M. MacDonald), [email protected] (R. Badger), [email protected] (G. White). 0742-051X/01/$ – see front matterr2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S0742-051X(01)00042-7 1.1. Theory and practice This division between theory and practice has been echoed by many ofthe undergraduates and postgraduates studying with the authors on B.A. and M.Sc. programs in teaching English to speakers ofother languages (TESOL). Our student teachers pride themselves on their pragmatism, just wanting to ‘get on with the job’ oflearning the day-to-day practicalities ofhow to teach in the classroom. In keeping with a majority ofsimilar programs (Ellis, 1997), our program contains a course in SLA. We find that our student teachers’ pragmatism conflicts with the theory and research aspects ofSLA. Here are examples ofthe sort of feedback we have been receiving over the years both orally and from the students’ written evalua- tion forms on our courses in SLA: This course was much more theoretical than I am used to. This course gave me information overloadFI was not sure how it fitted into the classroom. There is an imbalance between theory and practice. Too many theories. However, there is a paradox here. While many student teachers appear to reject theory, at the same time many ofthem expect from a course ‘‘instant panaceas, rigid rules ofthumb, clear statements ofpractice, and absolute generaliza- tions’’ (Brumfit, 1983, p. 60) or ‘‘definitions, rules, absolutes’’(Brown, 1983, p. 54). Where else can this come but from theory? Krashen states: ‘‘Given a briefworkshop or inservice, the most practical, most valuable information we can provide is a coherent view ofhow language is acquired, a theory ofSLA’’ (1983, p. 281). Perhaps it is not that we are giving our student teacherstoo much theory; but rather that we are not addressing the rightissues (Wright, 1992), or exploring them in therightway. 1.2. Dichotomies in teacher thinking It has been suggested that the social and textual practices ofteachers and researchers actuallyconstitute two different forms of discourseFthat the discourse ofeducational research is either alien to (Wright, 1992, p. 188) or generically different from that of the classroom teacher (Clarke, 1994; Ellis, 1997; Kerlinger, 1977). An important goal, then, ofteacher education should be to establish links between professional discourse and local discourse, both at the level oflanguage and practice (Freeman & Richards, 1993). In order to explore this, we will here consider what constitutes the less clearly defined ‘local’ (Geertz, 1983) or ‘personal’ knowledge (Clandinin & Connelly, 1987; Polanyi, 1958; Winch, 1958) ofclassroom practice which our student teachers contrast with educational research. Considerable research has been carried out in mapping the cognitive and interpretative frame- works which teachers bring to their professional activities (Freeman, 1994, 1996; Freeman & Richards, 1993; Johnson, 1996; Richards & Nunan, 1990; Woods, 1996). Conventionally, these de- scriptions differentiate areas ofteachers’ cognitive and interpretative frames. Abelson, working in the field ofcognitive science, suggests seven features F‘‘nonconsensuality, existence beliefs, alternative worlds, evaluative components, episodic materials, unboundedness, variable credences’’ (Abelson, 1979, p. 360)Fthat distinguish a beliefsystem from a knowledge system. Within the knowledge system oflanguage education, Johnson (1996) distinguishes between conceptual knowledge [epis- temeFor ‘abstract wisdom’] and perceptual knowledge [phronesisFor ‘practical wisdom’]. She argues for the focus in teacher education to be on perceptual knowledge because the vicissi- tudes ofthe classroom often militate against the application ofa general rule. This distinction between theoretical and practical knowledge is more conventionally framed in the distinction between declarative and procedural knowledge (Woods, 1996). Declarative knowledge is knowl- edgeaboutteachingFknowledge ofsubject areas and the ‘theory’ ofeducation; procedural knowl- edge is knowledge ofhowtoteachFknowledge of instructional routines to be used in the classroom. Lightbown picks this up when she distinguishes (1985) between ‘teacher education’ (i.e., concep- tual/declarative knowledge) and ‘teacher training’ M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 950 (i.e., perceptual/procedural knowledge). Richards and Nunan (1990) also distinguish between teacher education and teacher training. They define teacher education as ‘‘characterized by approaches that involve teachers in developing theories of teaching, understanding the nature ofteacher decision making, and strategies for critical self- awareness and self-evaluation’’ and teacher train- ing as ‘‘characterized by approaches that view teacher preparation as familiarizing student tea- chers with techniques and skills to apply in the classroom’’ (in Ellis, 1994, p. 187). Taking a slightly different perspective, Richards relates what is essentially perceptual/procedural knowledge (knowledge relating to curriculum, subject matter and lesson presentation) back to the realm of beliefsFknowledge ‘‘which relates to the teacher’s personal and subjective philosophy ofteaching and the teacher’s view ofwhat constitutes good teaching’’ (Richards, 1996, p. 284). He describes a number of‘maxims’ which constitute not so much the ‘rules’ ofspecific teaching techniques, but rather the set of‘‘beliefs, principles and values’’ (p. 294) underlying more generalized classroom practice. From the research above, it is Lightbown who is specifically concerned with the contribution of SLA to teacher training. Unsurprisingly, she places SLA research in the realm ofconceptual/ declarative knowledge, but suggestsFrather ‘‘humbly’’ (Ellis, 1994, p. 175)Fthat it relates to perceptual/procedural knowledge, inasmuch as it enables teachers to ‘‘have much more realistic expectations about what can be accomplished’’ (1985, p. 183–4). In this way, it is suggested that there are connections between these different areas ofteacher cognition. Lightbown is suggesting anFalbeit weakFrelationship between concep- tual/declarative knowledge and perceptual/proce- dural knowledge; and Richards is suggesting a relationship between perceptual/procedural knowledge and teacher beliefs, principles and attitudes. What has not yet been explored is the notion that a relationship might exist between conceptual/declarative knowledge, in which SLA is conventionally seen as playing a role, and the beliefs, principles and attitudes of teachers and student teachers. The central question ofthispaper, then, is to investigate whether the provision ofa course in SLA within the context ofa TESOL program might have an effect on the beliefs, principles and attitudes ofstudent teachers. 1.3. An integrated approach In our discussion so far, we have examined approaches which divide aspects ofteacher cogni- tion into separate categories. A more recent strand ofresearch, however, challenges the categorical distinctions outlined above. Woods (1996) sug- gests that these dichotomies do not accurately reflect the relationship between the beliefs, as- sumptions and knowledge ofteachers and their practices in the classroom. In order to take appropriate action, people need to understand; and to understand they need knowledge about the world and specifically about the situation they are in (Woods, 1996, p. 59). Richards and Lockhart (1994) and Johnson (in Richards & Lockhart, 1994) also emphasize the interrelatedness between beliefs and knowledge, and declarative and procedural knowledge: yESL teachers teach in accordance with their theoretical beliefs and differences in theoretical beliefs may result in differences in the nature ofyinstruction (Johnson in Richards & Lock- hart, 1994, p. 37). ywhat teachers do is a reflection ofwhat they know and believe, and teacher knowledge and ‘teacher thinking’ provide the underlying frame- work or schema which guides the teacher’s classroom actions (Richards & Lockhart, 1994, p. 29) Woods (1996) goes on to develop a multi- dimensional cycle ofplanning and decision making within teaching. He describes three phases of assessment, planning and implementation which operate recursively to inform different hierarchical levels ofthe teaching processFgoing from the most local level ofdiscrete events in the lesson plan to the most global level ofwhole course planning (p. 139). This is to say, a decision that a teacher M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963951 takes about designing the curriculum can be informed by his/her experience of teaching a particular component ofa lesson the previous semester; and a planning decision that a teacher takes in relation to the curriculum can in turn inform the future staging of that particular lesson. Woods’s analysis ofinterview data suggests that knowledge structures and beliefsystems ‘‘are not composed ofindependent elements, but [are] rather structured, with certain aspects implying or pre- supposing others’’ (p. 200). Woods proposes a model to signify the evolving system of beliefs, assumptions and knowledge (BAK) that recursively informs/is informed by the context of teaching: ythe BAK was part ofthe perceiving and organizing ofthe decisions. When a decision was considered, it was considered in the context ofBAK, and when it was remembered later it was also remembered in the context ofBAK (Woods, 1996, p. 247). Woods’s research suggests, therefore, that class- room practice is not distinguished by a lack of theory, as implied by the commonplace polariza- tion with the research into teaching and learning reviewed above. In fact, Woods has demonstrated that language teachers create and maintain back- ground networks ofbeliefs, assumptions and knowledge which, we would argue, constitute a valid theory ofteaching and learning. These background theoretical networks are grounded in every level ofroutine classroom practice in much the same way that educational theory is grounded in the systematic collection ofempirical data. It would appear, therefore, that what distinguishes the discourse ofclassroom practice from the discourse ofeducational research is not an absence oftheory, but the context in which the theory is constructed and the form in which it is articulated. 1.4. SLA theory and classroom practice As part ofthe discourse ofeducational research, SLA theory has been said to have either a direct or indirect effect on the instructional routines and procedures oflanguage teaching. Early research was sceptical. Tarone et al. suggested that ‘‘hastypedagogical applications should not be made on the basis’’ ofthe current state ofSLA research (1976, p. 29). One example ofthis was Krashen’s attempt to devise a grammatical syllabus based on the Natural Order (1983). 