UNDERSTANDING TEACHERS’ AND STUDENTS’ LANGUAGE LEARNING BELIEFS IN EXPERIENCE: A DEWEYAN APPROACH
by ANA MARIA F. BARCELOS
A DISSERTATION
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Area of Teacher Education in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama
TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2000 © Barcelos, A. M.F. 2000
Submitted by Ana Maria F. Barcelos in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy specializing in the area of Teacher Education. Accepted on behalf of the Faculty of the Graduate School by the dissertation committee:
______________________ Catherine E. Davies, Ph.D. ______________________ Jill Shearin Driver, Ph.D. ______________________ Rebecca L. Oxford, Ph.D. Chairperson ______________________ Debra A. Suarez, Ph.D. ______________________ Stephen Tomlinson, Ph.D. ______________________ Ross Palmer, Ed.D Associate Dean ______________________ Ronald Rogers, Ph.D. Dean of the Graduate School
__________________(2/14/2000) Date __________________(3/21/00) Date
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my advisor and chair of my committee, Dr. Rebecca Oxford, for her expertise, support, and guidance throughout this process. I am especially thankful to her for helping me to obtain a research assistantship during my first two years of study, which made my coming to study at The University of Alabama possible. I am also indebted to my committee members, Dr. Catherine Davies, Dr. Debra Suarez, Dr. Jill Shearin Driver, and Dr. Stephen Tomlinson, for being a constant source of support and encouragement. I am grateful for their expertise, their time, and their careful consideration of my work. I would also like to acknowledge Dr. Julie Laible’s support. Though she is no longer with us, her generous guidance and expertise helped me in the initial stages of this project. This study would not have been completed without the participation of the teachers and the students. I am grateful for their help and I thank them for sharing their time and their thoughts on language learning and teaching with me. The kind assistance provided by the director of the language institute and its staff is also greatly appreciated. I would like to acknowledge the support of Universidade Federal de Viçosa, in Brazil, for granting me a leave of absence to complete my Ph.D. I also want to thank CAPES in Brazil for providing me with a scholarship to complete my studies. I am deeply grateful to my friend, Lorene Pagcliwagan, who was always ready to listen and help even being miles away. I am thankful for her friendship, her support, and iv
encouragement. I thank her for patiently listening to me talk about this study in our few peer-debriefing meetings. Her suggestions helped me see the data more clearly and improve my analysis. Special thanks go to my friends in the US, Judy Lamon, for her friendship, her kindness and encouragement; Paula Ross and Kirby Derrick, for their continued friendship and for being close by, helping us in many ways. In Brazil, I am especially grateful to Cristina P. Campos, whose encouragement and support helped me to start my Ph.D. I would also like to thank Adail, Nazaré, Eliza, Simone, Sônia, Gustavo and Lílian for their thoughts and prayers and for their help in various ways in different moments of this journey. My deepest appreciation goes to my mother, my brothers and sisters for their unconditional love and support. My very special thanks go to my husband, Francisco, for his enduring love and friendship, his continued support and encouragement. His energy, his caring, and his faith in me are treasures that comforted me and helped me to continue.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................. xi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................... xii CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 Background of the Study .................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem.................................................................................2 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................3 Research Questions..........................................................................................4 Significance of the Study .................................................................................4 Definitions of Terms ........................................................................................5 Methodological Assumptions of the Study....................................................12 Limitations of the Study.................................................................................12 Conclusion and Overview of Chapters ..........................................................13
II
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW ...................14 Introduction....................................................................................................14 Theoretical Framework..................................................................................15 Dewey’s Concept of Experience................................................................15 The Nature of the Language Classroom ....................................................18 Teachers and Learners as Social Beings................................................23 Identity .......................................................................................................26 Summary of the Theoretical Framework ...................................................29 Literature Review...........................................................................................30 Exploring Beliefs, Knowledge, and Actions..............................................30
v
CHAPTER
PAGE The Paradoxical Nature of Beliefs.........................................................30 Beliefs and Knowledge ..........................................................................33 Beliefs and Actions ................................................................................36 Language learning beliefs and actions...............................................37 Language Learning Beliefs ....................................................................40 Summary of the Section on Beliefs and LLB ........................................43 Approaches to the Investigation of Language Learning Beliefs................43 The Normative Approach ......................................................................44 BALLI studies....................................................................................47 Non-BALLI studies ...........................................................................50 Advantages and limitations................................................................52 The Metacognitive Approach ................................................................55 Advantages and limitations................................................................58 The Contextual Approach ......................................................................59 Advantages and limitations................................................................63 Summary of the Three Approaches .......................................................63 Language Teachers’ Beliefs.......................................................................65 The Influence of Language Teachers’ Beliefs on Their Practice ..........66 Summary of Language Teachers’ Beliefs..............................................71 The Relationship Between Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs .....................71 Influence of the Teacher ........................................................................72 Mismatch Between Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs.............................73 Culture mismatch ...............................................................................77 Metaphor mismatch ...........................................................................80 Belief mismatch .................................................................................81 Summary of the Section on Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs................84 Conclusion .....................................................................................................84
III
METHODOLOGY ...............................................................................................86 Introduction....................................................................................................86 Assumptions and Rationale for Ethnography ................................................87 Setting ............................................................................................................89 Description of SLI......................................................................................90 Description of the Courses.........................................................................93 Structure 2..............................................................................................94 Structure 3..............................................................................................95 Spoken English 3 ...................................................................................96 Reading and Writing 3 ...........................................................................97 Participants.....................................................................................................98 Teachers .....................................................................................................99 Emily......................................................................................................99 Jack ........................................................................................................99
vi
CHAPTER
PAGE Flora.....................................................................................................100 Students....................................................................................................101 Karina...................................................................................................101 Lauro ....................................................................................................101 Carla.....................................................................................................102 Data Collection Procedures..........................................................................102 Gaining Entry to the Site..........................................................................102 Pilot Study............................................................................................104 Participants.......................................................................................105 Data collection .................................................................................105 Data analysis ....................................................................................106 Results of the pilot study..................................................................106 Data Collection Methods .............................................................................108 Class Observations...................................................................................108 Stimulated Recall .....................................................................................110 Interviews.................................................................................................110 Field Notes ...............................................................................................112 Documents ...............................................................................................112 Researcher’s Reflective Journal...............................................................113 Data Analysis and Interpretation .................................................................113 Trustworthiness and Credibility...............................................................115 Generalizability........................................................................................116 Limitations ...............................................................................................117 Ethical Considerations .................................................................................118 The Politics of Transcription ...................................................................119 Researcher Subjectivity ...........................................................................121 Researcher Role .......................................................................................123 Conclusion ...................................................................................................126
IV
RESULTS ..........................................................................................................127 Introduction..................................................................................................127 Emily and Karina .........................................................................................128 Emily’s Beliefs and Practice....................................................................128 Creating a Relaxed Atmosphere ..........................................................128 Influence on her practice..................................................................130 Concern for Students’ Understanding..................................................131 Influence on her practice..................................................................133 Teacher and Learner Roles ..................................................................133 Influence on her practice..................................................................134 Belief about Teaching Grammar..........................................................135 Influence on her practice..................................................................137 Karina’s Beliefs .......................................................................................140
vii
CHAPTER
PAGE Beliefs about Her English ....................................................................141 Differences Between Learning in Brazil and in the US.......................143 “Applying knowledge” ....................................................................143 “Fantasy island” ...............................................................................145 Equivalency rule ..............................................................................148 Teacher and Learner Roles ..................................................................150 Beliefs about Her Level in Structure 2 ................................................152 A “profitable” class..........................................................................154 “Heavier” grammar classes..............................................................156 Relationship Between Emily’s and Karina’s Beliefs...............................160 Teachers’ Influence on Students’ Beliefs ............................................162 Students’ Influence on Teachers’ Beliefs and Actions ........................163 Jack and Lauro .............................................................................................169 Jack’s Beliefs and Practice.......................................................................169 Belief in the Communicative Approach ..............................................171 Belief about Teacher and Learner Roles..............................................171 Influence on his practice ..................................................................174 Belief about Himself as a Teacher .......................................................176 Beliefs about the Spoken Class............................................................177 Spontaneity ......................................................................................178 “Fun” class .......................................................................................179 Influence on his practice ..................................................................182 Lauro’s Beliefs.........................................................................................183 Differences Between Learning in Brazil and in the US.......................185 Time – the equivalency rule.............................................................185 “Bookish” English ...........................................................................186 Teacher and Learner Roles ..................................................................188 Beliefs about How to Learn English....................................................191 Role of L1 ........................................................................................191 Repetition.........................................................................................194 Order of skills ..................................................................................196 Beliefs about His Level in the Spoken Class .......................................196 Laissez-faire.....................................................................................197 Level ................................................................................................199 Content of spoken class ...................................................................202 Relationship Between Jack’s and Lauro’s Beliefs...................................208 Students’ Influence on Jack’s Practice ................................................210 Jack and Carla ..............................................................................................213 Jack’s Beliefs about Reading and Writing...............................................213 Writing as Expression of Ideas ............................................................214 Influence on his practice ..................................................................215 Writing as a Process.............................................................................216 Influence on his practice ..................................................................220
viii
CHAPTER
PAGE Carla’s Beliefs..........................................................................................226 Differences Between Learning in Brazil and in the US.......................228 Difficulties in speaking ....................................................................229 “Thinking in Portuguese” ................................................................231 Influence of classmates ....................................................................232 Beliefs about How to Learn English....................................................235 Beliefs about Teacher and Learner Roles ............................................238 Beliefs about the Reading/Writing Class.............................................240 Relationship Between Jack’s and Carla’s Beliefs....................................246 Students’ Influence on Jack’s Beliefs ..................................................248 Flora and Carla.............................................................................................251 Flora’s Beliefs and Practice .....................................................................251 Beliefs about Teacher and Learner Roles ............................................254 Influence on her practice..................................................................256 Beliefs about Grammar and Error Correction......................................258 Influence on her practice..................................................................262 Carla’s Beliefs about the Structure Class.................................................269 Relationship Between Flora’s and Carla’s Beliefs ..................................272 Flora’s Interpretations of Students’ Beliefs and Actions.....................274 Conclusion ...................................................................................................281
V
DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND FINAL CONSIDERATIONS........282 Introduction..................................................................................................282 Discussion of Findings.................................................................................282 First Research Question ...........................................................................283 Second Research Question.......................................................................284 Conflict about Grammar Teaching ......................................................287 Conflict about Teacher Role and Content of Class..............................289 Consequences of These Two Conflicts................................................291 Third Research Question..........................................................................293 Positive Influence.................................................................................294 Negative Influence ...............................................................................295 Neutral Influence .................................................................................296 Fourth Research Question........................................................................297 Teachers’ Interpretations of Students’ Beliefs.....................................298 Fifth Research Question...........................................................................302 Karina’s Development of Beliefs.........................................................303 Lauro’s Development of Beliefs..........................................................303 Carla’s Development of Beliefs...........................................................304 Overview of Findings ..................................................................................304 Beliefs as Paradoxical ..............................................................................304 Identity .....................................................................................................305 ix
CHAPTER
PAGE Experience and the Social Nature of the Classroom................................308 Implications for Theory ...............................................................................310 Implications for Practice ..............................................................................312 Implications for Future Research.................................................................316 Final Considerations ....................................................................................318
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................319 APPENDIX A..................................................................................................................334 LIST OF LEVELS AT SLI APPENDIX B ..................................................................................................................335 SUMMARY OF STRUCTURES TAUGHT IN STRUCTURE 2 APPENDIX C ..................................................................................................................337 SUMMARY OF STRUCTURES TAUGHT IN STRUCTURE 3 APPENDIX D..................................................................................................................339 DESCRIPTION OF SPOKEN ENGLISH 3 APPENDIX E ..................................................................................................................340 SAMPLES OF HANDOUTS OF SPOKEN ENGLISH 3 APPENDIX F...................................................................................................................344 OBJECTIVES FOR READING/WRITING 3 APPENDIX G..................................................................................................................346 TEACHER INTERVIEW GUIDES APPENDIX H..................................................................................................................349 STUDENT INTERVIEW GUIDES APPENDIX I ...................................................................................................................352 IRB DOCUMENTS APPENDIX J ...................................................................................................................357 OBSERVATION NOTE
x
LIST OF TABLES TABLE
PAGE
1.
Different Terms and Definitions for Language Learning Beliefs ............................42
2.
Summary of Selected Studies in the Normative Approach......................................45
3.
Summary of Selected Studies in the Metacognitive Approach................................56
4.
Summary of Selected Studies in the Contextual Approach .....................................60
5.
Features, Advantages, and Disadvantages of the Three Approaches.......................64
6.
Summary of Studies about Teachers’ and Students’ Belief, Culture, and Metaphor Mismatch ..................................................................................................................78
7.
Summary of Information about the Courses ............................................................94
8.
Summary of Information about the Teachers.........................................................100
9.
Summary of Information about the Students .........................................................101
10.
Data Collection Instruments...................................................................................109
11.
Schedule of Interviews with Teachers and Students ..............................................112
12.
Influence of Emily’s Beliefs on Her Actions .........................................................140
13.
Summary of Karina’s Beliefs about Language Learning.......................................160
14.
Influence of Jack’s Beliefs on His Actions ............................................................183
15.
Summary of Lauro’s Beliefs about Language Learning ........................................207
16.
Summary of Jack’s Advice on How to Read and Write in English .......................222
17.
Influence of Jack’s Beliefs about Writing on His Actions.....................................226
18.
Summary of Carla’s Beliefs about Language Learning .........................................246
19.
Examples of Flora’s Metacognitive Questions ......................................................264
xi
LIST OF TABLES TABLE
PAGE
20.
Influence of Flora’s Beliefs on Her Actions ..........................................................269
21.
Teachers’ Interpretations of Students’ Beliefs and Their Influence on Practice....300
LIST OF FIGURES 20.
Interactive Relationship Between Karina’s and Emily’s Beliefs and Actions.......164
xii
1
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION “Learning about the classroom is an essential aspect of finding out how to teach.” (Holliday, 1994, p. 162) Background of the Study When I was a college student, I usually found it interesting to listen to my classmates’ comments about our teachers. Comments such as, “He gives a lot of homework,” “She is very strict,” or “Don’t mess with her,” caught my attention as expressions of an implicit and tacit way of interpreting reality. Students seem to have their own ideas about the best teaching practices and about the rights and duties of teachers and learners in the learning process. This fascinated me and it still does. I learned later while studying for my Master’s degree that there were several names for this “implicit world” that intrigued me so much. Some called it the “culture of learning,” while others called it “learner/learning beliefs.” No matter what name it is given, this culture of learning permeates every classroom and helps to shape students’ perceptions of the class. As expected, this was indeed the topic of my Master’s thesis (Barcelos, 1995). My first investigation into students’ implicit worlds helped me find that students’ former language teachers influenced some beliefs they had. I began to wonder how the beliefs of teachers and students relate to each other. This is the topic of this investigation.
2 Statement of the Problem In recent years, an increasing number of investigations have focused on language learning beliefs in the field of applied linguistics. Researchers have begun to recognize the set of assumptions and interpretations that learners bring with them to the language classroom (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Cotterall, 1995, 1999; Horwitz, 1987; 1999; Riley, 1997; Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Wenden, 1986, 1987, 1991). These researchers have argued that learners have positive contributions to make to the language lesson. Understanding their contributions is essential for effective teaching and learning because they are likely to influence the learning process. The significance of investigating language learning beliefs has been related to (a) students’ use of language learning strategies (Horwitz, 1987; Kern, 1995; Oxford, 1990, Wenden, 1987), (b) learners’ anxiety (Horwitz, 1990), and (c) autonomous learning (Cotterall, 1995). Most of the studies have centered on language learners’ beliefs about learning languages and have drawn relationships between their beliefs and their influence on learners’ approach to learning and to self-directed learning. It is argued that what learners believe about language learning will influence what they do to learn languages. Other studies have emphasized language teachers’ beliefs and their influence on teachers’ practice (Horwitz, 1985, 1988; Richards & Lockhart, 1994; Richards, 1998). In short, the studies have explored either teachers’ beliefs or learners’ beliefs separately. Some researchers, concerned about the origin and development of learners’ beliefs, have suggested that teachers exert a strong influence on the development of learners’ beliefs about language and language learning (Rubin, 1987; Wenden, 1987). Because teachers exert a position of authority in the classroom, they are seen as experts
3 by students, and thus, may influence students’ beliefs (Horwitz, 1988). It is believed that effective teaching and learning develop from the similarity between teachers’ and students’ beliefs. Nevertheless, students bring their own interpretations to the process and these may not coincide with the teachers’, thus resulting in a conflict or mismatch. Few studies have examined how teachers’ and students’ beliefs interact. The few studies that have investigated this relationship have used questionnaires or inventories. The use of this kind of instrument makes it difficult to understand the process from an emic perspective. Further, it reinforces an abstract view of beliefs by disconnecting them from actions and from teachers’ and students’ real contexts and experiences. Other studies have employed a more interpretive framework, but have looked only at the influence of teachers’ beliefs on students’ beliefs and not vice versa. In brief, although they have employed a more emic perspective, most of them have failed to consider the interrelationship between beliefs and actions and the influence of students’ beliefs on teachers’ practice. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between teachers’ and students’ language learning beliefs, with specific reference to American ESL (English as a second language) teachers and their Brazilian students in the setting of an international language institute in the US. This study examines not only how the teachers’ beliefs may influence students’ beliefs, but also how students’ beliefs and actions may influence the teachers’ actions and beliefs. This requires the investigation of teachers’ and students’ language learning beliefs and their actions in the actual setting where formal instruction occurs – the language classroom. A central assumption in this study is that beliefs are part
4 of our mode of interaction in our environment. From an ecological perspective (Dewey, 1933, 1938; van Lier, 1997), beliefs cannot be separated from our identities, actions, and social experiences. Research Questions The overarching and most general question addressed in this study is as follows: What is the relationship between teachers’ and students’ beliefs about language learning? This question can be answered by addressing these specific questions: 1. What kinds of language learning beliefs do ESL teachers have? Do their beliefs inform their practice? 2. What kinds of language learning beliefs do students have? Are they similar to or different from the beliefs the teachers express (explicitly or implicitly through their practice)? 3. How do teachers’ language learning beliefs and their classroom practice and discourse influence students’ language learning beliefs? 4. How do students’ language learning beliefs and actions affect the teachers’ beliefs and practice? 5. How do students’ and teachers’ language learning beliefs evolve, if at all, across a given period of time? Significance of the Study This study is significant for both theoretical and practical reasons. Theoretically, this study is important in three ways. First, as an empirical investigation, it contributes to the issues of the origins and development of beliefs highlighted by applied linguists (Rubin, 1987; Wenden, 1987). Second, it extends the discussion of the relationship
5 between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs by looking not only at how teachers’ beliefs relate to students’ beliefs, but also at how students’ beliefs affect teachers’ beliefs and actions. Third, it moves beyond descriptions of teachers’ and learners’ beliefs by undertaking a qualitative investigation that looks at teachers’ and learners’ actions and interpretations in the language classroom (Kern, 1995; Richardson, 1996). The proposed study will provide practical information concerning Brazilian students’ beliefs in an ESL environment and how their beliefs relate to those of their teachers. This will be helpful for Brazilian teachers and administrators who send their students to study abroad, as well as for American ESL instructors and directors of international language institutes who deal with international students. The awareness about teachers’ and students’ beliefs can help teachers as well as administrators to tailor their language courses to avoid potential mismatches between teachers’ and students’ beliefs, no matter what the language. Definitions of Terms The following definitions pertain to the context of this study. Actions. In this study, I employ the word actions, instead of behavior, to mean the attachment of subjective meaning to all individuals’ behavior. This meaning is based on Dewey’s (1933, 1938) philosophy, which portrayed individuals as purposive and goaldirected creatures. Qualitative inquirers, whose object of study is meaningful social “action” as opposed to behavior, often prefer this term (Schwandt, 1997). In order to understand meaning, it is important to understand not only individual beliefs and intentions, but also the “intersubjective or shared meanings” that “interpenetrate individual thought and action” (Schwandt, 1997, p. 65).
6 Applied linguistics. Applied linguistics refers to “the study of second and foreign language learning and teaching” and the study of “language and linguistics in relation to practical problems” (Richards, Platt, & Platt, 1992, p. 19). Audiolingual method. This method of foreign or second language teaching was developed in the United States during World War II. The ideas behind this method were partly based on structuralism and behaviorism. Two of its main principles were (a) primacy of speaking and listening as the most basic language skills, which should be taught before reading and writing and (b) emphasis on habit formation through drills (Larsen-Freeman, 1986; Richards et. al., 1992). Autonomy. Sometimes also called learner autonomy and self-directed learning. This is an important concept in applied linguistics and in education. Although this study is not about autonomy, this term will be mentioned throughout this study (for an extensive review of this concept, see Benson & Voller, 1997). In general, autonomy refers to learners’ ability to be responsible for their own learning. In language teaching, autonomy has been used to refer to (a) situations in which learners study on their own; (b) “set of skills that can be learned and applied in self-directed learning”; (c) “inborn capacity which is suppressed by institutional education”; (d) “the exercise of learners’ responsibility for their own learning”; and (e) “the right of learners to determine the direction of their own learning” (Benson and Voller, 1997, pp. 1-2). BAK. Beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge. Woods (1996) proposed this term and defined it as “constructs analogous to the notion of schemata” involving the interrelationship between beliefs, assumptions and knowledge (p. 196).
7 Beliefs. Beliefs have been used interchangeably with attitudes and knowledge. Dewey (1933) defined beliefs as matters of which we have no sure knowledge, but feel confident to act upon, and matters that we accept as true, but which may be questioned in the future. Although the difference between attitude and beliefs will not be dealt with in this study, it is important to explain the difference. Rokeach (1968) explained the difference between the two terms by stating that “beliefs are predispositions to action,” whereas an attitude is “a set of interrelated predispositions to action organized around an object or situation” (p. 113). Chapter II explores the difference between beliefs and knowledge. Communicative approach (Also called Communicative Language Teaching or CLT). This language learning approach emphasizes communication as a goal of language learning. It was developed as a reaction away from grammar-based approaches (Richards, et al., 1992, p. 65). Some of its main principles are use of “authentic language” in the classroom, games, cooperation among students, emphasis on context and meaning, and emphasis on a relaxing classroom atmosphere and on teachers’ non-judgmental role (Larsen-Freeman, 1986). (For criticisms to this approach, see Holliday, 1994, and Pennycook, 1994.) Context. Context comes from the Latin contexere meaning ‘to weave together’ or ‘to join together.’ The notion of context emphasized in this study is not a “static, residual, surrounding container for social interaction” (Lave, 1993, p. 22). Based on Dewey’s notion of experience, context is defined in this study as a dynamic, “socially constituted, interactively sustained, time-bound phenomenon” where “each additional move within the interaction modifies the existing context while creating a new arena for subsequent
8 interaction” (Goodwin & Duranti, 1992, pp. 5-6). Within this definition of context, participants’ perspectives and the ways they organize their perceptions of events are essential. Constructivism. I use the terms construct/co-constructed in this study based on Dewey’s social constructivism (Garrison, 1995). This definition acknowledges that “all meanings, as well as the minds that manipulate them, emerge from making something common between at least two centers of action” (p. 723). According to Garrison, “For Deweyans, the mind that manipulates meaning emerges socially through participation in the social process of meaning construction” (p. 722). Culture of learning. “Learners’ set of beliefs, myths, cultural assumptions and ideals about how to learn languages based on learners’ age and social economic level, previous educational experience, readings about language learning and contact with other people like family, friends, relatives, and teachers” (Barcelos, 1995, p. 40). This culture of learning languages is one of the main factors that can intervene in the process of learning and teaching languages, and acts as a potential force that can influence teachers’ approach to teaching (Almeida Filho, 1993, p.12). Culture of teaching. The culture of teaching refers to the “…work-related beliefs and knowledge teachers share – beliefs about appropriate ways of acting on the job and rewarding aspects of teaching, and knowledge that enables teachers to do their work” (Feiman-Nemser & Floden, 1986, p. 508). Ecology/ecological perspective. Several researchers have used this term to refer to the interdependency and interconnection of the individual within his or her environment (Bowers & Flinders, 1990; Clarke, 1999; van Lier, 1997). These researchers recognize
9 Dewey (1938) and Bateson (1979) as pioneers of the concept. According to Bowers & Flinders (1990), Dewey’s (1938) work was ecological because it was “directed toward understanding the individual as embedded in a network of relationships” (p. 140). Emic/etic. Emic refers to “the rules, concepts, beliefs, and meanings of the people themselves, functioning within their own groups,” whereas etic refers to a general description “without regard to any particular context” (van Lier, 1990, p. 43). Environment. Environment for Dewey was almost similar to the concept of experience. It referred to all that is necessary to life, and this included all the things that “promote or hinder, stimulate or inhibit [man’s] living being” (Dewey, 1966, p.11). Environment in this sense means the interaction between human beings and all “with which man varies” (p. 11). ESL – English as a Second Language. According to Richards, et al. (1992), ESL refers to “the role of English for immigrant and other minority groups in English speaking countries”… who “use English at school and at work”(p. 124). Another term used to refer to this concept is ESOL – English for Speakers of Other Languages. For example, English is taught as a second language to international students in the United States or in other English speaking countries. EFL – English as a Foreign Language. “The role of English in countries where it is taught as a subject in schools but not used as a medium of instruction in education nor as a language of communication (e.g. government, business, industry) within the country” (Richards, et al., 1992, pp. 123-124). English is taught in Brazil as a foreign language.
10 Fossilization. A process in second or foreign language learning in which “incorrect linguistic features become a permanent part of the way a person speaks or writes a language” (Richards et. al. 1992, p. 145). Knowledge: Although there are many definitions of knowledge, in this study, a primary definition is based on Dewey’s philosophy. As Boisvert (1998) explained, for Dewey, knowledge referred to an awareness of the multiple possibilities of something, “what might happen to it, what behavior to expect, what results will follow, what expectations to assume, under specified conditions” (p. 24). A discussion of beliefs and knowledge will be expanded in Chapter II. L1/L2. L1 is a person’s first language or mother tongue. L2 refers to the target language or a second language the person has learned or speaks. Learner training. “[A]rea of methodology where students are encouraged to focus on their learning,” by receiving direct advice on how to learn languages independently or practice self-directed learning in self-access centers (Benson, 1995, p. 1). Language learning beliefs. Chapter II brings a thorough discussion of the term. For the purposes of this study, language learning beliefs are defined as learners’ knowledge and cultural assumptions about definitions of language and ways of learning languages. Language learning strategies. “Language learning strategies are steps taken by students to enhance their own learning” (Oxford, 1990, p. 1). Taking notes and trying to guess words in a reading passage are examples of language learning strategies.
11 Learning/acquisition. Learning and acquisition will be used interchangeably in this study to refer to the process by which individuals acquire or learn a second language. Metalinguistic feedback. It “involves either a metalinguistic question designed to elicit a correct response or rule from a learner or provision of a metalinguistic rule” (Ellis, 1997, p. 79). Metacognitive knowledge. The “stable, statable, although sometimes incorrect knowledge that learners have acquired about language, learning, and the language learning” (Wenden, 1991, p. 163). Native language country. This term is used to refer to students’ native country, where they were born and live. In this study, I use it to refer to Brazil. Native-speaker. “A person considered as a speaker of his or her native or first language” (Richards et. al., 1992, p. 241). (See Cook, 1999 for criticisms for the dichotomy between native-speakers/non-native speakers.) In this study, following Cook (1999), I adopt the term L2 users to refer to non-native speakers. Process approach. This approach in teaching composition, “emphasizes the composing processes writers make use of in writing (such as planning, drafting and revising) and which seeks to improve students’ writing skills through developing their use of effective composing processes” (Richards et. al., 1992, p. 290). Target language (also L2). “The language which a person is learning in contrast to a first language or mother tongue” (Richards et al., 1992, p. 373). Target-language country. I use this term to refer to the country in which students are learning the target language. In this case, it is used to refer to the US. TESOL. Teaching of English to Speakers of Other Languages.
12 Usage: It refers to “the ways people actually speak and write” (Richards et al., 1992, p. 394). Methodological Assumptions of the Study The three basic assumptions underlying this study are as follows: 1. Students will answer honestly the interview questions and talk about their language learning experiences. 2. The teachers will answer the interview questions honestly and reflect about their teaching practice. 3. Ethnographic research is adequate to uncover teachers’ and learners’ beliefs, meanings, and interpretations about their experiences. Limitations of the Study The first limitation refers to my nationality. Being Brazilian certainly facilitated my rapport with the group of Brazilian students and allowed them to express themselves better by using their native language. However, because we share the same national culture, I might have missed some taken-for-granted aspects of our reality. Qualitative researchers have to be constantly vigilant and aware to make the familiar, strange (Erickson, 1986), that is, to make explicit what is assumed as well known and true. Being from another culture may have also presented problems for me to understand fully some aspects of the reality of the American teachers who participated in the study. Nonetheless, being from a different culture probably made it easier to see taken-forgranted aspects that could go unnoticed by the teachers. The second limitation is related to the sample of students, which was limited to Brazilian students at a single language institute of one university. Their specific beliefs
13 might not be representative of the beliefs of students from other cultural groups. However, the relationship between teachers’ and students’ beliefs is representative of the kinds of conflicts that can happen in a language classroom in ESL settings or other multicultural classrooms. In addition, the choice of just one setting allowed an in-depth look at a single classroom to help understand the relationship between teachers’ and students’ beliefs. Conclusion and Overview of Chapters In this Chapter, I introduced the background of the problem, the significance and purpose of the study, the research questions, basic assumptions, and limitations of the study. I argued that current research on teachers’ and learners’ beliefs has usually been done in an isolated fashion, that is, without consideration for students’ contexts or the influence of students’ beliefs on teachers’ beliefs and actions. Thus, a contextual and ecological approach is necessary. Chapter II includes the theoretical framework, which explores Dewey’s concept of experience, the social nature of the classroom, and the concept of identity. The literature review summarizes the main studies about learners’ beliefs and the relationship between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs. Chapter III offers a detailed description of the research design and methodology of the study. Chapter IV presents the results of the study. Chapter V discusses and interprets the findings and presents implications for theory and practice, and suggestions for further research.