1Lightbown (1985) also suggests that SLA research should play a role in teacher education rather than in teacher training. However, more recently, a strong claim has been made for the role SLA research has played in one ofthe more recent techniques oflanguage peda- gogy, task-based learning and teaching (Long & Crookes, in Freeman & Richards, 1993). Over the past 20 year SLA research (e.g. Long, 1981) has offered powerful evidence that language intake is facilitated when language learners are engaged in the negotiation ofmeaning, as when attempting to find an outcome ofa problem-solving task. This has currently led to the widespread design and implementation oftasks in the lan- guage classroom as an approach to language teaching. However, in the light ofthe recent research into teacher cognition described above (Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Woods, 1996), perhaps a stronger claim can be made for theindirecttransfer of SLA research into classroom practice. Allen suggested a long time ago that: there is, perhaps, something wrong with the idea that the only way to ‘apply’ the results of research is to write a whole new textbook or a brand new curriculum sequence. Perhaps it is better to see the current applications ofresearch as comprising an influence which indirectly and subtly changes the teacher’s attitude towards what s/he is trying to do in the classroomy (Allen in Tarone et al., 1976, p. 30). This suggests that SLA theory and research could be better used to inform the reflexive frameworks which teachers mobilize in the 1As part ofhis Monitor Model, the popular language educationalist, Stephen Krashen (1985) drew on a body of research published throughout the 1970s to support the thesis that learners ofEnglish as a foreign/second language acquired its morphemes in a particular order. This could have implica- tions for the order in which grammatical items were introduced in class. However, the evidence for this ‘‘natural order’’ is still hotly disputed (McLaughlin, 1987). M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 952 classroom and to enable teachers to refine their interpretative frames so that they can select from the plethora ofpossible teaching approaches available to them. When we provide theory, we give them (tea- chers) the underlying rationale for methodology in general. This permits adaptation for different situations, evaluations ofnew techniques and evaluations oftheory. Without theory, there is no way to distinguish effective teaching proce- dures from ritual, no way to determine which aspects ofa method are helpful and which are not helpful (Krashen, 1983, p. 261). To date, there has been surprisingly little published on the relationship between SLA and teacher thinking and how best to exploit SLA in order to enhance it (Ellis, 1997). However, the comments ofour students and ofthose practi- tioners critical ofthe role ofSLA research suggest that some justification is required for the inclusion ofan SLA course in a program preparing people for a career in language education. One approach to this is to examine the relationship between theoretical knowledge and teacher behavior in the classroom (e.g., Freeman & Richards, 1996). The difficulty with this is that the changes in teacher behavior may be a result either oftheir experience ofthe classroom, the theoretical input they received during their initial preparation, or some combination ofthese. Also the way teachers behave in classrooms may be affected by the presence ofobservers or other methods of observation. We would argue that this type of research in the classroom could usefully be augmented by an investigation into the relation- ship between the theoretical knowledge provided on a teacher education program in TESOL and the changes that take place in the beliefs, assump- tions and knowledge ofthe student teachers on it. This paper goes on to describe a small-scale piece ofresearch which was carried out to investigate whether there was any change in the beliefs, assumptions and knowledge of student teachers undergoing undergraduate and postgraduate programs in TESOL in a UK university.2. Procedure The authors teach on B.A. and M.Sc. programs in TESOL at the Center for English Language Teaching, now part ofthe University ofStirling Institute ofEducation in Scotland, UK. Both undergraduate and postgraduate programs include a one-semester course in SLA. The undergraduate SLA course is part ofa three year B.A. degree in English Language Teaching offered specifically for non-native speakers ofEnglish. Students normally take this course in their second year along with courses in Discourse Analysis and Education. A course in micro-teaching and classroom observa- tion is held in the second semester. The post- graduate SLA course is taken in the first semester ofa one year M.Sc. program in TESOL for both native and non-native speakers. In the first semester, postgraduates also take courses in language description (an introduction to func- tional grammar), TESOL methodology (teaching ofskills), and classroom observation. A postgrad- uate micro-teaching course is held in the second semester ofthe program. Both SLA courses are taught over twelve weeks with three contact hours per week. While the courses are taught separately, by different mem- bers ofstaff, and make use ofdifferent textbooks, there is inevitably considerable overlap in content between the two courses. The style ofteaching in both courses is relatively informal and is discus- sion rather than lecture based, although the postgraduate teaching can be slightly more didac- tic at times. Both courses are assessed by two essays and one three hour examination, although the postgraduates write slightly longer assign- ments. A full description ofthe content ofthe two courses is given in Appendix A. The students on the two SLA courses described above were the main focus of attention in this paper. Typical undergraduate student numbers are between 15 and 20. The postgraduate group is normally between 20 and 25, mostly non-native speakers with four or five native speakers in each year group. The male : female ratio of both groups is approximately 1 : 4. The largest number of students by far came from Greece, since they made up roughly two-thirds ofthe undergraduate M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963953 group. Details ofthe numbers, gender and nationalities ofthe students are given in Table 1. Ofthe two groups, only a few ofthe postgraduates had done any previous courses in language learning and teaching or related topics or had previous teaching experience. However, the non- native speakers had all studied English language to a high level and so could draw on considerable experience ofthe language classroom. The Center for English Language Teaching also runs an undergraduate degree course in English as a Foreign Language for non-native speakers, which does not include components in teacher education; and the Institute ofEducation as a whole also runs undergraduate courses in Initial Teacher Education without any specific focus on foreign language teaching. Since these two groups did not receive any course specific to language teaching pedagogy or SLA, it was decided to use them as controls. Over two successive years, we administered a questionnaire on language learning to 55 subjects (28 post-graduates and 27 undergraduates) at the beginning and end ofthe semester in which the SLA courses were taught. The same questionnaire was also administered at the beginning and end of the semester to the control group totaling 25 undergraduates drawn from a B.A. course in English as a Foreign Language and an Initial Teacher Education program which did not feature a course in SLA. The questionnaire (based on Lightbown & Spada, 1995, p. xv) contained 12 statements containing key beliefs relating to English language learning. These are included in the order in which they were given to the studentsin Appendix B. Since the statements reflected issues which are central to SLA, the questionnaire was given out in the SLA class. Subjects had to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed on a six point Likert scale where 6 meant strongly disagree and 1 meant strongly agree. The mean responses are shown on the tables that follow. At the end of the semester the subjects again completed the questionnaire and the results were analyzed using a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) (Kinnear & Gray, 1997). 3. Results At the outset ofthe semester there was no significant difference (Table 2) between the key beliefs about language learning (Lightbown & Spada, 1995, p. xv) indicated by the combined cohort ofundergraduates and postgraduates (n¼55) taking the SLA course and those noted by the control group (n¼27). Broadly speaking, the views ofthe combined cohort taking the SLA course differed significantly before and after the course on issues relating to learning and language, although there was no significant difference on issues relating to learner differences (Table 3). In particular there appeared to be a movement away from the behaviorist views oflearning which the subjects had previously held (statements 1, 2, 6, 9, 12) and from the use of language input which is graded on a strict grammatical basis (statements 7, 8 and 10). The students also significantly lessened their convic- tions that language learning should be introduced early in a school program (statement 5). Although they still basically agreed with the notion, this would suggest that they had also been influenced by approaches that credit the cognitive resources that older learners bring to bear on language learning. However, students were not increasingly persuaded by evidence from SLA research pre- sented on both courses as to the benefits of interaction between non-native speakers on the accuracy oflearners’ utterances (statement 11). There was also no significant change in their beliefs regarding the relationship between Table 1 Respondents on TESOL training courses 1997–8 UG PG Combined Male 8 7 15 Female 20 20 40 Native Speakers 0 9 9 Greece 17 7 24 Taiwan/HK 4 5 9 Japan 2 3 5 Other 5 3 8 Total 28 27 55M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 954 Table 2 Comparison ofthe language learning beliefs ofcombined SLA (n¼55) and non-SLA (n¼27) cohorts before an SLA course a The higher the number the more the disagreement Non-SLA SLAP= 1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation 3.04 2.98 0.701 b 2 Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors 3.36 3.02 0.335 b 3 People with high IQs are good language learners 3.68 3.56 0.702 b 4 The most important factor in second language acquisition success is motivation1.96 2.31 0.182 b 5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater the likelihood ofsuccess in learning1.92 1.85 0.664 b 6 Most ofthe mistakes which second language learners make are due to interference from their first language2.76 2.20 0.021 b 7 Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners should practice examples ofeach one before going on to another2.44 2.13 0.418 b 8 Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones 1.92 1.45 0.088 b 9 Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits2.16 2.11 0.624 b 10 Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language structures which they have already been taught3.24 3.42 0.605 b 11 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group or pair activities), they learn each others’ mistakes3.08 3.09 0.996 b 12 Students learn what they are taught 3.48 3.36 0.738 b a Adapted from Lightbown and Spada (1995, p. xv).bNo significant differenceP>0:05: Table 3 Language learning beliefs of combined UG/PG cohort (n¼55) before and after taking an SLA course a The higher the number the more the disagreement Pre PostP= 1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation. 2.98 4.15 0.000 d 2 Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors. 3.02 3.75 0.008 d 3 People with high IQs are good language learners. 3.56 3.49 0.664 b 4 The most important factor in second language acquisition success is motivation. 2.31 2.47 0.483 b 5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater the likelihood ofsuccess in learning.1.85 2.27 0.007 d 6 Most ofthe mistakes which second language learners make are due to interference from their first language.2.20 3.29 0.000 d 7 Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners should practice examples ofeach one before going on to another.2.13 2.96 0.000 d 8 Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. 1.45 1.89 0.002 d 9 Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits.2.11 3.29 0.000 d 10 Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language structures which they have already been taught.3.42 4.29 0.000 d 11 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group of pair activities), they learn each others’ mistakes.3.09 3.38 0.185 b 12 Students learn what they are taught. 3.36 4.00 0.005 c a Adapted from Lightbown and Spada (1995, p. xv).bNo significant differenceP>0:05:cA significant differencePo0:05:dA very significant differencePo0:01: M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963955 intelligence (statement 3) or motivation (statement 4) and language learning. The beliefs of the control group who had not received a course in SLA did not differ significantly at the end ofthe semester from those they had held at the beginning ofthe semester (Table 4). 3.1. Undergraduates and postgraduates combined Ifwe take strong agreement to mean a rating of under two, before the course started the combined undergraduate and postgraduate SLA groups strongly agreed with just two statements (Table 3): 5. The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater the likelihood of success in learning. 8. Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. These two notions do not quite add up to a consistent view oflanguage teaching. Statement five suggests a mentalist view oflanguage acquisi- tion as biologically dependent while statementeight is consistent with both behaviorist and cognitivist views. Ifwe take strong disagreement to mean a rating ofover four then the subjects did not strongly disagree with any statements before the course. Again taking a rating ofunder two as indicating strong agreement, after the course the subjects strongly agreed with one statement (which they had strongly agreed with before the course): 8. Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. However, the subjects now strongly disagreed with three statements: 1. Languages are learned mainly through imitation. 10. Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language structures which they have already been taught. 12. Students learn what they are taught. The strong rejection ofthese three statements suggests that after the course, the subjects had at least taken on board one ofthe few certainties Table 4 Language learning beliefs of non-SLA cohort (n¼25) at the beginning and end ofsemester a The higher the number the more the disagreement Pre PostP= 1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation. 3.04 3.00 0.928 b 2 Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors. 3.36 3.20 0.559 b 3 People with high IQs are good language learners. 3.68 3.64 0.788 b 4 The most important factor in second language acquisition success is motivation. 1.96 2.08 0.499 b 5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater the likelihood ofsuccess in learning.1.92 1.76 0.360 b 6 Most ofthe mistakes which second language learners make are due to interference from their first language.2.76 2.76 0.942 b 7 Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners should practice examples ofeach one before going on to another.2.44 2.68 0.343 b 8 Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. 1.92 1.76 0.617 b 9 Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits.2.16 2.20 0.772 b 10 Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language structures which they have already been taught.3.24 3.68 0.173 b 11 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group of pair activities), they learn each others’ mistakes.3.08 3.00 0.877 b 12 Students learn what they are taught. 3.48 3.56 0.929 b a Adapted from Lightbown and Spada (1995, p. xv).bNo significant differenceP>0:05: M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 956 afforded by SLA research: a rejection ofthe behaviorist model oflearning. It implies that they now accord more importance to the role of the learner in language learning, which is consistent with the view that learners create their own syllabuses out ofthe language input they receive. 3.2. Undergraduates and postgraduates compared There were only a few areas of difference between the responses ofthe undergraduate and postgraduate cohorts. Tables 5 and 6 compare differences between the undergraduate and post- graduate responses before and after the SLA course. We shall group these into four categories ofstatement. Statements which reflect a broadly behaviorist viewof language learning(S1, S2, S6, S9, S12). There was a significant difference between the undergraduate and postgraduate cohorts on only one statement, relating to the immediate correc- tion oferrors (S9), before the course (Table 5); butthere was no significant difference between the two groups in this area after the course (Table 6). Statements relatingto thegrammatical sequen- cingof language teaching(S7, S8, S10). There was a significant difference between the undergraduate and postgraduate beliefs relating to the idea of staged presentation and practice ofgrammatical rules (S7), a notion which also has some beha- viorist overtones, both before the course (Table 5) and after the course (Table 6). Statements relatingto learnervariations(S3, S4, S5). There was a significant difference between the undergraduate and postgraduate beliefs relating to the relationship between IQ and language learning (S3) both before the course (Table 5) and after the course (Table 6). Thus it would appear that the SLA course did not minimize the difference between undergraduate and postgraduate beliefs relating to this area. Statement relatingto learner-learner interaction (S11). There was no significant difference between either the degree or the range ofundergraduate and postgraduate beliefs before and after the courses. Table 5 Comparison ofthe language learning beliefs ofUG (n¼28) and PG (n¼27) cohorts before an SLA course a The higher the number the more the disagreement UG PGP= 1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation. 3.21 2.74 0.218 b 2 Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors. 2.89 3.15 0.496 b 3 People with high IQs are good language learners. 3.96 3.15 0.048 c 4 The most important factor in second language acquisition success is motivation. 2.57 2.04 0.106 b 5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater the likelihood ofsuccess in learning.1.93 1.78 0.856 b 6 Most ofthe mistakes which second language learners make are due to interference from their first language.2.04 2.37 0.224 b 7 Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners should practice examples ofeach one before going on to another.1.79 2.48 0.010 c 8 Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. 1.36 1.56 0.307 b 9 Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits.1.61 2.63 0.007 c 10 Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language structures which they have already been taught.3.43 3.41 0.952 b 11 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group of pair activities), they learn each others’ mistakes.2.96 3.22 0.526 b 12 Students learn what they are taught. 3.32 3.41 0.810 b a Adapted from Lightbown and Spada (1995, p. xv).bNo significant differenceP>0:05:cA significant differencePo0:05: M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963957 4. Discussion The relatively small numbers ofstudents in- volved in the study limit the generalisability ofthe results. Furthermore, the results may have been skewed by the disproportionate ratio offemales to males and the particular configuration ofdifferent nationalities which we had in our cohort, for example, the preponderance ofGreek learners. 4.1. Changes in student beliefs, assumptions and knowledge We would suggest that, within the context ofthe other courses on our B.A. and M. Sc. programs, our course on SLA research and theoryFas one area ofconceptual/declarative knowledgeFdid have an impact on some ofthe beliefs, assump- tions and knowledge ofour student teachers. While the control group, who did not take an SLA course, did not register any significant changes in their attitudes towards language learn- ing, our students, who did take the course, didregister significant changes in their attitudes towards certain issues in language learning. Thus it would seem that, despite the explicit aversion expressed by our students towards the theoretical approach ofthe course, the course did have some measurable effect. Our students ap- peared to have started out with common sense beliefs about language learning which were per- haps closest to a behaviorist model oflanguage learning. It is possible that these reflected didactic classroom practices that they had experienced during their periods oflanguage learning in their home cultures. This could be as true of some ofour more mature British postgraduates as those from Greece and East Asian countries. The kind ofbeliefs that our students seemed to be moving towards would seem to fit in either with a broadly Krashenite view (Krashen, 1983; Krashen & Terrell, 1995), which sees language learning as a largely unconscious process, or with a broadly cognitive perspective, which emphasizes the potential for conscious language learning. Table 6 Comparison ofthe language learning beliefs ofUG (n¼28) and PG (n¼27) cohorts after an SLA course a The higher the number the more the disagreement U/G P/GP= 1 Languages are learned mainly through imitation. 4.39 3.89 0.123 b 2 Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors. 3.50 4.00 0.129 b 3 People with high IQs are good language learners. 3.89 3.07 0.013 c 4 The most important factor in second language acquisition success is motivation. 2.50 2.44 0.943 b 5 The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater the likelihood ofsuccess in learning.2.50 2.04 0.142 b 6 Most ofthe mistakes which second language learners make are due to interference from their first language.3.32 3.26 0.766 b 7 Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners should practice examples ofeach one before going on to another.2.61 3.33 0.048 c 8 Teachers should teach simple language structures before complex ones. 1.71 2.07 0.394 b 9 Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits.3.21 3.37 0.617 b 10 Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language structures which they have already been taught.4.43 4.15 0.319 b 11 When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group of pair activities), they learn each others’ mistakes.3.46 3.30 0.815 b 12 Students learn what they are taught. 4.04 3.96 0.816 b a Adapted from Lightbown and Spada (1995, p. xv).bNo significant differenceP>0:05:cA significant differencePo0:05: M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 958 4.1.1. Cohort overall Differences in significance levels ofthe changes in the beliefs of the cohort taken as a whole might reflect differences in the degrees ofcertainty with which different areas ofknowledge within the emerging paradigm ofSLA research are viewed. Research such as Chomsky’s (1959) critique of behaviorism and Dulay and Burt’s (1972) account oflanguage learning processes, which militate strongly against behaviorist notions oflanguage learning and downplay the influence ofthe first language on the second language, have by now- Fdespite the latter’s limited database (Kachru in Liu, 1998)Fbecome an unproblematic part ofthe SLA canon and a central plank ofmany founda- tion courses at undergraduate and Master’s level, including our own. It may also be the case that the debate over behaviorismFhowever wellworn in Anglo-American pedagogyFrelates most strongly to many ofour own students’ re-evaluations of their experience ofteaching and learning lan- guages. However, the SLA research into learner characteristics, such as the relationship between language learning and motivation (Gardner, 1985) and intelligence (Genessee, 1976) has tended to be less conclusive and has also been carried out relatively more recently. This may explain the fact that the SLA cohort as a whole did not register significant degrees ofchange in their beliefs regarding these areas. Our combined cohort also remained largely unpersuaded about the positive impact ofinteraction between non-native speakers on language learning despite aspects ofthis being supported by extensive current research into Task- Based Learning (Long & Crookes, 1992). This is particularly ironic, since it is precisely in this area ofSLA research that the strength ofthe interface between theory and practice has been noted (Markee, 1997). One can only speculate that our students’ lack ofconviction might have been affected by two factors: again, the comparative recency ofthe research in this area (Markee, 1997); and the fact that cultural influences were still proving more powerful for them than empirical research. It is perhaps unsurprising that a one semester course did not entirely persuade our students ofan alternative view oflanguage learning, sinceFfor perfectly valid reasonsFmany ofthem were probably only still emerging from a lengthy period of being positioned as passive learners. 