15
CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND LITERATURE REVIEW
“Human knowledge is a constructed form of experience and therefore, a reflection of mind, as well as nature: Knowledge is made, not simply discovered.” (Eisner, 1991, p. 4)
Introduction This Chapter presents the theoretical framework for the study and the review of literature. The theoretical framework is threefold and addresses (a) Dewey’s concept of experience (Dewey, 1933, 1938), (b) the social nature of the classroom where learners’ and teachers’ actions and beliefs are embedded in context (Breen, 1985, 1998; Allwright, 1984, 1998; Kramsch, 1993), and (c) the concept of identity and its relationship to learning and beliefs (Norton, 1997; Peirce, 1995; Riley, 1999). Dewey’s philosophy provides the ideal lenses for understanding language learning beliefs because it underlines that beliefs are context and experience based. Studies about the situated nature of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) and about the social nature of the classroom (Breen, 1985; Holliday, 1994) resonate with Dewey’s concept of experience. In the culture of the classroom, teachers and learners are not abstract entities, but purposeful human beings with their own agendas and interpretations of classroom events and of each other’s actions. In the review of literature, I draw on Dewey’s ideas to explore the nature of beliefs, their definition, and their relationship with knowledge and actions. I then review empirical studies in applied linguistics that have investigated learners’ beliefs, language teachers’ beliefs, and the relationship between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs. I argue that
16 current studies on language learning beliefs, with few exceptions, have ignored the organic relationship between beliefs and actions and the nature of beliefs as embedded in context. The relationship between teachers’ and students’ language learning beliefs is still investigated in a discrete fashion that does not do justice to the complex nature of beliefs and does not adequately account for teachers’ and students’ experiences. Theoretical Framework Dewey’s Concept of Experience Experience is a central concept in Dewey’s philosophy. For Dewey (1938), “teaching and learning are continuous processes of reconstruction of experience” (p. 111). Experience is not a mental state but the interaction, adaptation, and adjustment of individuals to the environment. It is the human mode of being in the world. The concept of experience emphasizes that nothing exists in isolation and everything exists in relationship to other things. Like life or history, experience requires the interdependence between organisms and environment. The environment is “whatever conditions interact with personal needs, desires, purposes, and capacities to create the experiences [we have]” (Dewey, 1938, p. 42). Individuals find meanings in the situation they live in, in the modifications and adaptations they make to solve problems in their daily lives. The success of these modifications and adaptations will be measured by the expected transformations and solutions of the problems. Two principles are fundamental in the constitution of experience: the principle of continuity and the principle of interaction. The principle of continuity refers to the connection between past and future experiences. Everything that we experience takes up something from the past and
17 modifies the quality of future experiences. Our intellectual and moral growth is an example of the principle of continuity (Garrison, 1998). As Dewey (1938) explained, As an individual passes from one situation to another, his world, his environment, expands or contracts. He does not find himself living in another world but in a different part or aspect of one and the same world. What he has learned in the way of knowledge and skill in one situation becomes an instrument of understanding and dealing effectively with the situations which follow. The process goes on as long as life and learning continue. (p. 42) Learning is a reflection of the continuities that we establish within experience. It is the process of giving meaning to what we experience and making connections to what is to come. Like the example provided by Dewey of the boy who burned himself, the burn comes to mean a burn only when the child connects “the doing and the being done to” and reflects on the continuity making a backward and forward connection (Garrison, 1998, p. 70). Thus, experience is not a primarily cognitive concern. It is related to our perceptions of continuities between events (Garrison, 1998). The principle of interaction refers to the transaction between an individual and the environment. As Dewey (1938) stated, “The conceptions of situation and of interaction are inseparable from each other. An experience is always what it is because of a transaction” (p. 41). The principle of interaction, similar to the principle of continuity, involves reciprocal influence of the elements. In other words, in interacting with others and with the environment the individual both shapes and is shaped by the interaction. “One not only changes things, but is changed in the process” (Eldridge, 1998, p. 24). What seems to be clear in Dewey’s philosophy is the active character of the individual. Active in this case is not used in a trivial sense. Being active means being able to resist, respond, change, fight, adjust, and accommodate to the environment and to others. According to Dewey, this social condition of individuals should not be viewed as
18 something that is imposed on us, but part of our nature and part of how human lives are experienced. Jarvis, Holdford, and Griffin (1998, p. 47) have pointed out the influence of Dewey’s notion of experience in other concepts such as reflection-in-action (Schön, 1983), situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), and women’s ways of knowing (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986). Van Lier’s (1997) concept of ecological linguistics also has its origins in Dewey’s (1938) concept of organic experience. Lave and Wenger (1991) criticized how learning has been portrayed for years as a mental phenomenon inside the learners’ mind, ignoring the social world and contributing to a dichotomy between mind and body, something that Dewey criticized in his time. For Lave and Wenger (1991), “learning is an integral and inseparable aspect of social practice” (p. 31). Lave (1993) talked about learning and knowing as “engagement in [the] changing process of human activity” as opposed to a view of knowledge “as a collection of real entities located in heads,” and of learning as “a process of internalizing them” (p. 12). Both Dewey and Lave reject a definition of context as a “dualistic conception, as a static, residual, surrounding ‘container’ for social interaction” (Lave, 1993, p. 22). Rather, it involves dynamic interaction of participants within and across their environment. In applied linguistics, van Lier (1997) proposed the concept of ecological linguistics, based on the works of Bateson (1979), Dewey (1938), and Vygotsky (1978), among others. Van Lier’s definition of ecology substitutes the dualism of mind and body and replaces it with a conception of the mind “as the totality of relationships between a developing person and the surrounding world” (van Lier, 1997, p. 783). Ecological
19 studies focus on “contextual analysis” and search for patterns that connect the “actions of persons in the context” (p. 785). In summary, these studies resonate with Dewey’s concept of experience as the interaction between human beings and their environment, and not as a purely mental phenomenon. Experience is a matter of active adjustments and readjustments of coordinations and activities rather than a state of consciousness. Each action is a response to previous actions and testing of hypothesis. In this interaction, our beliefs play an important role – they are hypotheses that we test and evaluate leading to changes in actions. This continuing adaptation is directed and suited to each particular context that humans live in (Campbell, 1995). The next aspect of this theoretical framework reinforces the social nature of learning by portraying the classroom as a culture. The Nature of the Language Classroom Learning is essentially a social and cultural activity. Learning a language is even more so, because language permeates all social relationships. In a language classroom, we learn a language in the company of others, and this social relationship influences what learning is and how it is done (Breen, 1998). In recent years, many researchers have
criticized
the predominantly
psycholinguistic and individualistic orientation of Second Language Acquisition (SLA) (Crookes, 1997; Ellis, 1997; Firth & Wagner, 1997). Ellis condemned current metaphors of the learner and asserted that even when social factors have been used, they have been seen more as “determinants of the data” than as “elements that shape the process of learning” (Ellis, 1997, p. 241). Firth and Wagner (1997) have argued for a reconceptualization of SLA that includes an “awareness of the contextual and
20 interactional dimensions of language use” and “an increased emic, (i.e., participantrelevant) sensitivity towards fundamental concepts” (p. 286). Perhaps in response to these criticisms, some researchers have started to recognize changes within SLA and applied linguistics. Van Lier (1998), for instance, stated that current views on language education have accepted that “social interaction plays a central role in the learning process, and that learning is “situated in the everyday social world of the learner” (p. 157). Other researchers have also started pointing out the social nature of learning and how learning always take place within a set of social contexts (Benson, 1995; Coleman, 1996; Ellis, 1997; Lantolf & Appel, 1994; Peirce, 1995). In this section, I review selected studies in applied linguistics that have emphasized the social nature of the language classroom (Allwright, 1984, 1998; Breen, 1985, 1996; and Holliday, 1994). The language classroom has been a site for many studies, although the metaphors that have been applied to it have not always been positive. In his seminal work, Breen (1985) criticized two of the most common metaphors of the classroom – the classroom as a laboratory and the classroom as discourse. The former portrays teachers as experimental psychologists and learners as subject to behavioral enforcement. The latter sees the classroom as text and concentrates on looking at how students participate, how error is treated, and how teachers talk and evaluate learners’ participation. According to Breen, both metaphors are inadequate because they ignore the “social reality of language learning as it is experienced and created by teachers and learners” (p. 141). In contrast to these two metaphors, Breen (1985) proposed the metaphor of the classroom as coral gardens. He compared the complexity of the classroom life with the variety of life forms in a coral reef (p. 142). Like coral reefs, little of the classroom life
21 and interaction can be seen on the outside. In order to understand it, one has to look under the surface. Holliday (1994) and Kramsch (1993) also characterized the classroom as a culture. Breen explained that the metaphor of the classroom as coral gardens entails eight essential features: 1. Interactive: Each classroom has a dynamic nature of interaction and communication where personal purposes and meanings contrast with norms to be followed. 2. Differentiated: Each classroom includes multiple subjective views and difference of interpretations that may bring potential conflicts and dilemmas for participants. 3. Collective: Each classroom represents the meeting point of the individual as well as the collective world of the groups. Individual learners will be engaged both individually and collectively in the learning process. 4. Normative: Each classroom has its own norms, conventions, and rules. Learners come into the language classroom with a ready set of norms about classrooms in general, influenced by their earlier school experiences. However, learners and teachers may also create new norms in each new classroom. 5. Asymmetrical: Each classroom includes asymmetry of roles between teachers and students. This asymmetry may sometimes include a mismatch in beliefs, attitude, and values. 6. Inherently conservative: Teachers and students try to conform, overtly at least, to the rules and conventions of the classroom. Any innovation is met with resistance at first because it represents a threat to the established order.
22 7. Jointly constructed: Teachers and learners negotiate meanings and purposes. 8. Immediately significant: Each classroom accommodates individual and collective interpretation of activities, their purposes, and reasons. According to Breen (1985), viewing the classroom as a culture requires researchers to employ anthropological sensitivity when investigating it. The researcher should employ cautious triangulation in a longitudinal study, question his or her own well-established assumptions about the language classroom, and have an insistent curiosity for the points of view of learners and teachers. In fact, Murayama (1995) stated, “learning is becoming a topic in sociology and anthropology rather than in psychology” (p. 5). Holliday’s (1994) portrayal of the classroom as a culture differs from Breen’s in that Holliday emphasizes the aspects of subgroups or subcultures within the classroom. Holliday explained that the classroom provides both teachers and students with traditions, recipes, and tacit understandings about acceptable forms of behavior. Teachers and students are constantly adapting and readapting themselves to the new classroom culture and subcultures within the different groups. This culture is transmitted to new members, who have to learn and share it in order to be accepted by the group. Hence, students are constantly trying to grasp the new classroom culture and its implicit rules. It seems then that an essential aspect in understanding classroom events refers to acknowledging the importance of learning in the presence of others. As Breen (1998) stated, “learning a language in the company of others in a classroom” implies that the “social relationships in the classroom orchestrate what is made available for learning, how learning is done, and what we achieve” (p. 119).
23 Allwright (1984) suggested looking at language lessons as “co-produced events” where participants “are simultaneously involved in the management of interaction and, … in the management of their learning” (p. 5). Allwright (1998) argued that applied linguists seem to have neglected the potential importance of the presence of other people in the language classroom, which is the immediate social context for language learning. He coined the term co-presence to refer to “the fact that classroom language learning and teaching have to take place in the presence of others” (p. 125). In practical terms, what this concept means is that in the classroom, students may not answer the teacher or volunteer an answer because they believe, for instance, that others will laugh at them or find them snobbish. Hence, it is important to see how the presence of other people affects the beliefs and the learning that takes place in the classroom. It is essential to understand “the role of social forces in everyday classroom interaction” (Allwright, 1998, p. 123). The concept of co-presence is important in this study since students’ and teachers’ presence may contribute to the kinds of beliefs they have about language learning and about each other. Much of what they interpret to be each other’s beliefs will come from the fact that they share the same environment for at least one hour a day. This aspect contributes to the creation of a culture with its tacit rules and norms for behaviors that will be interpreted differently by students and teachers. Teachers and Learners as Social Beings For a long time, teachers were considered technicians destined to “apply” research findings in their classrooms. This behaviorist view examined teachers’ behaviors without considering their thinking or their contexts (Freeman, 1996a; Freeman & Johnson, 1998). This view changed when teachers’ cognitive and affective dimensions, their knowledge,
24 and its influence upon their classroom decisions began to be recognized. Nevertheless, teachers’ context was still largely ignored. Nowadays, the interpretivist view acknowledges that teachers’ interpretations and actions are embedded in context. Similar to Dewey, researchers have recognized that teacher’s knowledge includes the link between thought and action in context. Freeman’s (1996a) assertion that teaching involves “the continual interplay of interpretation and environment” (p. 99) resembles Dewey’s concept of experience discussed earlier. Teachers are recognized as interpretive, social beings within their own context, but what about language learners? Since the publication of the studies about the good learner (Rubin, 1975; Rubin & Thompson, 1982), “learner” has been the “buzz word” in applied linguistics. This emphasis, however, did not necessarily mean an emphasis on learners’ contexts. Researchers have recently criticized how learners have been portrayed in the literature in SLA. According to Breen (1998), SLA research “persists in decontextualizing learner contributions, the learning process, and learning outcomes from the location in which these three factors are realised” (p. 116).
Other applied linguists have condemned the use of the word “learner” and have suggested employing the term “student” instead (Benson, 1995; Holliday, 1994).1 They explain that the word “learner” seems to convey the image of an “ideal learner,” a “good learner” that bears little resemblance to the real learners, who struggle in the social and powerful contexts of the classrooms and environments where they live (Ellis, 1999; Kramsch, 1993; Peirce, 1995).
1
In this study, I use the words learner and student interchangeably to mean the social, embedded learner, as discussed in this theoretical framework.
25 The criticisms are directed mostly towards the ideal view of the learner promoted by autonomy and learner training (Benson, 1995). Benson (1995) pointed out that learner training involves an implicit “moulding” and “ideological construction of the learner” (p. 2). In other words, in learner training, learners are encouraged to perform certain actions and are seen as “poor or bad learners” if they do not conform to the expectations for their performance. Benson argued that “learner training” is responsible for this disconnection between “learner” and the “student” as a social being in a real social context. He criticized that the “learner” is usually portrayed as having no other aims than learning the language. Likewise, Holliday (1994) rejected the term “learner” and argued for the notion of real students in real classroom settings (p. 14). Despite these criticisms, some researchers believe that “today it is recognized that learners are complex constellations of behaviors, thoughts, feelings, social needs, experiences, strategies, and political needs, at the very least” (Larsen-Freeman, 1998, p. 211). Some studies have pointed out how learners have their own ways of participating and even resisting the culture of the classroom (Allwright, 1984, 1996; Breen, 1998; Kramsch, 1993; Woods, 1997). These ways refer to learners’ consent to be taught, learners’ decision-making, and learners’ resistance to teaching. I explain each of these topics below. Allwright (1984) offered a different view from the long-held belief that teachers control the classroom interaction. He explained that teachers teach only by consent, and that learners contribute to the management of their own learning. This management may involve trying to “socialise their teachers into being the sorts of teachers they themselves want” (Allwright, 1996, p. 227).
26 Woods (1997) compared teachers’ and learners’ decision-making processes and suggested that learners do make decisions about how to achieve their learning goals, although in a less complex way than their teachers. Woods contended that much of decision-making of the larger picture of the teaching/learning process, which teachers may not notice sometimes, belongs to the learner. Some of the learners’ decisions may include deciding to take a course, raising hands in class, doing the homework, reading, watching programs in the target language, and speaking with native-speakers. In addition to decision-making, learners also carry out implicit compensatory learning when their expectations are discrepant with the teachers’ expectations or actions. Kramsch (1993) described ways in which learners actively cope with the complexities of classroom life. She argued that learners use the educational system to “promote their own local and personal meanings and pleasure” (p. 23). Learners manage their learning by constantly challenging the supposedly “socially controlled context” of the classroom for their own learning purposes (Kramsch, 1993, p. 93). Kramsch’s perspective about the learner is very similar to Dewey’s ideas about human beings. To Kramsch and Dewey, learners are creators of meaning. In learning a foreign language, learners are constantly trying to build their personal meanings not only from their own points of view, but also from the perspective of another culture and another language. Learners will struggle to create their own meanings. As Kramsch put it, There will always be a struggle between the teacher whose charge it is to make the students understand and eventually adopt foreign verbal behaviors and mindsets, and the learners who will continue to use transmitted knowledge for their own purposes, who will insist on making their own meanings and finding their own relevances. This struggle is the educational process per se. (p. 239)
27 In brief, this section stressed the view of learners and teachers as social and interpretive beings. This is an important aspect to consider when reviewing studies about learners’ beliefs. The assumption in this study is that in investigating language learning beliefs it is essential to look at students’ own contexts and experiences and to understand their own definition of the teaching/learning situation, the social practices of the classroom, and their understanding of the culture of the classroom (Breen. 1996). Identity The last part of this framework refers to the concept of identity. Due to constraints of space and time, the discussion of identity is not an extensive one. For the purposes of this investigation, I draw on Dewey’s philosophy, Lave’s and Wenger (1991) situated learning, and insights from applied linguists. As stated earlier, Dewey’s concept of experience entails the organic relationship between individuals and the environment. In this interaction, we both shape and are shaped by other’s evaluations of our behaviors. It is like a mirror phenomenon in which “we form our ideas, our estimates of ourselves and of our self-respect in terms of what others think of us, in terms of the way in which they treat us” (Campbell, 1995, pp. 4142). This coincides with Mead’s (1934) theory of self. Mead argued that the self emerges from our social experience and interaction with others. Like Dewey, Mead saw self (or identity) formation as an ongoing process grounded in our interpretation and reinterpretation of our experiences. Lave and Wenger’s (1991) situated learning, as explained before, resembles Dewey’s philosophy and provides insights about identity and language learning. For Lave and Wenger, “learning and a sense of identity are inseparable: They are aspects of the
28 same phenomenon” (p. 115). Learning involves the construction of identities, and I would add beliefs as well. This construction is located in our social lives and in our interaction with others, since “identity, knowing, and social membership entail one another” (Lave & Wenger, 1991, p. 53). In the next paragraphs I explain the relationship between identity, membership, and learning (Riley, 1999), the role of the classroom culture in shaping identities (Breen, 1985), and the relationship between language and identity (Norton, 1997; Peirce, 1995). Riley (1999) stressed the importance of identity for learning. He defined social identity as “the sum of all the groups of which the individual is a competent and acknowledged member,” a “complex configuration of ‘memberships,’ some of which we are born to,” such as man, woman, “whilst others are achieved or thrust upon us,” such as occupation, socio-economic level, and marital status (p. 31). Riley contended that our social identities are constructed and legitimated by countless threads of discourse. Hence, if there is a conflict between an “individual’s categorization and the categorization which is socially attributed to him or her,” it may lead to “social dysfunction, going from mild embarrassment to violent conflict” (p. 33). This categorization does not imply that individuals do not resist the social identifications imposed on them by others. Riley (1999) argued that learners are members of several groups. Their identity will be important for how they act. They may strive to become competent members of a group, including being a competent learner. His assertion that our identities are constructed within interaction and from the perceptions others have about us resonates with Dewey’s ideas discussed above, and with Breen’s (1985) characterization of the classroom. Breen pointed out the normative characteristic of the classroom where
29 teachers and learners constantly judge each other as members who are supposed to learn and to teach. Being a member of a culture entails “showing we belong” (p.145). According to Breen, When a language learner enters a classroom, he [sic] anticipates that the evaluation of him as a learner is going to be a crucial part of that experience. … One of the prevalent features of the culture of the classroom is the establishment of overt and covert criteria against which its members are continually judged. In other words, the culture of the classroom reifies the persons who participate within it into “good” learners and “bad” learners, “good” teachers and “bad” teachers, “beginners,” “advanced,” “high” participators and “low” participators, etc., etc. (p. 145) Breen underlines learners’ identities as co-constructed in interaction in the classroom. Learners and teachers try not only to learn the rules by which they are being judged, but also to learn how to situate themselves within the group. Much of this coconstruction of identities comes from their earlier socialization in schools and classrooms and from the molding of their “public learning selves” by “a continual and explicit evaluation of [their] worth as learners” (Breen, 1985, p. 145). The concept of identity has become more widely discussed in language learning after Peirce’s (1995)/Norton (1997)2 publication of her study with immigrant women in Canada. She defined identity as “people’s understanding of their relationship to the world, the construction of that identity across time and space, and people’s understanding of their possibilities for the future” (Norton, 1997, p. 410). Identity, Norton added, is also related to desire – for recognition, affiliation, security, and safety. These desires are all dependent on how material resources are distributed in society. Thus, the question “who am I?” is related to “what can I do?” (Norton, 1997, p. 419).
2
Bonny Norton Peirce and Bonny Norton refer to the same person.
30 Language is a tool in the construction of identities. It is through language that individuals co-construct and negotiate their identities and beliefs (Duff & Uchida, 1997; Kramsch, 1993; Norton, 1997; Peirce, 1995). According to Norton (1997), learners engage in identity construction and negotiation through language. Every time they speak, they organize “a sense of who they are and how they relate to the social world” (p. 410). Through language, teachers and students co-construct their identities and the culture of the classroom (Duff & Uchida, 1997). In brief, identity is important for an understanding of language learning beliefs. Drawing insights from philosophy, situated cognition, and applied linguistics, I have argued that (a) identity, learning, and beliefs are inseparable, (b) identity is coconstructed in interaction with others, and (c) learners and teachers struggle to have their identities and beliefs recognized in the interaction that takes place in a normative classroom. Summary of the Theoretical Framework The three parts of this theoretical framework are interrelated. The first part has presented the concept of experience and its principles. Congruent with this view, the second part of this framework has characterized the culture of the classroom as a dynamic, social, and interactive environment where teachers and learners negotiate meanings. Learners and teachers, as purposeful beings, manage the teaching/learning process within the constraints of the classroom. The third part of the framework explained how identity is related to learning and how it is constructed in interaction. The basic argument of this framework is that in order to investigate the relationship between teachers’ and students’ language learning beliefs, we need to consider the concept of
31 experience and the paradoxical nature of beliefs, the culture of the classroom, and teachers’ and students’ and teachers’ identities as socially constructed. Literature Review Exploring Beliefs, Knowledge, and Actions Several researchers have recognized the difficulty of defining beliefs. That is why beliefs have been called a “messy” construct (Pajares, 1992). According to Pajares, this difficulty may be partly due to the paradoxical nature of beliefs and different agendas of researchers. In this section, I explore aspects that are crucial to an understanding of beliefs, such as their paradoxical nature, the distinction between knowledge and beliefs, the relationship between beliefs and actions, and the characteristics and functions of beliefs. I then discuss the definition of language learning beliefs separately. The Paradoxical Nature of Beliefs Izard and Smith (1982) pointed out the paradoxical nature of beliefs explaining that the verb to believe expresses both doubt and assurance – it is a conviction as well as a nuance to that conviction. “I believe” often times can mean “I am not sure.” This paradoxical nature has made Dewey (1906/1983) call beliefs “the original Mr. Facing both-ways” since they “look both ways, towards persons and toward things” (p. 83). They are used to “form or judge, justify or condemn. To believe is to ascribe value, impute meaning, assign importance” (p. 83). Philosophers such as William James and Charles S. Peirce also mentioned the paradoxical nature of beliefs. As a pragmatist, James (1907/1991) did not see beliefs as independent of our experiences in the world. He argued that beliefs influence actions and actions or facts in turn modify beliefs. He stated,
32 In the realm of truth-processes facts come independently and determine our beliefs provisionally. But these beliefs make us act, and as fast as they do so, they bring into sight or into existence new facts which re-determine the beliefs accordingly. (p. 99) Peirce (1877/1958) contended that beliefs guide desires and shape actions by preparing individuals to act in case the situation arises. Peirce (1878/1958) explained that beliefs are paradoxical because they can stop doubt and start thought at the same time. In other words, after belief is reached, thought relaxes and comes to rest for a moment. However, belief is a rule for action. Its application involves further doubts and further thought. Thus, at the same time, it is a “stopping-place” and a “new starting-place” for thought (p. 121). In his essay “Beliefs and Existence” (1906/1983), Dewey explained that we are constantly interpreting reality and this means using our beliefs to make sense of our environment and its events. According to Dewey, “Beliefs are not made by existence in a mechanical or logical or psychological sense. ‘Reality’ naturally instigates belief” (p. 84). Beliefs then are part of a complex world that constantly demands our interactive mind to solve problems. Our mode of being in the world is what Dewey called a somatic intelligence, that is, thinking as part of our nature as problem-solving creatures. Dewey (1933) defined beliefs as a form of thought: [Belief] covers all the matters of which we have no sure knowledge and yet which we are sufficiently confident of to act upon and also the matters that we now accept as certainly true, as knowledge, but which nevertheless may be questioned in the future – just as much as knowledge in the past has now passed into the limbo of mere opinion or of error. (p. 6) Beliefs may bring conflicts if they are not consistent with our experience. Dewey called it a “split,” that is, the acceptance of beliefs and refusal of their logical consequences. He believed that this could bring mental confusion because “no one can
33 use two inconsistent mental standards without losing some of his [sic] mental grip” (p. 32). Dewey explained that in education, if subjects are too remote from experience, students will not have active curiosity and will begin using different measures for school subjects and daily life matters. Ultimately, they may become intellectually irresponsible and engage in a make-believe game in which they pretend to accept the beliefs of the school while operating according to a different set of beliefs outside school. This is especially important for the problem addressed in this study. Researchers have suggested that learners do carry out implicit plans if their beliefs clash with their teachers’. Dewey saw beliefs as part of our experience. As such, they are obstacles and promoters of knowledge at the same time. This is because the obstacles beliefs impose can start the chain of reflective thinking. The paradox of beliefs continues. They are not the ideal forms of thought because they are not based on evidence but on opinions, traditions, and customs. Nevertheless, without them we run out of doubts and problems that will form the basis of our reflective inquiry. Recently, researchers in education have alluded to this paradoxical nature of beliefs (Eisner, 1991; Feiman-Nemser & Remillard, 1996; Pintrich, Marx, & Boyle (1993). Feiman-Nemser and Remillard (1996) for instance, pointed out that although beliefs can serve as obstacles to change, they also help people to interpret and to assess “new ideas and potentially conflicting information” (pp. 80-81). They explained that the very same beliefs from prior experiences that help us learn make it difficult for teachers and students to learn new information. Pintrich et al. (1993) summarized this paradoxical nature of beliefs (which they called conceptions): Current conceptions held by the learner can result in problems resulting from discrepancies between experience and current beliefs, but current conceptions also
34 provide a framework for judging the validity and adequacy of solutions to these problems. Thus, a paradox exists for the learner; on the one hand, current conceptions potentially constitute momentum that resist conceptual change, but they also provide frameworks that the learner can use to interpret and understand new, potentially conflicting information. (p. 170) In summary, Dewey, James, and Peirce, in different ways, defined beliefs as part of our experience. Dewey (1906/1983) tried to see both sides of any belief – “its glory or its unpardonable sin” (p. 84). Beliefs were described as the foundations of our thought as well as what could stop thought. James, Peirce, and Dewey characterized beliefs as paradoxical, changing, and dynamic. Dewey especially connected thinking (and beliefs) to experience. Beliefs and Knowledge One of the major controversies in studies about beliefs refers to the distinction between beliefs and knowledge. According to Pajares (1992), although most studies lack a definition of beliefs, they usually make an implicit distinction of beliefs as “based on evaluation and judgment” and knowledge as “based on objective fact” (p. 313). In others words, the assumption is that knowledge carries with it an epistemological warranty, whereas beliefs do not. Two classic studies in cognitive psychology tried to distinguish belief systems from knowledge by pointing out characteristics of belief systems (Abelson, 1979; Nespor, 1987). Abelson (1979) explained that knowledge and belief systems have many points in common as well as differences. Abelson characterized belief systems as (a) nonconsensual, or disputable in principle; (b) evaluative and affective, although belief systems do have a cognitive component; (c) episodic (relying on episodes either from personal experience, folklore, or propaganda); and (d) open, that is, with wide boundaries
35 that usually involve self-concepts. In contrast, knowledge is open to critical examination and reason (Nespor, 1987). Other researchers, however, do not make such a distinction. Pajares (1992) noted that the distinctions between knowledge and beliefs fail to recognize that cognitive elements must have their own affective and evaluative component. He asked, “What truth, what knowledge, can exist in the absence of judgment or evaluation?” (p. 310). Pajares admitted that the task of distinguishing knowledge from beliefs is a daunting experience. In an attempt to reduce the distinction among knowledge and beliefs, Woods (1996) suggested a heuristic relationship between beliefs and knowledge and proposed the inclusive term, BAK (beliefs, assumptions and knowledge). The term BAK refers not only to beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge, but also to the relationship between them and to their interrelated structure. As suggested earlier, the distinction between knowledge and beliefs did not seem to be important to Dewey. He was very critical of people’s tendency to treat knowledge as separated from the contexts in which actual inquiry takes place (Hickman, 1998, p. 166). To Dewey, knowing cannot be separated from doing. It has to be understood in the here and now of our lives. In our everyday experience, thinking and doing are not separated but part of our behavior. In addition, the elements of a situation mutually influence each other. Dewey (1906/1983) reconceptualized the dualism of beliefs by pointing out that if we discard beliefs as separated from knowledge and from our way of acting in the world, we will be missing important aspects that beliefs bring with them:
36 This double outlook and connection of belief, its implication, on one side, with beings who suffer and endeavor, and, its complication on the other, with the meanings and worths of things, is its glory or its unpardonable sin. We cannot keep connection on one side and throw it away on the other. We cannot preserve significance and decline the personal attitude in which it is inscribed and operative…. Beliefs are personal affairs, and personal affairs are adventures, and adventures are, if you please, shady. But equally discredited, then, is the universe of meanings. For the world has meaning as somebody’s, somebody’s at a juncture, taken for better or worse, and you shall not have completed your metaphysics till you have told whose world is meant and how and what for – in what bias and to what effect. (p. 84) Thus, beliefs are subjective and exist within one’s experience. Their connection with knowledge, or “knowing,” should be seen as part of a larger process of inquiry (Hickman, 1998). Dewey used the term ‘knowing’ instead of knowledge to demonstrate the relationship of knowledge and action. He rejected the notion of truth as a direct correspondence between a proposition and a state of affairs “out there.” He believed that knowledge was neither certain nor permanent but had to be found in inquiry directed towards solutions of problems in our daily lives (Hickman, 1998). As Boisvert (1998) explained, to Dewey, knowing is temporarily and contextually conditioned. Thus, in this study, following Dewey’s ideas, knowledge and beliefs are seen as interrelated. Beliefs are paradoxical, and part of their paradox is their relationship with knowledge. As mentioned earlier, beliefs may present obstacles for reflective inquiry, but they may also trigger reflection. Beliefs and Actions Do individuals act according to their beliefs? Can we infer beliefs from actions? Researchers have answered these questions differently. Some contend that beliefs do influence and guide action, whereas others say that contextual factors play a stronger role in our actions than our beliefs. As mentioned before, beliefs impact actions and actions in
37 turn impact beliefs. It is not a cause-effect relationship. It is a relationship where understanding contextual constraint helps understanding beliefs. Pajares (1992) explained that at some point in their lives, all individuals will have to choose and behave according to incompatible beliefs. That is when the more central and prominent beliefs are discovered. It is also at this time that it becomes more difficult to infer and measure beliefs because of their context-specific nature and connection to other beliefs. Pajares recognized that this feature of beliefs may also make them “appear more inconsistent than they perhaps are” (p. 319). In understanding the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and their actions, contextual constraints have to be considered. Some studies have suggested that the inconsistency between teachers’ beliefs and practice may be caused by the complexities of classroom life, such as teacher-student relationship and classroom management. Other studies, however, employ instruments with predetermined categories that may not be present in the teachers’ belief system (Fang, 1996a), thus giving the impression that the teacher did not teach according to his or her beliefs. Tabachnick and Zeichner (1986) investigated two beginning teachers in the US and the strategies they employed to reduce the contradictions between their beliefs about teaching and their classroom behavior. The results indicated that whereas one teacher tried to change her beliefs to justify her behavior, the other sought to change her behavior to correspond to her beliefs. The authors contended that in order to understand the meanings that teachers give to their actions, we have to observe their actions in context. They suggested a holistic relationship between beliefs and actions and concluded that a “greater consistency between belief and behavior was the result of a negotiated and
38 interactive
process
between
individuals
and
organizational
constraints
and
encouragements.” (p. 95). In his study about teachers’ beliefs, assumptions, and knowledge (BAK), Woods (1996) explained that BAK and behavior may not necessarily correspond because of the presence of routine and unconscious actions that are reflections of prior beliefs in the evolution of BAK. He concluded that BAK not only influences the perceptions of events, but the perception and assessment of the event leads to the evolution of BAK. Language learning beliefs and actions. In applied linguistics, researchers are trying to understand how students’ language learning beliefs (LLB) influence the actions they take to learn a second/foreign language. Actions, in this case, may refer to (a) students’ general approach to learning – “how they conceptualize learning and how they interpret learning” (Richards & Lockhart, 1994, p. 58), and (b) the language learning strategies they use (Horwitz, 1987; Oxford, 1990; Wenden, 1987). Several researchers have suggested that LLB influence students’ language learning strategies (Abraham & Vann, 1987; Elbaum, Berg, & Dodd, 1993; Riley, 1997; Yang, 1992). Riley (1997) stated that LLB will directly impact learners’ attitude, motivation or strategy, and that learners who believe they can learn only in the presence of a teacher will have problems with any kind of self-directed work. Abraham and Vann (1987) explained that learners’ philosophy guides their approach to language learning. Their philosophy will be manifested “in observable (and unobservable) strategies” and “directly influence the degree of success learners achieve” (p. 96). Yang (1992) investigated the relationship between LLB and language learning strategies and found that learner’s beliefs about language learning seem to affect their use
39 of learning strategies in important ways. Specifically, students’ self-efficacy and expectation about learning English were associated with their use of functional practice strategies. Their perception of the value of learning spoken English was related to their use of formal oral-practice strategies. Elbaum et al. (1993) and Wenden (1987) found similar results in their studies. Nevertheless, some of these researchers, along with others, have hinted that the relationship between LLB and strategies is reciprocal. LLB may influence strategies, but the use of certain strategies can in turn influence the formation of LLB. Yang (1992), for instance, speculated that “learners’ beliefs can cause strategies, but strategies can cause beliefs as well” (p. 148). Murphey (1996) indicated that behavior can influence and change beliefs. He explained that given adequate time and model, beliefs can be changed through modification of behavior first. Riley (1997) contended that the relationship between strategy and belief is not straightforward and that researchers have to “look at the learning conditions in which the learners [find] themselves” (p. 141).