4.1.2. Undergraduatesvs. postgraduates There are two areas ofinterest in which the undergraduate and postgraduate cohorts differed both before and after the course: error correction and the relationship between language teaching and language learning. First, it is paradoxical that the undergraduate cohort agreed more than the postgraduate cohort with immediate classroom error correction at the beginning ofthe course but their degree ofchange was greater by the end ofthe course. Many ofthe undergraduates and postgraduates had come from teaching cultures where there is a low tolerance of error in the classroom. However, our under- graduates had been studying in an ethos of communicative language teaching for one year prior to the study, whereas most ofour post- graduates had come directly to the program from their home countries. This may account for the fact that the undergraduate beliefs changed more by end ofthe course; but it does not account for the fact that they agreed more strongly with the idea ofimmediate error correction at the beginning ofthe course. Furthermore, the converse is the case with regard to parental error correction, where the postgraduates became much more assured ofa non-behaviorist position by the end ofthe course. Secondly, the undergraduate cohort agreed significantly more than the postgraduates with the idea ofstaged presentation and practice of grammatical rules both before and after the course. In this respect, our SLA course would seem to have had little impression on them. Moreover, this suggests that the undergraduates viewed language learning as more teacher-directed than the postgraduate cohort. This may be due to the fact that the undergraduate program was by its very nature more teacher-directed than the post- graduate program. It is possible that the under- graduates were responding here not so much to what they were taught as to the way in which they were taught. M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963959 4.2. Theory into practice It would hardly be adequate ifall that happened in a TESOL program was a change in beliefs and assumptions. Central to Woods’s (1996) concep- tualization ofbeliefs, assumptions, and knowledge (BAK) is the idea that changes in teachers’ belief systems can also lead to changes in their percep- tual/procedural systems, which in turn produces outcomes in terms ofclassroom practice. Although it clearly is a limitation ofour study that we have no data from classroom practice relating to the changes in beliefs and attitudes that appeared to take place, we would argue on the basis ofWoods’s (1996) research that SLA theory actuallydoesplay a part in the development ofthe everyday class- room routines ofprospective teachers. However, from their comments, both orally and on their course evaluation forms, it would appear that our students were either unaware of, or undervalued, the changes that were taking place. Three factors might contribute towards this. We have already commented upon the differences between the discourse ofeducational research and classroom practice. Markee (1997) notes how inefficient SLA research is in particular when it comes to communicating with its clients, teachers. Secondly, our SLA course is not unusual in being clearly distinguished from other courses on classroom pedagogy on the B.A. and M.Sc. programs. As is the case elsewhere, our students are also products ofan educational system which sustains the classification ofknowledge into clearly bounded units (Bernstein, 1975). Both the framing ofthe teacher education curriculum and the corresponding socialization ofstudents militate against the ultimate re-integration oftheories of language learning with their pedagogic application by their users. Finally, given that the teacher education curriculum is conventionally classified into research and theory courses on the one hand, and practical teaching courses on the other, it will tend to be the theory that becomes devalued in the current pragmatic intellectual climate where there is a ‘‘desire for immediate application of research to general education’’ (Kerlinger in Lightbown, 1985, p. 180). We would like to conclude by pointing up some possible ways forward for the reframing of SLAresearch on teacher education programs so that student teachers might become more aware ofthe changes that are taking place in their beliefs, assumptions and knowledge and recognize their inseparability from pedagogic practice. Under- lying this is the notion that the way SLA is taught, and in particular its contextualisation within a teacher education program, is at least as important as the content ofthe course. With regard to the exclusivity ofeducational research, Freeman (1996) argues that there is a need for a change in the genre ofresearch to enable the teacher’s voice to be heard. He goes on to say (1996, p. 10) that narrative accounts ofclassroom experience which reveal the identity ofthe teller should be accorded the same validity as more objective research reports. The use ofnarratives could enable student teachers to identify more powerfully with their reading and might serve to compensate for some of the deficiencies in communication apparent in the conventional SLA literature (Markee, 1997). Student teachers could also be encouraged within the seminar to generate both oral and written narratives oftheir own experiences as language teachers or learners. Ifthe voice ofthe lan- guage teacher is only partially heard within the discourse oflanguage education, it is surely the voice ofthe language learner that is truly absent. In this way, student teachers might ‘‘develop their own systematic ways ofcommunicating their own experi- entially derived understandings ofwhat will chal- lenge our preconceptions, suggest falsifications of some ofour hypotheses, and enable teaching itselfto develop more openly’’ (Brumfit, 1983, p. 71). Teacher education could also establish stronger links between the divergent discourses ofeduca- tional research and classroom practice by educat- ing prospective teachers in classroom-based forms ofresearch and embedding teacher education in the classroom. Rather than students being posi- tioned as the passive recipients ofresearch and theory, they could be positioned as potential users. This would also help prepare them for more active future engagement in research as teachers (Sten- house, 1975; Markee, 1997; Wright, 1992). This research could be contextualised within case-based methods (Richert & Shulman in Johnson, 1996) and portfolio assessment (Johnson, 1996). M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 960 The compartmentalization ofeducational knowledge within the curriculum ofteacher education programs in TESOL could also be addressed, although this would be a major under- taking for any program. Rather than having discrete specialisms running ‘horizontally’ in par- allel through the program, it might be possible to experiment with the idea ofexploring ‘vertical’ topics in an integrated way. One unit would be devoted to ‘errors’, another to ‘strategies’ and so on. Each unit would provide a focus through which aspects ofclassroom practice could be explored from the most theoretical to the most practical level. For example, a module on errors would address psycholinguistic reasons for errors (often dealt with separately on an SLA course), linguistic descriptions oferrors (often dealt with separately in a language description course) and techniques ofhandling errors (often dealt with separately on a methodology course). 5. Conclusion In this paper we have observed that, despite student teachers’ avowed aversion to SLA theory and research, certain changes in key beliefs in their own attitudes and beliefs towards language learn- ing did take place during programs which included an SLA course. Taking on board Woods’s (1996) argument that teachers’ beliefs and attitudes are inextricably linked with classroom practice, we would argue that the theory and research compo- nent ofthese programs does have an effect on the evolving classroom routines ofour students. However, it has to be conceded that neither the discourse ofeducational research in which SLA is grounded nor the way in which SLA courses are framed within the curriculum of teacher education programs in TESOL make it any easier for the prospective teacher to come to terms with this often arcane body of knowledge. However, if some ofthe changes which have been suggested were to be implementedFofnecessity over some consider- able period oftimeFwe might see SLA research and theory begin to become ‘‘more explicitly grounded in the real world’’ (Markee, 1997, p. 88), and in so doing, be placed ‘‘back into itsoriginating context’’ (Buchmann, 1984, p. 434). Further research needs to be carried out to correlate changes in the beliefs, assumptions and knowledge ofstudent teachers in TESOL with observable data ofchanges in their classroom routines in the context ofmicro-teaching or teaching practice. Acknowledgements We would like to thank our B.A. ELT and M.Sc. TESOL cohorts (1997 and 1998) for their good humor and persistence; also Patsy Light- bown for permission to use the questionnaire. Appendix A. Content ofundergraduate and post- graduate SLA courses Undergraduate course Learning a First Language (behaviorism, ment- alism, interactionism) Learner Language (contrastive analysis, error analysis, natural order) Social Aspects ofInterlanguage (acculturation and social identity) Discourse Aspects ofInterlanguage (input, out- put and interaction) Psycholinguistic Aspects ofInterlanguage (transfer, consciousness, communication strate- gies) Linguistic Aspects ofInterlanguage (Chomsky, TG and CPH) Individual Differences in L2 Acquisition (apti- tude, motivation, the affective filter and learning strategies) Interaction in Language Learning (groupwork and feedback) Instruction and L2 Acquisition (form focused instruction and the natural approach) Postgraduate course First Language Acquisition (behaviorism, ment- alism, interactionism) M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963961 Error Analysis and Language Transfer (psycho- linguistic causes oferrors; influence ofL1 on L2) Interlanguage ( idiosyncratic dialects, approx- imate systems, interlanguage) Monitor Model (Krashen’s approach to lan- guage learning) Learner Differences (age, motivation, field dependence/independence) Input in Language Learning (caretaker talk, teacher talk, foreigner talk) Interaction in Language Learning (groupwork and feedback) Learner Strategies (metacognitive and cognitive strategies, strategy training) Teaching and Language Learning (form-focused instruction) Appendix B. Questionnaire statements Languages are learned mainly through imita- tion. Parents usually correct young children when they make grammatical errors. People with high IQs are good language learners. The most important factor in second language acquisition success is motivation. The earlier a second language is introduced in school programs, the greater the likelihood of success in learning. Most ofthe mistakes which second language learners make are due to interference from their first language. Teachers should present grammatical rules one at a time, and learners should practice examples of each one before going on to another. Teachers should teach simple language struc- tures before complex ones. Learners’ errors should be corrected as soon as they are made in order to prevent the formation of bad habits. Teachers should use materials that expose students only to those language structures which they have already been taught. When learners are allowed to interact freely (for example in group or pair activities), they learn each others’ mistakes. Students learn what they are taught.References Abelson, R. P. (1979). Difference between beliefand knowledge systems.Cognitive Science,3, 355–366. Bernstein, B. (Ed.) (1975). On the classification and framing of educational knowledge.Class codes and control, Vol. 3 (pp. 85–116). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Brown, H. D. (1983). From ivory tower to real world: A search for relevance. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, & P. Strevens (Eds.),Georgetown university round table in languages and linguistics(pp. 53–59). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Brumfit, C. (1983). The integration oftheory and practice. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, & P. Strevens (Eds.),Georgetown university round table in languages and linguistics(pp. 59–74). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Buchmann, M. (1984). The use ofresearch knowledge in teacher education and teaching.American Journal of Education,92, 421–439. Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of‘‘verbal behavior’’ by B.F. Skinner.Language,35, 26–58. Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (1987). Teachers’ personal knowledge: What counts as ‘personal’ in studies ofthe personal.Journal of Curriculum Studies,19(6), 487–500. Clarke, M. A. (1994). The dysfunctions of the theory/practice discourse.TESOL Quarterly,28(1), 9–25. Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1972). Goofing, an indicator of children’s second language learning strategies.Language Learning,22, 234–252. Ellis, R. (1994). Second language acquisition research and teacher development: The case ofteachers’ questions. In D. C. S. Li, D. Mahoney, & J. C. Richards (Eds.),Exploring second language teacher development(pp. 175–193). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic ofHong Kong. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: An educational perspective.SSLA,19, 69–92. Freeman, D. (1994). Knowing into doing: Teacher education and the problem oftransfer. In D. C. S. Li, D. Mahoney, & J. C. Richards (Eds.),Exploringsecond language teacher development(pp. 1–20). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic of Hong Kong. Freeman, D. (1996). Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know. In K. M. Bailey, & D. Nunan (Eds.),Voices from the language classroom: Quali- tative research in second language education(pp. 88–115). Cambridge: CUP Press. Freeman, D., & Richards,, J. C. (1993). Conceptions of teaching and the education ofsecond language teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 193–216. Freeman, D., Richards, J. C. (Eds.) (1996).Teacher learningin language teaching.Cambridge: CUP. Gardner, R. (1985).Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitude and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Geertz, C. (Ed.) (1983). Common sense as a cultural system. Local knowledge(pp. 73–94).London: Basic Books. M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963 962 Genessee, F. (1976). The role ofintelligence in second language learning.Language Learning,26, 267–280. Johnson, K. (1996). The role oftheory in L2 teacher education. TESOL Quarterly,30(4), 765–771. Kerlinger, F. H. (1977). The influence ofresearch on education practice.Educational Research,6, 5–12. Kinnear, P. R., & Gray, C. D. (1997).SPSS for windows. London: Psychology Press. Krashen, S. D. (1983). Second language acquisition theory and the preparation ofteachers: Towards a rationale. In J. E. Alatis, H. H. Stern, & P. Strevens (Eds.),Georgetown university round table in languages and linguistics(pp. 255–264). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Krashen, S. D. (1985).The input hypothesis. London: Longman. Krashen, S. D., & Terrell, T. D. (1995).The natural approach. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. Lightbown, P. (1985). Great expectations: Second-language acquisition research and classroom teaching.Applied Linguistics,6, 173–189. Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (1995).Howlanguages are learned. Oxford: OUP. Liu, D. (1998). Ethnocentrism in TESOL: Teacher education and the neglected needs ofinternational TESOL students. English Language TeachingJournal,52(1), 3–10. Long, M. (1981). Input, interaction, and SLA.Annals of the NewYork Academy of Sciences,37(9), 259–278. Long, M., & Crookes, G. (1992). Three approaches to task- based syllabus design.TESOL Quarterly,26(1), 27–56. Markee, N. (1997). Second language acquisition research: A resource for changing teachers’ professional cultures?The Modern Language Journal,81, 80–93.McLaughlin, B. (1987).Theories of second-language learning. London: Edward Arnold. Nunan, D. (1991). Second language acquisition research in the language classroom. In E. Sadtono (Ed.),Language acquisition and the second/foreign language classroom (pp. 1–16). Singapore: SEAMO Regional English Language Centre. Polanyi, M. (1958).Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul. Richards, J. C. (1996). Teachers’ maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly,30(2), 281–296. Richards, J. C., & Lockhart, C. (1994).Reflective teachingin second language classrooms. Cambridge: CUP. Richards, J. C., Nunan, D. (Eds.), (1990).Second language teacher education.Cambridge: CUP. Stenhouse, L. (1975). Research as a basis for teaching. In Authority, education and emancipation(pp. 177–195). London: Heineman. Tarone, E., Swain, M., & Fathman, A. (1976). Some limi- tations to the classroom applications ofcurrent second language acquisition research.TESOL Quarterly,10(1), 19–32. Winch, P. (1958).The idea of a social science. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul. Woods, D. (1996).Teacher cognition in language teaching. Cambridge: CUP. Wright, T. (1992). L2 classroom research and L2 teacher education: Towards a collaborative approach. In J. Flower- dew, M. Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds.),Perspectives on second language acquisition(pp. 187–223). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic ofHong Kong. M. MacDonald et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 17 (2001) 949–963963
Use the following outline structure as you move through the assignment: Thoughts regarding the examination of language teaching beliefs (a few sentences) 1. I believe that… a.Specify and summarize SLA
The impact of in-service teacher education on languageteachers’ beliefs Simon Borg* School of Education, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK Received 15 January 2011; accepted 25 May 2011 Abstract This qualitative longitudinal study examines the impact of an intensive eight-week in-service teacher education programme in the UK on the beliefs of six English language teachers. Drawing on a substantial database of semi-structured interviews, coursework and tutor feedback, the study suggests that the programme had a considerable, if variable, impact on the teachers’ beliefs. The course allowed teachers to think more explicitly about, become aware of, and articulate their beliefs, to extend and consolidate beliefs they were initially eand sometimes tacitly epositively disposed to, and to focus on ways of developing classroom practices which re ected their beliefs. Teachers also experienced shifts in prior beliefs they held about aspects of language teaching and learning. Nonetheless, despite this evidence of impact, the data also suggest that the in-service course studied here could have engaged teachers in a more productive and sustained examination of their beliefs. Several factors relevant to such engagement are analyzed and recommendations for enhancing the impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs are made. 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Teachers’ beliefs; Language teacher education; In-service; Delta 1. Introduction It is widely recognized that teacher education is more likely to impact on what teachers do if it also impacts on their beliefs (e.g. Feiman-Nemser and Remillard, 1996; Phipps and Borg, 2007; Wideen et al., 1998 ). There has, however, been surprisingly little research into the extent to which teacher education, particularly in in-service contexts, does actually impact in some way on the beliefs of participating teachers. This paper explores this issue in the context of an in-service course for language teachers. 1.1. Literature review Beliefs have been de ned from a range of psychological and philosophical perspectives (see, for example, Abelson, 1979; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2006 ). This work suggests that beliefs are propositions individuals consider to be true and which are often tacit, have a strong evaluative and affective component, provide * Tel.: þ44 113 343 4552; fax: þ44 113 343 4541. E-mail address: [email protected] . 0346-251X/$ – see front matter 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi: 10.1016/j.system.2011.07.009 Available online at www.sciencedirect.com System 39 (2011) 370 e380 www.elsevier.com/locate/system a basis for action, and are resistant to change. In the context of language teacher education, beliefs are seen to be a key element in teacher learning and have become an important focus for research. It has even been suggested that beliefs “may be the clearest measure of a teacher’s professional growth” (Kagan, 1992, p. 85). 1.1.1. Studies of belief impact in language teacher education Most of the research available on the impact of teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs has been conducted in pre-service contexts, and this work has produced mixed ndings. Studies such as Borg (2005), Peacock (2001), Urmston (2003) andPennington and Urmston (1998) report stability in the pre- and post-course beliefs of student teachers. In contrast, Cabaroglu and Roberts (2000), Clarke (2008), MacDonald et al. (2001), Mattheoudakis (2007) and Busch (2010) all provide evidence of change in student teachers’ beliefs during language teacher education. Other studies ( Liu and Fisher, 2006; Murray, 2003; Richards et al., 1996 ) report that belief change was promoted by pre- service language teacher education in variable ways across individuals and areas of belief. Moving on to the context for this study, the volume of research examining the impact of teacher education on in- service language teachers’ beliefs is limited. Studies which have reported evidence of such impact are Freeman (1993), Scott and Rodgers (1995) , andLamie (2004) . For example, Scott and Rodgers (1995) compared teachers’ conceptions of writing using a pre- and post-course survey and found that initially 58.5% of the beliefs expressed were aligned with the principles and practices promoted on the course, compared to 89% afterwards. This was interpreted as evidence of positive impact. In contrast, Lamb (1995)andPhipps (2007, 2010) report less positive conclusions in their analyses of the impact of in-service teacher education on language teachers’ beliefs. For example, Phipps (2007)used qualitative measures to examine the impact of four months of an 18-month course on the beliefs about grammar teaching of a teacher of English in Turkey. While acknowledging the overall positive impact of the programme, he concluded that, during the period of the study, “there were few tangible changes to existing beliefs. Instead many existing beliefs were con rmed, deepened and strengthened” (p. 13). 1 Clearly, variations in the nature of the language teacher education programmes examined and in the research approaches adopted in different studies will account, at least partly, for the inconsistent conclusions emerging here. What is evident, though, is that our understandings of the impact of language teacher education on practising teachers’ beliefs remain incipient and the issue merits much additional empirical attention. In response to this gap, the key research question that is addressed here is: To what extent did an in-service language teacher education programme impact on participants’ beliefs about language teaching and learning? Given the concern here with impact rather than with any particular substantive area (e.g. beliefs about grammar teaching), the range of beliefs to be studied was not limited in any a priori manner. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Context and participants The context for the study was a full-time Delta (Diploma in English language teaching to adults) taught over eight weeks at a training centre in the UK. The Delta is an internationally recognized advanced course for practising teachers and consists of three modules. Of particular relevance here is Module 2 eDeveloping Professional Practice e which has as one of its aims to “develop candidates’ beliefs about teaching”. 2On the full-time Delta, candidates receive 120 contact hours and teach 10 lessons to adults (half of these are observed and assessed). Candidates are expected to spend around 300 h on reading, research and assignment writing (e.g. preparing detailed lesson plans, writing lesson evaluations, developing a re ective professional development portfolio, writing background essays). Signi cantly revised in 2008, the Delta seeks to re ect contemporary views of good practice in language teacher education (see Zeronis, 2007for a discussion of the development and design of the course). Six Delta candidates agreed to take part in this study (of a total of 12 who were registered on the course when volunteers were sought via a preliminary questionnaire). All six were female, British and worked in private language 1Kubanyiova (2006) andRichards et al. (2001) also comment on relationships between in-service teacher education and teachers’ beliefs, without, however, providing speci c analyses of these relationships. 2See http://www.cambridgeesol.org/exams/teaching-awards/delta.html for full details of the course. 371 S. Borg / System 39 (2011) 370 e380 teaching organizations.Table 1summarizes the more variable characteristics of the sample (referred to throughout here as T1 eT6). The researcher was not associated in any way with the institution running the course. 