Based on the literature reviewed, beliefs present the following characteristics: 1. They guide action, but they are also influenced by action (Dewey, 1906/1983, 1933; Richardson, 1996; Rokeach, 1968; Peirce 1877/1958). 2. They are organized in a structure in which each belief has a specific domain (Rokeach, 1968). 3. They are more difficult to change, the earlier they are incorporated (Munby, 1984; Pajares, 1992).
40 4. They are socially constructed and culturally transmitted (McAlpine, EriksBrophy, & Crago, 1996). 5. They are part of our interpretive ability of making sense of our social world and responding to the problems we face (Dewey, 1933). 6. They have to be inferred from statements, intentions, and actions (Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968). 7. They are dynamic (Furhan, 1988; Kalaja, 1995; Woods, 1996). According to Furhan, “beliefs not only change over time, but may be expressed differently in different situations” (p. 10). Beliefs also have the following functions: (a) help people understand themselves and others and adapt to the world, (b) provide meaning, (c) help individuals to identify with another group and form groups and social systems, (d) provide structure, order, direction and shared values, and (e) reduce dissonance and confusion (Pajares (1992). Other functions of beliefs refer to framing and defining tasks and facilitating the memory process (Nespor, 1987). In summary, the studies have suggested that beliefs and actions are interrelated. As Dewey pointed out, beliefs are experience-based and context-bound. The implication for research is that beliefs should be inferred from statements, intentions, and actions (Rokeach, 1968). The research design of this study tried to consider these findings by looking at beliefs in context. Language Learning Beliefs Language learning beliefs have been a topic of research for at least fourteen years. Although it is recognized that learners have their own views about language learning,
41 learners’ theories are still considered less valuable than scientific theories. Several researchers have made this point. According to Allwright (1984), some teachers seem to ignore that students have positive contributions to make. Barkhuizen (1998) made similar criticisms by stating that students are almost never asked overtly and systematically about their learning experiences. Riley (1997) criticized teachers, researchers, and theoretical linguistics for discounting the importance of students’ beliefs and counting as important only the beliefs “enshrined in linguistic theories or technical grammars by Chomsky or Halliday” (pp. 127-128). He argued that if we are trying to find the truth from a scientific point of view, then some beliefs “may be wrong.” However, he continued, the point is not to find “the truth” but students’ subjective reality, “their truth,” because it is their beliefs more than anybody else’s that will influence their learning (p. 127). Preston (1991) also noticed that popular beliefs about language, what he called folklinguistics, are usually devalued and treated as innocent understandings. He explained that it is easy to criticize these folk opinions and forget they are not all strange or obviously false. They are the products of reasoning to the problems and resources individuals have. In other words, lay theories and scientific theories are both products of human reasoning (Block, 1997). Defining LLB is difficult because, as in the case with beliefs, several terms have been used to refer to LLB. These terms seem to reflect different researchers’ agendas. Some of the terms are folklinguistic theories of learning (Miller & Ginsberg, 1995), learner representations (Holec, 1987), representations (Riley, 1994), learners’ philosophy of language learning (Abraham & Vann, 1987), metacognitive knowledge
42 (Wenden, 1986a, 1987), cultural beliefs (Gardner, 1988), learning culture (Riley, 1997), the culture of learning languages (Barcelos, 1995), and culture of learning (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996). This profusion of terms is not necessarily bad. To quote Freeman (1991), “the issue is not the pluralism of labels, but the recognition of the phenomenon itself” (p. 32). By looking at the different terms in Table 1, it is possible to make two general observations. First, all the definitions stress that LLB refer to the nature of language and language learning. Second, some definitions emphasize the “social milieu” and social nature of beliefs. For instance, Miller and Ginsberg (1995), like Preston (1991), used the term folklinguistic theories of language learning to mean language learners’ “own notions – explicit or implicit – about the goals and methods of foreign language learning” (p. 293) that help learners to frame and to interpret experience. Gardner (1988) also underlined the role of the social milieu that is shared by individuals. Riley (1989) argued that some beliefs about language and learning are culture-specific. Hence, understanding students’ beliefs means understanding their world and their identity.
43 Table 1 Different Terms and Definitions for Language Learning Beliefs Terms
Definitions
Folklinguistic theories of learning (Miller & Ginsberg, 1995)
“Ideas that students have about language and language learning.” (p. 294)
Learner representations (Holec, 1987)
Learners’ entering assumptions about their roles and functions of teachers and teaching materials. (p.152)
Representations (Riley, 1989, 1994)
“Popular ideas about the nature of language and languages, language structure and language use, the relationship between thought and language, identity and language, language and intelligence, language and learning, and so on.” (1994, p. 8)
Learners’ philosophy of language learning (Abraham & Vann, 1987)
“Beliefs about how language operates, and, consequently, how it is learned.” (p. 95)
Metacognitive knowledge (Wenden, 1986a)
“The stable, statable although sometimes incorrect knowledge that learners have acquired about language, learning and the language learning process; also referred to as knowledge or concepts about language learning or learner beliefs; there are three kinds: person, task and strategic knowledge.” (p. 163)
Beliefs (Wenden, 1986)
“Opinions which are based on experience and the opinions of respected others, which influence the way they [students] act.” (p. 5)
Cultural beliefs (Gardner, 1988)
“Expectations in the minds of teachers, parents and students concerning the entire second language acquisition task.” (p. 110)
Learning culture (Riley, 1997).
“A set of representations, beliefs and values related to learning that directly influence [students’] learning behaviour.” (p.122)
Culture of learning languages (Barcelos, 1995)
“Learners’ intuitive implicit (or explicit) knowledge made of beliefs, myths, cultural assumptions and ideals about how to learn languages. This knowledge, according to learners’ age and social economic level, is based upon their previous educational experience, previous (and present) readings about language learning and contact with other people like family, friends, relatives, teachers and so forth.” (p. 40)
Culture of learning (Cortazzi & Jin, 1996)
“The cultural aspects of teaching and learning; what people believe about ‘normal’ and ‘good’ learning activities and processes, where such beliefs have a cultural origin.” (p. 230)
44 In this study, the definition of LLB adopted underscores this cultural aspect. This is congruent with the theoretical framework that has defined beliefs as based on experience, the classroom as a culture, and students and teachers as purposeful beings. Thus, beliefs are not only a cognitive concept, but as argued in the theoretical framework, are social constructs born out of our experiences and problems. Investigating beliefs then means focusing on what students know, instead on what they need to know (Freeman, 1991). Summary of the Section on Beliefs and LLB This section has looked at the definition of beliefs and LLB. The studies reviewed have indicated the interrelationship between beliefs and knowledge, and beliefs and actions. Students’ and teachers’ beliefs do influence their actions. However, actions can also influence and change beliefs. Beliefs and actions interact and shape each other. The next section reviews approaches to the investigation of LLB and explains how most of them have failed to consider the interactive and dynamic relationship of LLB and actions. Approaches to the Investigation of Language Learning Beliefs Horwitz (1985) and Wenden (1986) published the first studies about LLB. In more than 14 years, the body of research on LLB has grown and several studies have investigated LLB. The studies about LLB can be divided into three approaches: (a) the normative approach, which infers beliefs from a pre-determined set of statements; (b) the metacognitive approach, which infers beliefs from students’ self-reports and interviews; and (c) the contextual approach, which uses ethnography, narratives, and metaphors to investigate LLB.
45 The Normative Approach Holliday (1994) used the term normative to refer to studies on culture that sees students’ culture as explanation for their behaviors in class. Similarly, the studies in the normative approach see LLB as indicators of students’ future behaviors as autonomous or good learners, in a cause-effect relationship. The normative approach includes studies that have used Likert-scale questionnaires to investigate LLB. The most widely used questionnaire is the Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory (BALLI) developed by Horwitz (1985). The studies in this approach either use the BALLI (Horwitz, 1987, 1988; Su, 1995; Tumposky, 1991; Yang, 1992) or adapt/modify it (Mantle-Bromley, 1995). Other studies develop their own questionnaires (Campbell, Shaw, Plageman, & Allen, 1993; Cotterall, 1995, 1999; Kuntz, 1996; Mori, 1997; Sakui & Gaies, 1999; Victori, 1992). Some of these questionnaires have included different types of questions, such as ranking questions and multiple-choice format questions (Victori, 1992) and a more open-ended format, such as the inclusion of writing tasks (Cotterall, 1999). The next sections bring a summary of the main BALLI and non- BALLI studies.
3
Table 2 summarizes the main studies in the normative
approach and their findings.
3
For the purposes of this study, I comment on only a few selected studies. For a review of studies using the BALLI, see Horwitz (1999).
46 Table 2 Summary of Selected Studies in the Normative Approach Purpose
Participants
Horwitz, 1985
To describe an instrument for eliciting student beliefs about lang. learning and teaching (BALLI).
25 undergraduates in the last year of teacher education at the University of Texas, Austin.
Inventories: FLAS (Foreign Language Survey) BALLI.
Student teachers expressed belief in the concept of foreign language aptitude, lang. hierarchy, and importance of repetition.
Horwitz, 1987
“To report on the responses of one group of ESL student to the BALLI” (p. 119).
32 intermediatelevel students at an Intensive English Program at the University of Texas, Austin.
BALLI (ESL version)
Most students believed in lang. aptitude, lang. hierarchy, learning vocabulary & grammar, learning in the target country; importance of repetition & practice.
Yang, 1992
To explore second language learners’ beliefs about lang. learning and their use of lang. learning strategies.
504 undergraduates enrolled in English classes at colleges and universities in Taiwan.
Translations of the BALLI & SILL (Strategy Inventory about Language Learning).
Relationship between beliefs and strategy is not a simple one and should be interpreted carefully.
Campbell et. al., 1993
To describe beliefs about language learning of university students.
70 students of beginning Spanish and French at an American Midwestern University.
BLL (Beliefs about Lang. Learning) questionnaire
61% believed that learning grammar is more challenging than vocabulary; 73% believed in memorizing grammar rules.
MantleBromley, 1995
To investigate students’ attitudes towards language and culture.
94 students of Spanish and French 3 teachers from a school district in Kansas.
Modified BALLI Class observation.
Students believed in difficulty of certain languages, lang. hierarchy, and lang. aptitude.
Studies
Methodology
Results
47 Table 2: Continued
Studies
Purpose
Participants
Methodology
Results
Su, 1995
To determine the relationship between students’ major learning strategy/ style preferences and their (cultural) beliefs about lang.learning.
369 Chinese university EFL students.
SILL Learning Style Survey BALLI BALAT (Beliefs about learning and teaching)
Cultural beliefs were not directly related to learner’s preference of strategies.
Kuntz, 1996
To examine lang. learning beliefs held by students of French & Spanish, and compare them to beliefs of students of Swahili.
53 students of Swahili 113 students of French & Spanish.
Kuntz-Rifkin Instrument (KRI)
Both groups of students agreed on the importance of practice and repetition. Swahili students strongly disagreed that you do not speak until you say it correctly.
Mori, 1997
“To explore the structure of learners’ beliefs and the relationship between their beliefs and their performance” (p.6).
97 college students learning Japanese at various levels in Midwestern universities.
Likert-scale questionnaire (epistemological and lang. learning beliefs); student characteristics survey.
Results showed the relationship between learners’ epistemological beliefs to their approach to language learning.
Sakui & Gaies, 1999
To investigate the beliefs of Japanese learners of English and determine if learners are consistent in reporting their beliefs about language learning.
1296 students at Belief college and questionnaire universities in Japan. (45 Likert-type items) in Japanese; semistructured individual and small-group interviews.
LLB can change depending on the situation. Students interpret items in the questionnaire differently from researchers.
48 BALLI studies. The BALLI was created to “assess teacher opinions on a variety of issues and controversies related to language learning” (Horwitz, 1985, p. 334 italics added). In a free-recall activity, 25 foreign language teachers in the United States were asked to list their beliefs, other people’s beliefs, and their students’ beliefs about language learning. After idiosyncratic beliefs were eliminated, the foreign language teachers examined the list to add more beliefs they themselves had or had encountered. The instrument was then pilot-tested with 150 first-semester foreign language students at The University of Texas at Austin (Horwitz, 1985). Two of the BALLI studies have been conducted with American university students of foreign languages (Horwitz, 1988; Tumposky, 1991), one with ESL students (Horwitz, 1987), and two with Asian university students (Su, 1995; Yang, 1992). Kern (1995) and Kuntz (1997) also used the BALLI, but their studies will be discussed later in the section on teachers’ and students’ beliefs mismatch. The BALLI studies with American university students (Horwitz, 1988 and Tumposky, 1991) indicated that students’ beliefs were similar. Horwitz’s participants were 241 foreign language students. Tumposky’s subjects were 36 foreign language undergraduates. Both studies indicated that students believed in the hierarchy of languages, in children’s ability to learn languages, in the difference between language learning and other subjects, in people’s special talent for language learning, and in the importance of practice and excellent pronunciation. Both studies also showed that students disagreed that those who are good at math are good at foreign languages. Horwitz’s (1987) study with 32 ESL intermediate students in the US indicated that most students believed that it is easier to learn some languages than others and that it
49 takes three to four years to learn a language. In addition, students considered that learning English is learning vocabulary and grammar, and that language learning is not only learning to translate. Students also believed in the use of tapes, in repetition and practice, guessing, meeting Americans, having American friends, and having an excellent pronunciation. It is interesting to note that 94% of the students believed that one learns English better in an English-speaking country. Yang (1992) added one open-ended question to the BALLI that she used with 504 EFL undergraduates in Taiwan. The answers to that question revealed different beliefs from the BALLI. Some of the beliefs were probably culturally related such as concerns about losing face, making a fool of themselves, or being laughed at. These beliefs are perhaps much more important than the ones in the inventory because they may be related to problems that students have in their practice. Other interesting results from that openended question showed that some students did favor classes that are more communicative. Fifteen students expressed their criticisms of the heavy grammar orientation of their classes. Nine students expressed a desire to learn to use a foreign language in daily life. These beliefs contradict the common portrayal of some Asian students as interested only in learning grammar and memorizing rules. Su (1995) investigated the relationship between language learning strategies and learning styles of 369 Chinese university students and their cultural beliefs about learning and teaching English in a formal situation. The findings suggested that beliefs were not related to learners’ preference of strategies. However, the author stated that one specific cultural belief – theory orientedness – was related to the memory strategies as determined by statistical analysis.