2.2. Data collection and analysis The data reported here come from a larger study examining the various types of impact that in-service teacher education has. The study was qualitative and longitudinal. The teachers rst completed a preliminary questionnaire which asked about their background, reasons for joining the course, and what they hoped to learn. Six audio recorded semi-structured interviews (see Kvale and Brinkmann, 2008for a discussion of qualitative interviews) each lasting on average 40 min and distributed across the course were then conducted with each teacher. The rst two interviews were conducted face to face at the training centre while the remaining four interviews were conducted by telephone. Another source of data was the substantial volume of Delta coursework teachers completed (e.g. lesson plans, essays, re ective writing) and the written feedback tutors provided on this work. Table 2summarizes the chronology of interviews and assignments in the study. Data were analyzed qualitatively (see, for example, Newby, 2010, pp. 459e460 for a discussion of the process of qualitative data analysis). There were two levels of analysis ecyclical and summative. Cyclical analysis took place throughout the study and alternated with each phase of data collection. Thus, the rst interview schedule was based on an analysis of teachers’ responses to the preliminary questionnaires, while all subsequent interview schedules were informed by an analysis of the previous interview and the most recent coursework and tutor feedback. Thus, for example, in preparing Interview 3, I reviewed the transcript of interview 2 for evidence relevant to an understanding of teachers’ beliefs (e.g. statements in which beliefs were articulated or re ective comments about beliefs). T2, for instance, said in Interview 2 that her beliefs had not been challenged in Weeks 1 e2 of the course, so this issue became part of the schedule for Interview 3. Prior to Interview 3 I also reviewed all coursework and tutor feedback that had become available since the last interview and similarly analyzed these sources for evidence of teachers’ beliefs or teachers’ re ections on their beliefs. To take another example from T2, in her Re ection and Action Stage 2 assignment she wrote that “planning should be from the aims backwards, i.e. student and aims focused”. This assertion then became one of the issues discussed in Interview 3. Appendix 1is an example of the outcome of these cyclical analytical processes, with questions and issues in interview schedules very often linked directly to evidence from earlier phases of data collection. There was thus a very strong interplay between data collection and analysis throughout the study, supporting Richards’ (2003, p. 268) claim that in qualitative research analysis is “neither a distinct stage nor a discrete process”. The process followed here also meant that each interview was highly responsive and personalized. In addition to extracting interview themes from the data, there were a number of core issues that I explored in the interviews throughout the study; for the purposes of this paper two themes of relevance were the extent to which the teachers felt the course (a) enabled them to examine their beliefs and (b) had impacted on their beliefs in some way. Analysis was also summative, both for each teacher and for the whole group. That is, on completion of the eldwork the on-going analyses for each teacher were reviewed chronologically for recurrent themes or patterns relevant to an understanding of the impact of the course on the teacher’s beliefs. A list of themes evident in each case was drawn up and a cross-case comparison of these was facilitated through the use of a grid in which themes were listed and cross-referenced to each individual case, using a Uor to indicate whether a theme was present or absent; displaying the data in this manner highlighted those themes which recurred across teachers and those which were isolated instances. For example, this analysis showed that in ve of the six cases the teachers noted at some point during the study that they felt their initial beliefs had remained intact during the course. Table 1 Participant pro les. Teachers Years in ELT Quali cations Current position T1 4 BA, CELTA Director of Studies (DOS) T2 10 BA, CELTA Senior Teacher T3 5 BA, Cert. TESOL Teacher T4 2 BA, CELTA DOS T5 4 BA, PGCE, CELTA Assistant DOS/Teacher T6 7 BA, PGCE, CELTA Senior Teacher 372 S. Borg /System 39 (2011) 370 e380 Other features of the analysis which characterized this work were extensive reference to contextualized extracts of primary data to support claims (e.g. quotations from the teachers and their work), and respondent validation (but see Silverman, 2001 for a critical perspective on asking participants to verify researchers’ interpretations). Collectively, the rigorous analytical procedures outlined here enhance the trustworthiness of the ndings presented below. In terms of key ethical concerns in educational research (see, for example, Denscombe, 2002), voluntary informed consent was obtained from all participants, they had the right to withdraw from the study at any time, and their anonymity was protected together with the con dentiality of the data. 3. Findings I will now present ndings relevant to the impact of the Delta on the beliefs of the six teachers. It is important to stress that I am not seeking to characterize the Delta course generally ethe insights provided here are based on the study of one particular implementation of the course and of the experience of six (successful) teachers on it. The issues highlighted, though, are, I would argue, of broad relevance to language teacher educators. 3.1. Teacher 1 In the rst re ective assignment on the course teachers were encouraged to write about their beliefs. T1 found this challenging: I think prior to doing the course, I hadn’t really re ected a lot on what my beliefs were .I found that quite hard, because I felt like I was supposed to say some special word or use some terminology, and say, oh, ‘I believe in this theory’ .it wasn’t immediately obvious to me what my beliefs were (TI:I2 3). At the end of the course, though, she declared that “the course teaches you to actually know what you believe about teaching” (TI:I5) and felt that this new-found awareness was one of the most positive outcomes of the course for her: Table 2 Chronology of data collection. Course weeks Data collection 25.08.09 Pre-course questionnaires Wk1 28.09.09 Start of course Interview 1 Wk2 05.10.09 Diagnostic assignment Re ection and action stage 2 Interview 2 Wk3 12.10.09 Language & skills assignment 1 Wk4 19.10.09 Language & skills assignment 2 Wk5 26.10.09 Interview 3 Re ection and action stage 3 Experimental practice assignment Wk6 02.11.09 Language & skills assignment 3 Wk7 09.11.09 Interview 4 Re ection and action stage 4 Wk8 16.11.09 Language & skills assignment 4 End of course Interview 5 02.12.09 Module 1 exam 07.12.09 Extended assignment deadline 21.01.10 Interview 6 3Data cited in this paper carry the following codes: T1, T2, etc.¼individual teachers; I1, I2, etc ¼ rst, second, etc. interview; FB ¼tutor feedback; R&A2 e4¼ re ective assignments; CSFB ¼teacher feedback on their narratives; PCT ¼pre-course task. Ellipsis ( .) in transcripts indicates that (because of space and relevance) text has been omitted. 373 S. Borg / System 39 (2011) 370 e380 I think it all comes down to understanding what you believe, and it sounds really stupid, like you don’t know what you believe, but yeah I think when you do your rst lot of training and then you’re out in schools teaching for the rst few years and you don’t really pick up theory books very often, you don’t really understand the principles and the reasons behind half the things you’re doing.I wanted to nd out the methodology that was behind everything that I was doing .And for that reason alone it’s been brilliant (T1:I5). Particularly fundamental to T1’s understanding of her beliefs, as indicated above, was acquiring the theoretical knowledge which provided her with a rationale for her practices. Without this knowledge, she felt she had practices but no explanation for them: you can have all these things like, ‘oh I hate using the course book or, oh I never do this part of the course book because I think it’s rubbish’ or whatever, and you don’t really realise when you’re pre-Delta that that’s a belief that you have about it. You just think, ‘oh that’s just what I do, you know?’ .And it’s quite embarrassing when you rst start because you think, ‘I’ve no idea, I don’t know why I’ve been doing that. I’ve just been told to do that’ and so, yeah, it’s quite nice to be able to get to the end of the course and go, ‘I get why I do that now. I understand why that makes sense’ (TI:I5). T1 gave such a prominent role to theory in talking about her beliefs on the course that there was a sense in which external theory lled the gaps in her understanding and becamethe beliefs she felt she lacked an awareness of. In contrast, for example, internal sources of insight such as her educational biography played no role in the examination of her beliefs. In an interview, though, she suggested that her early teaching experience with young learners in China had “patterned me to do things in a certain way, when I just transferred it to adults” (TI:I5). Exploring this experience would have contributed to a deeper understanding of her beliefs and practices. I return to this point in the practical recommendations at the end of the paper. 3.2. Teacher 2 In an early re ective assignment T2 wrote that “I believe students learn best when they are motivated. Instrumental motivation .is key but I also feel that it is the language teacher’s job to foster affective factors” (T2:R&A2). At the end of course, she did not feel these initial beliefs had been reshaped: I don’t know that my beliefs have necessarily changed. I’m a lot more aware of theories, of terminology, of what I’m doing, but I still believe that motivation is important, that having a good rapport with your students is important, none of that’s changed .When we looked at what we believed at the beginning [of the course], we were all quite super cial and we never really delved into it and I think all that’s happened is that the things we do in the classroom, have now just got more theory behind it .so really it’s your practice, not necessarily your beliefs that’s changed (T2:I5). Deeper knowledge of language teaching theory had thus shaped developments in her practice, without, however, implying any signi cant change in her basic beliefs. One explanation she offered for this was that her existing practices and those promoted on the course were reasonably well-aligned; in her words, “there’s been nothing that I’ve thought oh, I did that, you know, black and they’re saying that you’ve got to do it white, there’s nothing like that” (T2:I2). Another explanation, noted above, was that apart from a brief ‘super cial’ discussion of beliefs at the start of the Delta there was no deep or sustained examination of the issue on the course. The intensity of the course also hindered, she felt, the detailed examination of beliefs: I had lots of quite strong beliefs about rapport building, motivation and student-centred learning but which perhaps I didn’t know how to put into words and that we never really had a chance to examine these beliefs on the course eit was too intense to have much time to stop and think (T2:CSFB). Despite feeling her beliefs had remained stable, if somewhat tacit, T2 did acknowledge that some development in her beliefs occurred. Around the mid-point of the course she compared this development to the growth of a seed (which in this case referred to her entry beliefs): I don’t think it’s so much that they’re [my beliefs] being challenged, I think they’re just being added to .my reading’s adding to it and my teaching practice is adding to it and watching my peers is adding to it and, so 374 S. Borg /System 39 (2011) 370 e380 they’re just growing I think, that would be a better way of describing it.perhaps it was all probably there but maybe just the seed and now it’s, now they’re growing (T2:I3). Belief development in T2’s case, then, was one of growth ei.e. consolidation and extension of issues she was positively disposed to but which she had not necessarily previously explored in depth. This process was supported by reading, teaching and observing peers; one mechanism on the Delta for exploring beliefs which she did not bene t much from, though, was re ective writing, which she described as “a complete waste of time and effort” (T2:I5). In responding to her written re ections, tutors did encourage her to re ect more deeply, as in this example focusing on her dif culties in teaching pronunciation: It sounds like an area .that is not part of your normal classroom routine/ritual. By investigating why this is the case (perhaps by critically examining some of your experiences as a language learner and/or your beliefs in this area) you may be better placed to assign an appropriate action to take in your action plan (T2:R&A3 FB). There was, though, little evidence of such engagement with beliefs (or with her educational history) in T2’s self- evaluations and re ections on the course. 