50 One difference between the studies on Asian students (Yang, 1992; Su, 1995) and the studies on American students (Horwtiz, 1988; Tumposky, 1991) is that Asian students seem to agree more with items that refer to the need to speak English well, meet Americans, or learn English to get a better job. This may be related to the status of English as a lingua franca. Thus, learning English is associated with the need to get a better job. Other results were similar to Horwitz’s study (1988) such as students’ beliefs about guessing, having an excellent pronunciation, and having special abilities to learn. The studies that have used modifications of the BALLI were Mantle-Bromley (1995) and Kuntz (1996). Both investigated American students of foreign languages. Mantle-Bromley’s intervention study examined 94 high-school students’ attitudes towards languages and culture in their first language class. Mantle-Bromley used class observations, interviews, and a modified version of the BALLI with only 29 items. Her results indicated that students believed Spanish and French were easy and could be learned in less than two years. They also believed that some people had a special ability to learn languages, that learning was mostly learning vocabulary and words, and that cultural understanding was not necessary to learn languages. Kuntz (1996) expanded the BALLI and created the Kuntz-Rifkin Inventory. It is not clear why this questionnaire was created since it incorporated so many of BALLI items. She investigated the LLB held by 113 students of commonly taught languages in the US, such as ESL, German, Spanish, and French, and compared them with the beliefs of students of Swahili. Kuntz explained that students of less commonly taught languages such as Swahili require more time to achieve the minimum level of proficiency. Her results showed that both groups believed in the importance of practice and repetition.
51 Swahili students disagreed most strongly that one does not need to speak until one can say it correctly, whereas students of common taught language disagreed that one needs to know all the words in order to read in a foreign language. Non-BALLI studies. These studies typically created their own Likert-Scale type questionnaires to investigate beliefs. They have investigated the beliefs of American foreign language students, ESL students, and Japanese students. Campbell et al. (1993) investigated the beliefs held by 70 American university students in their first lower-level course. They did not use the BALLI but created a different questionnaire, called Beliefs about Language Learning (BLL), with seven statements and an open-ended question. The statements dealt with grammar, aptitude, fluency, and pronunciation. The results indicated that most students believed that learning how to use grammar correctly is more challenging than learning to use vocabulary correctly, that they should memorize grammar rules, and that most people can learn a foreign language, although some can learn faster than others. The open-ended question revealed students’ beliefs in the role of age, the value of repetition, and keys to successful language learning, such as exposure to meaningful practice, determination and motivation, hard work, open-mindedness, and teachers’ teaching. Two beliefs were similar to the ones reported in other studies that used the BALLI – the role of age and repetition as the key to success. However, the open-ended part showed other beliefs that were not and are not present in any of the items of the BALLI such as determination, hard work, open-mindedness, and teachers’ teaching ability. Of all the studies with American students, Mori (1997) is the only one that focused on epistemological beliefs and their relationship with LLB. She investigated 97 college
52 students learning Japanese at various levels in Midwestern US universities. The questionnaire on epistemological beliefs was based on Schommer (1995), and included 40 items, and 192 language learning beliefs. Results, analyzed by factor analysis, suggested that those students who believed in perseverance usually employed a more risk-taking behavior, whereas those who believed in quick learning tended to perceive language learning as an easy task. Mori concluded that LLB are a complex and multidimensional system. She also suggested that what students learn in class may influence their beliefs and perceptions about language learning and about learning in general. Cotterall (1995) wanted to determine the factors in students’ beliefs that would indicate their “readiness for autonomy.” She constructed a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire from interviews with 130 adult ESL learners in tertiary institutions in New Zealand. Cotterall’s study revealed six factors: the role of the teacher, the role of feedback, learner independence, learner confidence in study ability, experience of language learning, and approach to studying. The results indicated that learners were not “ready” for autonomy because they held traditional views of the teachers’ role. Most of these studies have provided a general picture of the kinds of LLB students may have. However, they do not analyze the consequences of these beliefs in real contexts or the meanings that these beliefs have for learners. The studies have mainly described and classified the types of LLB learners have according to the statements in the questionnaires. Other studies make connections between LLB and autonomy. Unfortunately, many of them employ a deficit theory model where learners’ beliefs are usually described as “erroneous” or “counterproductive.” Learners are viewed, compared, and judged
53 according to an “ideal” view of a “good” and “autonomous” learner. Their beliefs are seen only as obstacles to the implementation of autonomy. This portrayal of learners is demeaning because it suggests an ideal view of the learner that “real” students do not correspond to (Benson, 1995). More recently, researchers have started experimenting with other ways of investigating learner beliefs and have begun to employ other data collection techniques in addition to questionnaires. For instance, in her 1999 study, Cotterall extended the questionnaire used in her 1995 study and included two parts in which students were required to draw a diagram about learning and write a letter to a friend providing advice on language learning. These adaptations indicate that Cotterall seemed to try to validate the questionnaire by providing learners with opportunities to express their own perspectives. Other researchers have included interviews as a way of validating questionnaires. The inclusion of such techniques has shown that learners have different beliefs than those presented in the BALLI. For instance, Sakui and Gaies (1999) used interviews in their investigation of Japanese beliefs in addition to a Likert-scale questionnaire. The results from the interviews suggested that beliefs about language learning are context-bound and dynamic. Thus, the discrepancies found in the questionnaires should not be viewed as “errors.” Sakui and Gaies stated that learners have different interpretations of the questionnaire items and may want to describe their beliefs in ways that the questionnaire does not allow. Advantages and limitations. Questionnaires offer several advantages. They are less threatening than observation, useful if the researcher has limited resources and time,
54 “easier to tabulate and particularly appropriate for large numbers of respondents” (Gimenez, 1994, p. 76). In addition, questionnaires afford precision and clarity, allow access to outside contexts, and allow data to be collected at different time slots (McDonough & McDonough, 1997). However, questionnaires present some limitations. One of the main problems refers to ignoring participants’ own terms. Hymes (1996) mentioned a study in which a questionnaire was prepared by a central-office person to discover parents’ opinions of a community-relations policy and person. Only when the student administering the questionnaire talked to the parents did he learn that “the parents distinguished between a playground (having equipment designed for children to use) and a playyard, but the questionnaire did not” (p. 8). Hymes explained that questionnaires should be devised after sufficient participation and observation to insure their validity. The validity of knowledge depends upon accurate and adequate information about the meanings that participants give to events, persons, and institutions. These meanings cannot be taken for granted as uniform because, although their overt forms may be familiar, the interpretation given to them is subject to change. Block (1998) and Sakui and Gaies (1999) pointed out similar problems with questionnaires. Block (1998) investigated how students interpreted the items and the numbers on a 1-5 scale of a course evaluation questionnaire. His results indicated a high degree of variance in students’ interpretation of questionnaire items, with intra-rater and inter-rater inconsistency. Furthermore, one student assigned the same number for all items without consideration of their meaning. Sakui and Gaies (1999), as already mentioned, used interviews and questionnaires to investigate the reliability of students’ responses to
55 learner beliefs questionnaires. They found out that (a) differences in questionnaire responses should not be seen as unreliability or inconsistency, but as a sign that students’ beliefs had actually changed; (b) the beliefs that researchers try to measure in the questionnaires may not be uniform but are conditioned by situation, and (c) respondents do not always interpret items as researchers intend. The studies mentioned above only confirm the criticisms to the use of questionnaires in general and as means to the investigation of beliefs made earlier by several researchers (Benson & Lor, 1999; Block, 1997; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Erickson, 1991; Gimenez, 1994; Kalaja, 1995; Munby, 1984; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Wenden, 1986a). Their most common criticisms are as follows: 1. Questionnaires make it difficult to guarantee consistent interpretation by the individuals because of the generality. In addition, respondents tend to reply in terms of what they think would be appropriate (Gimenez, 1994; Block, 1998). 2. Questionnaires restrict respondents’ choices by framing the answers according to a pre-established set of statements, thus making it difficult to investigate beliefs in students’ or teachers’ own terms (Benson & Lor, 1999; Block, 1997, 1998; Cortazzi & Jin, 1996; Gimenez, 1994, Kalaja, 1995; Kuntz, 1996a; Munby, 1984; Pajares, 1992; Riley, 1996, 1999). Questionnaires also make it difficult for researchers to see students’ dilemmas or inconsistencies (Woods, 1996). 3. Questionnaires are too constraining, derived from scholarly literature, and predetermined by the researcher (Richardson, 1996). According to Richardson, teachers’ beliefs, and I would add, students’ beliefs, are highly eclectic and may
56 be on both ends of a particular scholarly educational controversy or be very different from what the literature suggests. In summary, in the normative approach, beliefs are taken out of context. Isolated sentences are presented to students for them to agree or disagree with. This is problematic first, because students may interpret the items very differently from what the researcher intended. Second, the beliefs presented by the researcher may be different from the beliefs students think are significant in their learning. Students may hold beliefs that are unique to their own learning situation. Questionnaires usually do not allow students to express their beliefs. Third and finally, if students do have some of those beliefs, what are the implications of this fact? Do they behave according to those beliefs? How do they interact with those beliefs? Why do they have such beliefs? As Dewey pointed out, knowing cannot be separated from doing. Thus, an investigation of what students know (or believe) must involve (a) students’ experiences and actions, (b) students’ interpretation of their experiences, (c) the social context and how it shapes students’ experiences, and (d) students’ use of beliefs to solve their problems. In sum, it has to recognize students as reflective beings and allow for the paradoxical and dynamic nature of beliefs. The Metacognitive Approach Beliefs are defined as metacognitive knowledge in most studies in this approach, hence, the name. The studies do not involve the use of questionnaires, but use semistructured interviews and self-reports. The implicit assumption in this approach is that students’ metacognitive knowledge also constitutes their “theories in action” that help
57 them to reflect on what they are doing and to develop their potential for learning (Wenden, 1987, p. 112; see Wenden, 1998 for a review of metacognitive knowledge). Most studies that have adopted this definition and methodology were conducted by Wenden4 (1986, 1986a, 1987). Table 3 shows the main findings of two of these studies. Wenden’s (1986) basic assumption is that learners do think about their language learning process and are able to articulate some of their beliefs. Wenden (1986a) found that learners are able to talk about (a) the language, (b) their proficiency in the language, (c) the outcome of their learning endeavors, (d) their role in the language-learning process, and (e) the best approach to language learning. Table 3 Summary of Selected Studies in the Metacognitive Approach Studies
Purpose
Participants
Methodology
Results
Wenden, 1986a
To investigate and classify learners’ knowledge about their language learning.
25 ESL adult students enrolled in advancedlevel classes at Columbia University.
Semi-structured interviews.
Learners are able to talk about the language, their proficiency in the language, the outcome of their learning efforts, their role in the learning process, and the best way of learning languages.
Wenden, 1987
To report on learners’ prescriptive beliefs and to understand the relationship between their beliefs and strategies.
25 ESL adult students enrolled in advancedlevel classes at Columbia University.
Semi-structured interviews.
Learners’ prescriptive beliefs referred to beliefs about using the language, learning about the language, and importance of personal factors. Comm. strategies were related to belief about using the language. Cognitive strategies were related to beliefs about the language.
4
Although Victori (1992) defined beliefs as metacognitive knowledge, she employed questionnaires, and thus her study was included within the normative approach.
58 In her 1987 study, Wenden defined metacognitive knowledge as “the stable, statable although sometimes incorrect knowledge that learners have acquired about language, learning and the language learning process” (p. 163). She characterized this knowledge as fallible (not always empirically supportable) and interactive (influential in the outcome of a learning activity). Wenden (1987) investigated learners’ prescriptive beliefs in order to know whether they hold such beliefs, what those beliefs were, and whether they were reflected in what learners say they do to learn a second language. She interviewed 25 students who had lived in the US for no longer than two years and were enrolled in the advanced level classes of the language institute. Before the interview, she gave students a list of questions related to various aspects of their language learning to think about. The questions dealt with the reasons for participating in a given social setting, the kinds of strategies they used, their observations about language, their ways of dealing with errors, and their feelings about and handling of the situation. The results showed learners held prescriptive beliefs about (a) the importance of using the language in a natural way, that is, practicing, thinking in the second language, and living and studying in an environment where the target language is spoken, (b) the importance of learning about the language, its grammar and vocabulary, learning from mistakes, and being mentally active, and (c) the importance of personal factors (feelings, self-concepts, attitude, and aptitude). Wenden compared the beliefs found in her study with those in the BALLI and concluded that some were very different, and others were not represented in the BALLI. She concluded that these “differences point to the need to develop a more comprehensive and representative set of beliefs” (p. 113).
59 Advantages and limitations. The advantages of this approach are that first, the use of interviews gives learners the opportunity to elaborate and reflect on their experience. According to Block (1997), interviews allow students to define and evaluate the learning process in their own terms. Second, it considers beliefs as knowledge. Recognizing beliefs as knowledge implies that learners’ beliefs are part of learners’ reasoning. However, this approach has limitations. The main limitation refers to seeing beliefs as abstract entities inside learners’ minds. According to Kalaja (1995), language learning beliefs have been seen mainly as stable, “cognitive entities to be found inside the minds of language learners” (p. 192). Kalaja cited studies that have shown that beliefs can be changed (Holec, 1987). She proposed a discursive approach to investigating beliefs that is based on studies by discursive social psychologists such as Potter and Wetherell (1987). This approach includes the assumptions that (a) language use is actionoriented and social, (b) language creates reality, and (c) scientific knowledge and lay conceptions are “seen as a social constructions of the world” (p. 196). In this sense, learners’ beliefs are seen as constructed in and through discourse. Kalaja (1995) defined beliefs as socially constructed, interactive, social in nature, and variable (from student to student, from context to context, or within the same context). She explained that beliefs can be changed from time to time or even within the same occasion. She proposed that language learners’ beliefs should be investigated in learners’ “stretches of talk” or “pieces of writing” about aspects of second language acquisition (p. 196).
60 My own criticisms of the metacognitive approach refer to the fact that the studies fail to explain the functions that beliefs play in students’ contexts. In addition, beliefs are not inferred from actions, but from intentions and statements only. Moreover, as Kalaja (1995) pointed out, beliefs are still seen as an abstract and mental phenomenon only. As explained in the theoretical framework, beliefs (or knowledge) are part of experience and are interrelated with actions and with the environment. The Contextual Approach More recently, a few studies have started investigating beliefs from a different perspective. They do not employ questionnaires or define beliefs as metacognitive knowledge. Rather, beliefs are described as embedded in students’ contexts. The studies use different methodologies such as diaries, journals, narratives, metaphors (Miller & Ginsberg, 1995), and ethnography (Allen, 1996; Barcelos, 1995). The basic idea behind this approach is combining different methods to interpret students’ beliefs in their contexts. Thus, the perspective is emic. The investigation usually involves classroom observation or other methods that are grounded in students’ own interpretive meanings and perspectives. As shown in Table 4, this approach includes three empirical studies (Allen, 1996; Barcelos, 1995; Miller & Ginsberg, 1995) and one theoretical study (Riley, 1994). Only two of the empirical studies will be discussed in this section. Allen’s study will be explored later in the section about teachers’ and learners’ LLB.
61 Table 4 Summary of Selected Studies in the Contextual Approach Studies
Purpose
Participants
Methodology
Results
Barcelos, 1995
To understand students’ LLB through the characterization of their culture of learning languages.
14 senior EFL undergraduate students in Brazil.
Participant observation; semistructured interviews; openended questionnaires.
Students held beliefs about the role of grammar, the role of the teacher, and the role of the target-language country. Students’ previous lang. learning experiences exerted strong influence on their lang. learning beliefs.
Miller & Ginsberg, 1995
To describe the folklinguistic theories of students studying abroad about the nature of lang. learning and how it is learned.
American undergraduate and graduate students studying in Russia.
80 detailed narrative diaries; 29 audiotaped oral narratives; 10 student notebook journals, student interviews.
Students believed that language is words and syntax, that there is one correct way to say things and fixed rules, and that meaning of words lie in the words themselves. Students also hold metaphors about language learning.
Allen, 1996
To understand the influence of teachers’ beliefs on learners’ lang. learning beliefs.
Case study of one Libyan-ESL intermediate student in Canada.
Classroom observation, document analysis, teacher and student interviews, and learner diaries.
The learner changed his beliefs about language learning during the ESL course. His beliefs became more similar to the teacher’s beliefs.
Riley (1994) discussed beliefs in terms of representations. He proposed two meanings for the term representations. The first meaning of representation deals with the way we think. The second refers to the “way we think we think” (p. 8). The latter refers to popular ideas about several aspects of language – its structure, use, relationship with thought and identity, and language learning. The difference in terms of investigation between the two is that those concerned with the first type of representation will “work
62 within an objective positivist paradigm, looking for the truth (i.e. the nature of mental processing as understood by psychologists)” (p. 8). However, those concerned with representation two, will look for individuals’ subjective truth. Riley explained, “in ordinary life people do not go round thinking or taking decisions on the basis of scientific reality, but on the basis of their reality” (p. 12). Riley (1994), like other researchers, recognized the influence of these representations in students’ approach to language learning and their “decisions as to what languages are worth learning” (p. 12). He proposed three approaches to investigating these representations. They can be investigated as (a) metaphors because metaphors represent conceptual tools for interpreting and perceiving experience, (b) belief systems, and (c) interpretative repertoire, that is, “particular instances of discourse as manifestations of ideologies” (p. 16). Miller and Ginsberg (1995) used the term folklinguistic theories of language learning to mean “ideas that students have about language and language learning.” (p. 294). They collected “80 detailed written narrative diaries, 29 audiotaped oral narratives, and 10 student notebook journals, recorded by American undergraduate and graduate students” in Moscow (p. 295). They emphasized that narratives allow researchers to see how students’ metaphors guide their experience and may act as self-fulfilling prophecies. Their results showed how students explicitly talked about ideas of language and language learning that they believed were most significant to their language learning. The authors also pointed out the importance of narratives to reveal what is left unsaid and unnoticed. Students’ folklinguistic theories showed they believed that (a) language is words and syntax, (b) saying things correctly is important and (c) success in learning a
63 language means producing grammatically correct utterances. Students also held some metaphors about language learning such as “learning is doing a puzzle” – testing out words, learning by trial and error, “figuring out” what to say, “pinning down meaning” (p. 306) – and “learning is a journey,” subject to “plateaus” and “slumps” (p. 310). An interesting aspect of this methodology is that it allows researchers to see the paradoxes or contradictions of the students’ belief systems. Miller and Ginsberg (1995) pointed out that students regretted the classroom activities and longed to be with native speakers in a more natural environment. As soon as they had that opportunity though, they expected native-speakers to behave exactly like a teacher. The authors concluded that students’ folklinguistic theories might affect students’ behavior and interaction with native-speakers. They also explained that students’ beliefs are influenced by Western thought and theories of second language acquisition. For Miller and Ginsberg, students’ folklinguistic theories “mirror broader cultural conceptions, academic approaches to second language learning, and assumptions and concepts held by American and Russian language educators” (p. 312). Although this study used an interesting methodology allowing for students’ own metaphors, it did not look at the evolution of students’ beliefs and failed to see the interactive nature of beliefs and actions. Barcelos’s (1995) ethnographic study with 14 Brazilian students examined beliefs as part of their culture of learning languages. She used class observations, open-ended questionnaires, and semi-structured interviews. Her results suggested the strong influence of learners’ previous experiences and actual context in their language beliefs and approach to language learning. In spite of using ethnography and investigating beliefs in context by looking at students’ statements and actions, Barcelos’s study did not present a
64 heuristic relationship between beliefs and actions, that is, it did not explain how context and students’ actions contributed to their beliefs. Advantages and limitations. The advantages of the contextual approach refer to offering a broader definition of beliefs as dynamic and social and to proposing a different methodology to investigate beliefs. Investigating LLB in context means knowing why learners hold particular types of beliefs, how their beliefs fit with others that they have, how their beliefs are related to their actions (Woods, 1997). In addition, this approach also presents a much more positive view of the learner than the normative and the metacognitive approaches, by taking students’ own perspectives and contexts into account. Nevertheless, some studies in this approach still fail to investigate the evolution of learners’ beliefs and the interaction between beliefs and actions. Furthermore, because it looks at beliefs in depth, this approach seems more suitable with small samples only. Summary of the Three Approaches Table 5 shows a summary of the features, advantages, and disadvantages of the three approaches. The questionnaire and the metacognitive approaches fail to take into account the experience-based nature of beliefs by not looking at beliefs in students’ own terms and by looking only at students’ statements. The contextual approach comes closer to a more heuristic view of beliefs, but this approach is time-consuming and more appropriate with small samples.
65 Table 5 Features, Advantages, and Disadvantages of the Three Approaches Normative
Metacognitive
Contextual
Methodology
Likert-scale questionnaires.
Interviews and selfreports.
Observations, interviews, diaries, and case studies.
LLB definition
LLB are seen as synonymous with preconceived notions, misconceptions, and opinions.
LLB are described as metacognitive knowledge: stable and sometimes fallible knowledge learners have about language learning.
LLB are part of the culture of learning and representations of language learning in a given society.
Relationship beliefs/actions
LLB are seen as indicators of future students’ behaviors, autonomy, and effectiveness as language learners in a cause-effect relationship.
LLB are seen as good indicators of learners’ autonomy and effectiveness in language learning, although it is admitted the influence of other factors, such as purpose.
LLB are seen as context-specific, i.e., students’ beliefs are investigated within the context of their actions.
Advantages
Allows investigating beliefs with large samples, at different time slots, and at outside contexts.
Students use their own words, elaborate, and reflect about their lang. learning experiences.
Beliefs are investigated taking into account students’ own words and the context of their actions.
Disadvantages
Restricts respondents’ choices with a set of predetermined statements that be different from students’ interpretations.
Beliefs are inferred only from students’ statements, and are seen as a mental and abstract phenomenon.
More suitable with small samples only. It is time-consuming.
66 Language Teachers’ Beliefs Teachers’ beliefs is a relatively new topic in language education. It can be traced back to the mid-1970s when Lortie published his classical study on teachers’ socialization (Lortie, 1975). Until then, teaching was viewed within a process-product paradigm that emphasized teachers’ behaviors and outcomes (Freeman, 1996a). Lortie’s study was one factor that contributed to the recognition of teacher thinking as a concept in education and teaching as a cognitive undertaking (Freeman, 1996). The focus of this new paradigm was on teachers’ mental lives and their knowledge. Instead of seeing teaching from an etic perspective, researchers began to realize that in order to understand teaching it was necessary to study it from an emic perspective, that is, from the teachers’ point of view. This new paradigm gave birth to what came to be known as research on “teacher thinking, teacher cognition, teacher learning, and teacher knowledge” (Freeman, 1996a, p. 357). Clark and Peterson (1986) stated that teachers’ thought processes include teachers’ theories and beliefs, teachers’ planning, and teachers’ interactive thoughts and decisions. Unlike most of the research on language learners’ beliefs, the term knowledge is more commonly used in the research about teachers’ beliefs. Although some researchers still see beliefs as synonymous with “false ideas,” other researchers are more interested in “knowledge in action” or “reasoning-in-action” (Freeman & Johnson, 1998). In other words, the emphasis is on understanding how teachers’ interpretations and cognitive processes are embedded in their practice (Johnson, 1999). As Richards (1994) stated, the “teacher-as-thinker metaphor” focuses not on mastery of skills to be determined by others, but on a “process that involves the teacher in actively constructing a personal and
67 workable theory of teaching” (p. 384). This idea goes back to Dewey (1933), but it was also explored by Prabhu (1990) in the concept of teachers’ “sense of plausibility.” This sense of plausibility refers to teachers being able to act according to their beliefs and to explain what they do and why they do what they do. In the next section, I review some studies on language teachers’ beliefs and their influence on their practice. My focus is on language teachers’ beliefs, although studies in education will also be mentioned. However, an extensive discussion about teachers’ beliefs in education is beyond the scope of this study. The Influence of Language Teachers’ Beliefs on Their Practice Some studies have suggested that language teachers’ beliefs may influence their actions in the classroom. Most of these studies are in the field of reading in education. Some researchers have argued that not only do language teachers’ beliefs influence their practice, but “their beliefs also help shape the nature of classroom interaction” (Johnson, 1992, p. 84), as well as students’ perceptions of classroom practices (Fang, 1996). Further studies, however, have indicated that this is not a direct relationship, and other factors may hinder teachers to act according to their beliefs. In this section, I first explore the studies about the consistency between language teachers’ beliefs and practices. Johnson (1992) investigated the beliefs of thirty English-as-a-second-language (ESL) teachers by using a Multidimensional TESL theoretical Orientation Profile. This instrument consisted of an instructional protocol, a lesson plan analysis task, and a beliefs inventory. Johnson chose three teachers to observe to determine the consistency between their beliefs and their practice. The results showed that teachers’ literacy instruction was consistent with their beliefs. Johnson acknowledged the need for further research to
68 explore the complexity of the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices because the Multidimensional TESL Theoretical Orientation Profile “was not sensitive to social, cultural, or political aspects of teachers’ beliefs systems (p. 102). Mangano and Allen (1986) conducted a study to investigate eight teachers (K-3) and their students to determine the correspondence between teachers’ theoretical orientation towards writing and their instructional practices. In the first phase of the study they used the T-BALA (Teachers’ Beliefs about Language Arts) to investigate teachers’ beliefs. Students also received a similar inventory with 11 questions. The students’ questionnaire used a “ forced-choice dichotomous format” (p.136). The authors explained that such modifications were made because the T-BALA was too sophisticated for primary students. In the second phase of the study, the authors analyzed teachers’ and students’ interaction by using the T-PIP (Teacher-Pupil Interaction Patterns) that allowed the researcher to code observations of six selected pupils. The results indicated that not only were teachers’ beliefs consistent with their practice, but teachers and students interacted differently because of the teachers’ theoretical beliefs about language instruction. The authors acknowledged, however, some limitations on the instrument used, such as the reliability of using dichotomous items. Smith (1996) focused on the influence of teachers’ beliefs on their decisionmaking process. She investigated nine ESL teachers in three adult education institutions. Her qualitative study included classroom observations, post-observation conferences with stimulated recall technique, and interviews. These data collection instruments were used in order to reveal teacher beliefs about language learning and the role of their beliefs in their decision-making process. Her results indicated that, whereas teacher decisions
69 revealed an eclectic use of theory, their beliefs and practices were internally consistent. Furthermore, her study suggested that teachers select and modify theoretical ideas according to their personal beliefs about teaching and learning and their knowledge of the instructional context. The studies cited above have stressed the influence of teachers’ beliefs in their practice. However, other studies have shown that teachers’ beliefs may lack consistency with their classroom practice because teachers deal with contradictory interests and ambiguities in their practice (Fang, 1996a; Lampert, 1985). Fang (1996a), in her review of teachers’ beliefs explained that teachers’ decisions are based on factors such as teacher-student respect, classroom routine, the way students learn, and textbooks. She argued that the complexities of classroom life have a great impact on teachers’ beliefs and may affect their classroom practices and bring conflicts and dilemmas. These conflicts stem from what teachers think they should do in the classroom, the way they perceive it, and what the latest teaching methods or education programs tell them to do. Fang pointed out that some of the inconsistencies between teachers’ beliefs and practices found in these studies may, in fact, be a result of the use of researcher-determined statements, which put teachers in a position of choosing between not so clear-cut approaches, when such dichotomies do not exist in their belief systems. A study conducted by Graden (1996) showed that six French and Spanish teachers were aware of and frustrated about the way they subordinated the beliefs they had about reading instruction (such as belief in the need for frequent reading and the need to use the target language) to their beliefs about the motivational needs of their students. In other words, because of inadequate student preparation, the teachers abandoned some of those
70 beliefs and “resorted to practices they believed to be least beneficial but more expedient” (p. 391). Graden urged teachers to explore the reality of multiple systems, because awareness of the conflict could help teachers to understand the nature of the teaching and learning process and their perception of “compromising beliefs” (p. 393). The studies that showed inconsistency between teachers’ beliefs and practices emphasized the importance of context in teachers’ thinking. Johnson’s study (1994) with pre-service ESL teachers suggested that teachers feel overwhelmed by classroom constraints. She explained that although teachers expressed a desire to be more studentcentered, their need to “maintain the flow of instruction and to retain authority in the classroom” made them adopt a more teacher-centered approach (p. 449). Other researchers have stressed the kinds of obstacles teachers find to teach according to their beliefs. Horwitz (1996), for instance, cited aspects of one’s survival as a teacher, such as being able to control a class, being liked by pupils, and “being observed, evaluated, praised, and failed” by one’s supervisor (p. 295). Richards (1994) explained that “the need to follow a prescribed curriculum, lack of suitable resources, and the students’ ability levels” (p. 387) are likely to interfere or even prevent teachers from teaching according to their beliefs. The studies reviewed have indicated the need to investigate language teachers’ beliefs in context, that is, in the classroom. As Freeman and Johnson (1998) pointed out, researchers have begun to realize that [W]hat teachers know about teaching is largely socially constructed out of the experiences and classrooms from which teachers have come. Furthermore, how teachers actually use their knowledge in classrooms is highly interpretive, socially negotiated, and continually restructured within the classrooms and schools where teachers work. (p. 400, italics added)
71 No study has emphasized this perspective more than Woods’s (1996) study of eight ESL teachers in Canada about their beliefs, knowledge, and assumptions (BAK) and their decision-making process. He used three complementary approaches – ethnographic interviews, observations, and stimulated recall interviews based on videotaped lessons. His results suggested the importance of the context of the overall course and of teachers’ beliefs in the process of meaning making. Woods contended that teachers’ beliefs need to be seen in relation to the overall course. For instance, the teacher may believe that students who are used to a more structural approach in language learning should be introduced to the communicative approach gradually. In this case, the teacher’s belief in grammar, based on her knowledge of her own classroom and her own students, is just a first step in a gradual introduction to the communicative approach. Woods described teachers’ beliefs as “dynamic, always changing, both in terms of their specific details and in terms of the relationships among them” (p. 32). Although Woods did not base his conceptual framework on Dewey, his perception of beliefs as “hypotheses to be supported or contradicted by subsequent evidence” (p. 32) is very similar to Dewey’s definition of beliefs reviewed earlier in this Chapter. Woods explained that the so-called “contradictions” or “inconsistencies” between teachers’ beliefs and practices are significant to an understanding of their beliefs. He placed great emphasis on what he called “hot-spots,” that is, “areas of tension between what people say and what they do” (p. 39). Hot-spots are important because they are related to “realities rather than the ideals of life” (p. 39). In addition, they can give insights into teachers’ culture of teaching. This culture shows that teachers are usually in a subordinate power relationship with supervisors, principals, and researchers. This may