3.3. Teacher 3 T3 felt that before the course she was not even sure that she had beliefs about language teaching: “I don’t really know what I would have de ned my beliefs as being before I came, I don’t know if I would have said I had beliefs about ELT .I’d never consciously considered them” (T3:I2). The course was thus the rst time she had been encouraged to articulate her beliefs and in an early piece of re ective writing she noted that My own experiences as a language learner .have led me to believe that stimulating intrinsic motivation is vital in producing long term linguistic development in a learner .I also believe that appropriate error correction and feedback are essential to retaining learner motivation (T3:R&A2). The Delta thus gave T3 opportunities to become aware that she actually had beliefs and to articulate what these were. Thus she spoke of progressing from “maybe not even really thinking about them [i.e. beliefs] to having them” (T3:I2). Through this process she did not nd that her beliefs were being challenged in any signi cant way. One explanation for this lack of challenge was that she felt that the beliefs she became aware of on the course were well- aligned with the ideas it promoted; for example, T3 believed in the need for lessons “to be focused on what they (i.e. learners) can take away” (T3:I3), a key principle emphasized on the Delta. Like T2, T3 was not positive about written re ections, noting that “I maybe don’t nd them the most useful way of evaluation” (T3:I3) and adding later that “the principle behind it’s good, but the actual writing of it is maybe not very necessary” (T3:I5). Thus it was not surprising that tutor feedback on her re ections encouraged her to explore her beliefs in more detail. For example, with respect to recurring problems with teacher talking time and clarity of instructions, a tutor wrote: “Is the problem approach/technique or perhaps even a re ection of a deep seated belief about learning/teaching?” (T3:R&A3 FB). Nonetheless, at the end of the course, T3 felt she was better able to articulate her beliefs and that she was more aware of them: Yeah de nitely, I can use long words and things, it’s very exciting, yeah I wouldn’t have been as articulate on my beliefs at all at the beginning .But yeah, I de nitely, I know what I believe and why I believe it (T3:I5). 3.4. Teacher 4 T4 entered the course with strong beliefs about the importance of learner-centredness, and early in the course did not feel these beliefs were being challenged in any way. “I didn’t really have any way out beliefs that aren’t ok” (T4:I2) was how she felt in the rst two weeks; she was also nding that many of her existing beliefs re ected ideas being promoted on the course: I think that we have been very much encouraged to look at meaning .and making language memorable . those are things that I believed in but I wasn’t necessarily practising .Putting it into practice and applying what I believe in is my challenge (T4:I2). 375 S. Borg / System 39 (2011) 370 e380 Thus it was the enactment of her beliefs in practice which she saw as a key challenge for her. Towards the mid-point of the Delta, she reiterated the view that “I think my beliefs are still the same, to be honest. I don’t think that I’ve changed my beliefs” (T4:I3). She did not feel this lack of change was in any way negative: I think there’s been plenty of opportunity for re ection and opportunity for the beliefs to change and I’m open to it, but my main core beliefs haven’t changed, but what has changed is the way that I’m able to implement them because it was ironic that the very rst R&A [re ective assignment] it was, ‘I believe in student cen- tredness’, I believe in it and I do believe in it, but I just haven’t been able to do it (T4:I4). There was, evidence, though, of ways in which the course was impacting on her beliefs. For example, in her pre- course task T4 described herself as “a very con dent and competent English teacher” (T4:PCT), but she was forced to review this assessment when feedback on her second teaching assignment indicated that although she was seen to be effective at creating opportunities for interaction in her lessons, too much of this interaction still centred on her. Her reaction was: That’s interesting, that was how I felt before, and now I’ve revisited how I feel and I guess my con dence has been knocked a little bit, by knowing how it could be better and what I was doing was not the best way that it could be (T4:I3). In this case then, she was reassessing her self-ef cacy beliefs. There was also evidence of revisions in her beliefs about the relationship between eliciting and learner-centredness: I always thought from CELTA that if you elicit and you’re asking the students for the answers, that’s a good thing, but really that can actually be quite teacher-centred. If you’re the one standing there asking everything all the time and just getting one word answers from them, it’s not really very student centred at all .I guess that is a change in belief isn’t it? (T4:I4). Overall, therefore, in this case there was perhaps a tension between the degree of belief change recognized by the teacher and that which actually occurred. 3.5. Teacher 5 For T5, articulating her beliefs was a novel experience and her initial attempts to do so were largely descriptions of practice, a point noted in tutor feedback on her early re ective writing: You outline your practices but your beliefs are not always explicitly stated. Understanding your beliefs and connecting these to wider theory will put you in a better position to re ect on your practice (T5:R&A2 FB). This remained an issue for T5 throughout the course. In terms of her teaching, though, a key developmental theme in T5’s work was the need for her to create more opportunities for student-centred work and by the end of the second week she already felt her beliefs in these areas were developing: I feel now maybe I was helping the students too much and .I suppose I was thinking in terms of my responsibility to teach them I suppose rather than in terms of helping, enabling their learning .I think I’m too teacher-centred and I’m learning how that may be holding them back in some ways (T5:I2). Supported by tutor feedback on her teaching, she continued to review her beliefs about her role: “I think before I used to feel that I needed to tell them things all the time. That my job was to tell them things but now I realise that actually they can, you can get a lot from them”. (T5:I3). Two-thirds into the course she felt that “a lot of my practices have changed. But I think my beliefs are still, haven’t been challenged, my fundamental beliefs haven’t been challenged” (T5:I4). This seemed at odds with some of the very clear shifts she had made in the way she conceived of her work, though she explained that her comments referred speci cally to core beliefs she held at the start of the course “about the importance of fostering friendly atmospheres in the classroom. And presenting things in a realistic context .everything that we’ve learned has only con rmed that” (T5:I4). At the same time, her re ective writing continued to be characterized by limited reference to her beliefs, a point recurrently noted in tutor feedback. I ask her whether there was any particular reason why she did not examine her beliefs more closely: 376 S. Borg /System 39 (2011) 370 e380 Well it’s interesting you say that actually because on the last day of the course.we were actually speaking about this .on the rst day we were asked to write our beliefs, we had to write these on these big pieces of paper on the wall, and I think more or less all of us, instead of write what we thought of as being our beliefs [what we wrote] was actually our practices. But I think we all found it quite dif cult to distinguish, most of us said, perhaps we didn’t really have such strong beliefs about teaching, we have things that we do and we think things .but we hadn’t really given much thought about the beliefs that underlie that. .we’d all put things like .for our beliefs, things like ‘I always write down vocabulary on the board’ and things like that, which isn’t actually, there might be a belief behind that but it isn’t a belief in itself .It’s a practice .I think that only really twigged for us right at the end (T5:I5). It was only late in the Delta that the distinction between beliefs and practices became clear for T5, and thus it is hardly surprising that explicit discussions of her beliefs were absent from the re ective documents she wrote throughout course. At the end of the course, though, T5 was positive and articulate about its impact on her beliefs: I think it’s actually made me realise what my beliefs are .I still probably have the same beliefs in the importance of affective factors and creating an environment where students can work together and help each other .I’m also believing more and more now in the importance of getting students to process things for themselves rather than just being told .I think probably to do with my role as a teacher .I felt it was my job I think before to just give them the knowledge, whereas now I think I see my role differently. To help them to discover for themselves more (T5:I5). 3.6. Teacher 6 T6 was able to articulate her beliefs in detail early in the course:I strongly believe that there are many affective factors which assist learners in acquiring language successfully. These factors include learner comfort and freedom to experiment in the classroom, con dence in the teacher . It is important that topics are used which students can relate to and can be personalised .I am a great believer in student interaction and learner autonomy (T6:R&A2). She did not feel, though, that in the rst part of the course that there was suf cient discussion in class about beliefs: We haven’t so much been asked about our beliefs very much, although in our re ection and action [i.e. re ective writing] we do talk about what’s important to us and our teaching beliefs .but not so much in an open discussion (T6:I2). Feedback on her teaching, in contrast, was helping her review her beliefs, for example in relation to when in the lesson to give students production activities: before this course, I always thought, ‘oh it [production] comes at the end’ .but actually what I’ve realised is that that turns on its head and the language analysis can come after and that gives them a chance to improvise and try it out rst .and I think I’ve realised that that works much better .the shape of my lesson has completely changed because of that (T6:I4). Half way through the course she was still waiting for opportunities to talk about beliefs during the training sessions: there’s not really been any opportunity to, it’s not as getting to the nitty gritty as I thought it would be .Yo u don’t really get a chance to throw an idea out and have it challenged as it were. So yeah, that’s something that hasn’t happened as yet (T6:I3). She was aware, though, of how her views were being shaped by teaching practice and the feedback she received on it. In particular, she had developed strong beliefs about utilising the students’ knowledge, existing knowledge, a bit more as a base, and as a foundation of a lesson, rather than going in and teaching I think. I think that’s the thing that’s standing out at the moment (T6:I3). At the end of the course, T6’s view on the extent to which it had impacted on her beliefs was 377 S. Borg / System 39 (2011) 370 e380 my belief has been reassured. I think.it hasn’t had a huge impact on me, that side, I think .because I don’t actually feel that that was a huge part of the course .very early on I thought it would be. I thought it would be quite gritty. I thought it would be quite discursive when it came to different people’s beliefs .But it wasn’t particularly (T6:I5). 4. Discussion Judgements about the impact of teacher education depend on how ‘impact’ is operationalized. If impact implies a deep and radical reversal in beliefs, then we would conclude that the Delta did not have a signi cant impact on the beliefs of the six teachers. However, if we interpret impact more broadly to encompass a range of developmental processes then the impact of the Delta on the teachers’ beliefs, though variable, was considerable. T1, T3, and T5 all progressed from an initial stage of limited awareness of their beliefs to feeling quite strongly that they were aware of and could articulate key beliefs underpinning their work. In the other three cases, evidence of impact was less compelling (and less recognized by the teachers) but nonetheless evident; T6 felt her beliefs were largely reassured but acknowledged a new belief in the value of basing lessons on students’ existing knowledge and a change in her belief about when ‘production’ activities should occur in lessons; T4 acknowledged changes in her beliefs about her own ability as a teacher and in her understandings of the extent to which elicitation by the teacher was a student-centred practice; and T2, who was the teacher who least of all recognized any impact of the Delta on her beliefs, did admit to an improved ability to articulate her views. Overall, then, the results of this study add to existing evidence about the potential for teacher education to impact on the beliefs of in-service language teachers (see Section 1.1), although direct comparisons across studies are problematic given the diverse contexts studied and the research methods used. Phipps’ (2007, 2010)focus on a part- time Delta makes his work very relevant to this study and his nding that teachers became more aware of and strengthened their beliefs rather than changing them has parallels here. There is also evidence here which resonates with the ndings of Cabaroglu and Roberts (2000) regarding the different ways in which change in beliefs can be conceptualized. Thus, as we have seen, through teacher education teachers’ beliefs can be strengthened and extended; they can be made more apparent to teachers and assume a form that can be verbalized; teachers can learn how to put their beliefs into practice and also develop links between their beliefs and theory. Teacher education can of course also be the source of new beliefs for teachers. There was evidence of all these forms of impact in this study, and it was clear that the Delta provided a range of opportunities eparticularly through teaching practice, tutor feedback on teaching and coursework, reading, and re ective writing ethat contributed in variable ways in impacting on teachers’ beliefs. At the same time it must be acknowledged that at various points in the study several of the teachers claimed that they did not feel that the Delta was impacting signi cantly on their beliefs. In some cases these views persisted till the end of the course. Several factors may have led teachers to feel that their beliefs were not being engaged; one may be that they equated impact with radical change, and in that sense, as already noted, there was limited evidence of impact here. Another reason was that they perceived an alignment between their current beliefs and practices and those being promoted on the course. Borg (2005)highlighted such alignment as a reason why a student teacher did not experience signi cant changes in her beliefs during an intensive four-week teacher education programme. Some teachers also felt that while the course allowed them to think about their beliefs, it did not force teachers to confront and challenge them. For example, there were limited opportunities for teachers to talk to each other about their beliefs. Additionally, some teachers rejected the use of re ective writing and this too may have shaped their views about the overall impact the course had on their beliefs (for other perspectives on the challenges of promoting productive teacher re ections, including in assessed contexts, see A’Dhahab, 2009; Gunn, 2010; Hobbs, 2007). 5. Conclusion The Delta course studied here was positively oriented to the examination of teachers’ beliefs and there was clear evidence that the course had considerable, if variable, impact on the beliefs of the teachers studied. At the same time, however, there was also potential for the teach ers to be engaged in a more sustained and productive examination of their beliefs, and to conclude this paper I list eight recommendations for how this might be 378 S. Borg /System 39 (2011) 370 e380 achieved. I am not suggesting that these features were wholly absent from the Delta studied, nor that they are typically absent from Delta courses generally; based on the data presented here, though, I do feel that greater attention to these issues can increase the likelihood that in-service teacher education will impact on language teachers’ beliefs:1. Acknowledge that examining their beliefs may be a novel experience for teachers and provide appropriate support as necessary. 2. Assist teachers in clarifying their understandings of what beliefs are (i.e. how they are distinct from practices and from theoretical knowledge). 3. Ensure that teachers understand why they are being encouraged to examine their beliefs. 4. Make re ection on beliefs a central social teacher learning process by providing communal opportunities ee.g. in-class discussions efor teachers to talk about their beliefs. 5. Supplement feedback advising teachers that they need to examine their beliefs in greater depth with concrete examples of how this can be achieved. 6. Encourage ‘Biographically responsive’ ( Reeves, 2009, p. 121) re ective practices through which teachers can understand the formative in uence of past educational and professional experiences on their current beliefs. 7. Assess teachers’ attitudes to re ective writing and consider if necessary whether alternative mechanisms (e.g. graphical, oral, photographic) for articulating re ections can be made available for teachers to select from. 8. Provide teachers not only with opportunities to make their beliefs explicit but also with space to question and doubt those beliefs and “powerful alternative conceptions” ( Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2006, p. 728) to consider. While also valuable in pre-service contexts, such considerations are particularly important in in-service contexts, where teachers typically bring to the course previous training, substantial classroom experience, and deep-rooted beliefs about many aspects of their work. Acknowledgements This research was funded by Cambridge ESOL. I am grateful for their support and for the co-operation of the training centre and the participating teachers throughout the study. Appendix 1. Interview schedule extract Teacher 2 eInterview 3 1. Areas for development in your Re ection and Action Stage 2: – language presentation via inductive guided discovery (Personal aims & R&E, DA) – responding naturally to students’ comments and needs (aims for LSA1 & LSA2) – tighter planning and realistic timings (R&A2, LSA2) – pronunciation – clari cation stage still needs work (LSA1 R&E) How are you getting on with these? 2. Reading – Interview 2 eyou were surprised by your interest in theoretical issues estill the case? – How’s the ‘backbone’ coming along? [The teacher used the ‘backbone’ metaphor in an earlier interview to refer to her learning.] – Have you continued to read in the past two weeks? – What kind of material are you reading? – What are you learning from your reading? – What use are you putting the reading to? – How does reading in uence your understanding of your teaching? 3. Beliefs 379 S. Borg / System 39 (2011) 370 e380 – Interview 2ebeliefs not strongly challenged in Weeks 1 e2. – Have you been required to focus much on your beliefs in the past two weeks? – Are you aware of any beliefs you hold now about effective ways of teaching and learning English that you did not have before the course? References A’Dhahab, S.M., 2009. EFL teachers’ perceptions and practices regarding re ective writing. In: Borg, S. (Ed.), Researching English Language Teaching and Teacher Development in Oman. Ministry of Education, Oman, Muscat, pp. 1 e15. Abelson, R.P., 1979. Differences between beliefs and knowledge systems. Cognitive Science 3, 355 e366. Borg, M., 2005. A case study of the development in pedagogic thinking of a pre-service teacher. TESL eEJ 9, 1 e30. Busch, D., 2010. Pre-service teacher beliefs about language learning: the second language acquisition course as an agent for change. Language Teaching Research 14, 318 e337. Cabaroglu, N., Roberts, J., 2000. Development in student teachers’ pre eexisting beliefs during a 1 eYear PGCE programme. System 28, 387 e402. Clarke, M., 2008. Language Teacher Identities. Multilingual Matters, Clevedon. Denscombe, M., 2002. Ground Rules for Good Research. Open University Press, Buckingham. Feiman-Nemser, S., Remillard, J., 1996. Perspectives on learning to teach. In: Murray, F. (Ed.), The Teacher Educator’s Handbook. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, pp. 63 e90. Freeman, D., 1993. Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: developing new understandings of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education 9, 485e497. Gunn, C.L., 2010. Exploring MATESOL student ‘resistance’ to re ection. Language Teaching Research 14, 208 e223. Hobbs, V., 2007. Faking it or hating it: can re ective practice be forced? Re ective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives 8, 405e417. Kagan, D.M., 1992. Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist 27, 65 e90. Kubanyiova, M., 2006. Developing a motivational teaching practice in EFL teachers in Slovakia: challenges of promoting teacher change in EFL contexts. TESL eEJ 10, 1 e17. Kvale, S., Brinkmann, S., 2008. In: InterViews: Learning The Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing, second ed. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Lamb, M., 1995. The consequences of INSET. ELT Journal 49, 72 e80. Lamie, J.M., 2004. Presenting a model of change. Language Teaching Research 8, 115 e142. Liu, Y., Fisher, L., 2006. The development patterns of modern foreign language student teachers’ conceptions of self and their explanations about change: three cases. Teacher Development 10, 343 e360. MacDonald, M., Badger, R., White, G., 2001. Changing values: what use are theories of language learning and teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education 17, 949 e963. Mattheoudakis, M., 2007. Tracking changes in pre-service EFL teacher beliefs in Greece: a longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education 23, 1272 e1288. Murray, H., 2003. Tracing the Development of Language Awareness: An Exploratory Study of Language Teachers in Training. University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. Nespor, J., 1987. The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies 19, 317 e328. Newby, P., 2010. Research Methods for Education. Pearson Education, Harlow. Pajares, M.F., 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research 62, 307 e332. Peacock, M., 2001. Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: a longitudinal study. System 29, 177 e195. Pennington, M.C., Urmston, A., 1998. The teaching orientation of graduating students on a BATESL course in Hong Kong: a comparison with rst-year students. Hong Kong Journal of Applied Linguistics 3, 17 e46. Phipps, S., 2007. What difference does DELTA make? Research Notes 29, 12 e16. Phipps, S., 2010. Language Teacher Education, Beliefs and Classroom Practices. Lambert Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken. Phipps, S., Borg, S., 2007. Exploring the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practice. The Teacher Trainer 21, 17 e19. Reeves, J., 2009. A sociocultural perspective on ESOL teachers’ linguistic knowledge for teaching. Linguistics and Education 20, 109 e125. Richards, J.C., Gallo, P.B., Renandya, W.A., 2001. Exploring teachers’ beliefs and the processes of change. The PAC Journal 1, 43 e64. Richards, J.C., Ho, B., Giblin, K., 1996. Learning how to teach in the RSA Cert. In: Freeman, D., Richards, J.C. (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 242 e259. Richards, K., 2003. Qualitative Inquiry in TESOL. Palgrave, Basingstoke. Scott, R., Rodgers, B., 1995. Changing teachers’ conceptions of teaching writing: a collaborative study. Foreign Language Annals 28, 234 e246. Silve rman, D., 2001. In: Interpreting Qualitative Data, second ed. Sage, London. Urmston, A., 2003. Learning to teach English in Hong Kong: the opinions of teachers in training. Language and Education 17, 112 e137. Wideen, M., Mayer eSmith, J., Moon, B., 1998. A critical analysis of the research on learning to teach: making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational Research 68, 130 e178. Woolfolk Hoy, A., Davis, H., Pape, S.I., 2006. Teacher knowledge and beliefs. In: Alexander, P.A., Winne, H. (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology, second ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 715 e737. Zeronis, R., 2007. The DELTA Revision Project eprogress update. Research Notes 29, 4 e7. 380 S. Borg /System 39 (2011) 370 e380