72 make teachers profess beliefs on things that they believe are part of the current teaching paradigm, instead of what they actually do in class. Summary of Language Teachers’ Beliefs The controversy about the influence of teachers’ beliefs in their practice is not solved. Whereas some studies have indicated that teachers act according to their beliefs, others have suggested that several factors in the messiness of classroom life may actually prevent teachers from teaching consistently with their beliefs. Beliefs do act as a filter in teachers’ practice and teachers will try to act according to them. However, beliefs do not exist in a vacuum. As mentioned earlier, they are based on experience and context. Context plays a very important role and it is through the inconsistencies, hotspots, and dilemmas that we will be able to understand the complexities of teachers’ beliefs and practices. As Woods (1996) suggested, when examined “over longer periods of time and in different circumstances, structured patterns of beliefs clearly emerge” (p.72). This literature review has examined LLB, different approaches to LLB investigation, and the influence of beliefs on language teachers’ practice. The final section of this Chapter explores studies about the influence of language teachers on students’ beliefs, and the types of mismatch that can happen when their beliefs differ. The Relationship Between Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs Several researchers have suggested the influence of teachers’ beliefs on students’ beliefs. Other researchers have indicated, however, that students’ and teachers’ agendas may clash. In this section, I first briefly discuss teachers’ influence on students’ beliefs. I
73 then present some studies in language teaching that have shown the opposite, that is, the mismatch between teachers’ and students’ cultural perceptions and beliefs. Influence of the Teacher The concern with the role of school in shaping students’ beliefs has been a constant in some studies in education (Elbaum, Berg, & Dodd, 1993; Wittrock, 1986). Elbaum et al. (1993) suggested that teachers’ instructional methods, the curricular content, the activities, assessments, and teacher feedback convey implicit messages to students about the subject, about learning, and about appropriate ways of dealing with tasks. Researchers believe that a correspondence between teachers’ and students’ beliefs results in effective teaching and learning (Brown, 1990; Fang, 1996; Kumaravadivelu, 1991; Schulz, 1996; Wittrock, 1986). Wittrock (1986) contended that knowledge of students’ perceptions and conceptions is the first step towards more effective instruction. Teaching means being able to relearn and accommodate students’ theories and models. To borrow from Paley (1986), “teaching is a daily search for the learners’ point of view” (p. 124). Fang (1996) noted that those students whose conceptions are similar to their teachers’ have a better chance of succeeding. She also explained that school shapes students’ ways of responding to instruction, making some students more adapted to some schools’ types of instruction. In applied linguistics, Horwitz (1988) asserted that, because teachers are likely to be viewed as “experts” by students, they may strongly influence students’ beliefs about what language is and how to learn it. Other studies have also emphasized teachers’
74 influence on students’ beliefs, either in terms of teachers’ actions (Kern, 1995) or in terms of how students’ assumptions about learning are a reflection of traditional learning and teaching systems (Holec, 1987). According to Kern, the messages about learning that students get will come from teachers’ actions – what and how they assess – rather than from the teachers’ words. Thus, students may get different messages from what teachers are trying to communicate. Students come to class with a set of expectations and assumptions about learning and teaching that may not correspond to the teacher’s expectations. That is when a conflict, or mismatch, happens. Mismatch Between Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs Researchers believe that if we want to really understand the classroom culture, we have to understand not only the harmony, but also the conflicts (Block, 1996). The correspondence or similarity between teachers’ and learners’ beliefs is seen as productive to learning and motivating to students and teachers, whereas a conflict between their perceptions is likely to be counterproductive. Johnson (1995) pointed out that students’ misinterpretations of teachers’ expectations and intentions can interfere with students’ learning. She contended that “student learning is enhanced when students accurately perceive teachers’ expectations and intentions,” (p. 40) and I would add, when teachers accurately perceive students’ expectations and intentions as well. Some researchers have suggested that the “teacher and student’s lessons are inevitably different, and are very likely to be in conflict” (Holliday, 1994, p. 143). According to Nunan (1993), “learners do not learn what teachers teach in the simplistic one-to-one way implied by many curricular specifications and assessment tools” (p. 2). Nunan (1995) argued that teachers and learners have different agendas and “while the
75 teacher is busily teaching one thing, the learner is very often focusing on something else” (pp. 134-135). Kumaravadivelu (1991) stated that the greater the convergence and the narrower the gap between teacher intention and learner interpretation, the greater success in learning. The knowledge of the source of mismatch will help teachers teach better and learners learn better. He suggested ten potential sources of mismatch between teacher intention and learner interpretation: cognitive, communicative, linguistic, pedagogic, strategic, cultural, evaluative, procedural, instructional, attitudinal. The mismatch between teachers’ and students’ perceptions is based upon the premise that students do have their own views about the learning process. This assumption became more widely accepted within the communicative approach. This approach encourages teachers to avoid teacher-centered classes and to create a secure, non-threatening atmosphere in class. As pointed out by Block (1992), this shift away from “predominantly teacher-directed approaches to greater learning autonomy has brought with it a redefinition of teacher/student roles” (p. 43). As learners have their own opinions and beliefs about language learning and classroom roles (Kumaravadivelu, 1991), a conflict can be created if students’ views are different from those being advocated in the communicative approach. G. Ellis (1996) pointed out that conflicts resulting from the implementation of the communicative approach may trigger students’ passive resistance or non-learning, breakdown of language production, and frustration. Cortazzi (1990) also suggested that teachers’ enthusiastic embrace of the communicative approach may lead to “the diminution of [teachers’] status and their perceived competence in students’ eyes” (p. 59).
76 Other sorts of problems, not necessarily related to the communicative approach, refer to (a) misunderstanding and miscommunication (Luppescu & Day, 1990), (b) students’ questioning of their teachers’ credibility (Schulz, 1996), (c) learners’ engagement in strategies of which the teacher disapproves (Rees-Miller, 1993, p. 685), and (d) students’ withdrawal and feelings of unhappiness (McCargar, 1993). In short, the conflict can affect learners’ motivations and efforts, and the types of activities they choose to do (Schulz, 1996). Some studies have examined the types of conflicts between teachers’ and students’ perceptions. Two studies have explored teachers’ and students’ perceptions of classroom activities (Barkhuizen, 1998; Nunan, 1993), and one study has compared students’ and teachers’ attitudes about the role of grammar (Schulz, 1996). Nunan (1993) cited his 1986 study in which he found stark contrast and dramatic mismatches between teachers’ and learners’ opinions about the importance of some classroom activities such as formal explanations in class, error correction, vocabulary development, student self-discovery of errors, pair work, and language games. The only activity that was rated high by both teachers and students was conversation practice. Nunan (1989) encouraged teachers to make explicit to learners the objectives of the curriculum and the reasons behind each activity. He suggested that the mismatches should be negotiated between teachers and learners. According to McDonough (1995), because Nunan (in his 1986 study) used a questionnaire, it is difficult to know the reasons why students preferred certain activities instead of others. In addition, the researcher’s meaning of terms in the questionnaire is
77 not specified. It is not clear whether Nunan used “error correction,” to mean “location, identification, or supplying the correct form and so on” (McDonough, 1995, p. 132). Barkhuizen (1998) used student questionnaires and compositions, class observations, individual interviews with teachers, and group interviews with students to investigate learner perceptions about activities. Participants were 60 ESL students from grades 8-11, and their five English teachers in Africa. His results indicated that “students’ perceptions did not always match teachers’ ”(p. 102). Students gave mechanical skills a much higher ranking than teachers expected. He concluded that learners should be encouraged to express their perceptions to themselves and to their teachers because this would allow learners to understand why they are participating in certain activities and how these activities can help them. The knowledge about students’ perceptions would make possible for teachers to plan and implement alternative behaviors and activities for their classes. Schulz (1996) compared student and teacher attitudes about “the role of explicit grammar study in foreign language learning in general” and about error correction (p. 344). She employed a multiple-choice questionnaire with 340 students and 92 teachers in various foreign language courses at The University of Arizona. She found many discrepancies between student and teacher opinions about how to learn foreign languages, such as students’ strong favorable attitudes towards grammar and error correction. The reasons for these discrepancies were related to (a) myths about usefulness of grammar transmitted from generation to generation of foreign language students, (b) predominance in many foreign language classrooms of grammar-based curriculum, practice, and
78 discrete-point testing methods, and (c) students’ personal experiences about the value of learning grammar rules and receiving corrective feedback. These studies have described mismatches between teachers’ and students’ beliefs about classroom activities and about the role of grammar. Other studies, however, have suggested a culture mismatch, a mismatch of teachers’ and student’s metaphors, and a mismatch of teachers’ and students’ beliefs. Table 6 shows a summary of select studies about the mismatches between teachers’ and students’ beliefs and the studies on culture and metaphor mismatch. Culture mismatch. Eleven years ago, Horwitz (1987) suggested a cultural mismatch between students and teachers from different cultures. Some studies have investigated this type of mismatch (Jin & Cortazzi, 1998; Lutz, 1990; McCargar, 1993). Lutz (1990) explored the perceptions of Japanese students studying in the United States and those of American educators, using both questionnaires and interviews. He used 5-point Likert scale questionnaires, which were distributed to 27 Japanese students and 24 teachers. The survey focused primarily on organization and participation within the classroom setting, including perceptions of good students and good teacher behavior. The results showed a match between American teachers and American students and widespread mismatch between Japanese students and American faculty on questions about the role of the teacher and students. Whereas Japanese students agreed that students should not interrupt in the middle of lectures to ask questions, American teachers expected them to do that.
79 Table 6 Summary of Studies about Teachers’ and Students’ Belief, Culture, and Metaphor Mismatch Studies
Purpose
Participants
Method
Results
Lutz, 1990
To explore perceptions of Japanese students and their American teachers about good student and teacher behavior.
27 Japanese students and 24 American teachers
Likert-scale questionnaires and interviews
A mismatch was found between Japanese students and American teachers about teacher and student roles.
Block, 1990, 1992
To investigate teachers’ and students’ metaphors about teacher and learner roles.
22 Spanish students of English and 14 teachers
Teacher and student interviews.
A mismatch was found between teachers’ and students’ metaphors.
McCargar, 1993
To compare role expectations held by ESL students and their American ESL teachers.
161 ESL students and 41 ESL teachers
Likert-scale survey
A mismatch was found between teachers and students’ beliefs about error correction.
Kern, 1995
To examine the correspondence between American foreign language teachers and their students.
280 students of French and 12 instructors
BALLI questionnaire
Students and teachers’ beliefs were similar overall, but showed differences individually.
Schulz, 1996
To compare teacher and students’ attitudes about the role of grammar and error correction.
824 American foreign language students and 92 instructors
Questionnaires
Students and teachers held different beliefs about the role of grammar and error correction.
Allen, 1996
To examine how a teacher’s beliefs influence her student’s beliefs.
One ESL student and his teacher at an ESL institute in Canada
Interviews, student diaries, and classroom observation
Student’s beliefs became more similar to his teacher’s.
80 Table 6: Continued Studies
Purpose
Participants
Method
Results
Kuntz, 1997
To compare the beliefs of students and their teachers of Arabic.
27 students and 10 teachers of Arabic in the US
Questionnaires
A mismatch was found between teachers’ and students’ beliefs about error correction and use of translation.
Barkhuizen, 1998
To investigate students’ perceptions about activities.
60 ESL students (from grades 8-11) 5 English teachers in Africa
Student questionnaires and compositions, classroom observations, individual interviews with teachers and group interviews with students
Students gave mechanical skills a much higher ranking than teachers expected.
McCargar (1993) examined and compared the role expectations held by 161 ESL students from seven countries and those of 41 American ESL teachers by using a Likertscale survey. The results showed that students and teachers disagreed in terms of how much students wanted to be corrected. Students clearly wanted more error correction than teachers wanted to give (p. 200). Richards (1998) cited a study by Brindley (1984) that showed some of the different kinds of beliefs that Western teachers and Asian students have. The results of that study indicated that whereas teachers believed that the teacher was a resource person whose role was to assist learners in becoming self-directed, learners believed that the teacher had the knowledge and should impart it through activities, explanations, and examples.
81 Jin and Cortazzi (1998), in a theoretical study, discussed and compared the basic assumptions and beliefs of the cultures of learning of British professors and Chinese students. They defined this term as “culturally based ideas about teaching and learning, about appropriate ways of participating in class, about whether and how to ask questions” (p. 100). They contended that both students and teachers have to become aware of each other’s culture of learning and that greater mismatches are more likely to happen between teachers and students from different cultures. Metaphor mismatch. The use of metaphors to investigate beliefs has been recognized as a useful tool. According to Riley (1996) “metaphorical domains can themselves be regarded as belief systems” (p. 142). Recent studies have used metaphors to investigate learners’ beliefs about language learning (Block, 1990, 1992; R. Ellis, 1999; Swales, 1994). Although Block (1990, 1992) did not use the word beliefs, in his 1997 article, he acknowledged that those studies dealt with “the gap in teacher and learner beliefs about language learning and classroom roles” (p. 354). Block (1990) interviewed 22 adult learners and 14 teachers of English in a language school in Spain about language learning and about teacher and learner roles. His study showed that teachers saw themselves as guides and nurturing parents, whereas students saw teachers as controllers of the classroom. Block explained that the misfit might be due to a difference in point of departure. While students believed that their job was to pay for the course, invest time and effort just to make it to the classroom, the teacher’s job was to do the rest. Teachers, on the other hand, believed they should coordinate language learning and help students with an environment conducive to learning while students should do the learning. Block also mentioned that teachers and
82 students differed in the sources of their beliefs. Teachers were informed by a combination of what they read in language periodicals, conferences, and conversation with colleagues down the hall. Students relied on “their own long experience as students coupled with whatever ELT [English Language Teaching] theory filters down to them through comments made by teachers in class” (p. 41). Block (1992) reported on his 1990 study, this time exploring more in depth the metaphors that teachers and students employed to talk about their roles. The teachers made use of common metaphors for teachers in the literature describing themselves, as contracted professionals and supportive parents and learners as active clients. Learners’ metaphors about teachers, however, were a bit more complex. Learners portrayed the teacher (a) as a researcher, that is, trying to find effective methods; (b) as God who sees all and knows all and is able to control everything in class; (c) as a “friend/comrade who cooperates with students” and is aware of students’ difficulties or problems; (d) as an enforcer, who makes sure things get done (p. 49). Learners depicted themselves in a similar way to teachers. However, they equated going to class with interest, something which teachers did not mention. Block explained that this view could be related to the fact that these learners pay high fees to study in that institution. They were willing to take responsibility only to a certain point. Block concluded that these metaphors of teachers as facilitators only generate solutions in the classroom if learners’ views are congruent with those of their teachers. Belief mismatch. To date, only three studies have investigated the relationship between teachers’ and students’ beliefs5 (Allen, 1996; Kern, 1995; Kuntz, 1997). Of these
5
I am referring to studies that explicitly used the word “beliefs.” It is obvious that the studies reviewed above, although using different terminology, ultimately refer to students’ and teachers’ beliefs.
83 three studies, just one (Allen, 1996) employed classroom observation. Kern (1995) and Kuntz (1997) used the BALLI and compared students’ and teachers’ answers to the questionnaire items. Kern (1995) examined the degree to which American foreign language students’ beliefs about language learning corresponded to those of their teachers. The BALLI was given at the beginning and at the end of the semester. Students were not matched with their respective instructors. The results were not conclusive. They indicated that overall, students’ and teachers’ beliefs were similar, but individually, they showed differences. He concluded that teachers’ beliefs might be influential on an individual basis. It is important to highlight some of Kern’s conclusions. First, he suggested that teachers’ practice, including written exercises and ways of assessment, may have a greater impact on students’ beliefs than the teachers’ beliefs. Second, the degree of “fitness” between teachers’ and students’ beliefs may “be related or depend on other factors such as instructors’ personalities, teaching styles, level of experience, grading practices, choices and implementation of classroom activities” (p. 80). Third and finally, teachers’ practice may not be consistent with their beliefs because of disagreement with the program that they have to follow. Kern suggested that ethnographic research that employs classroom observation and in-depth interviews of students would be able to account for these discrepancies. Kuntz (1997) examined and compared the beliefs of 27 adult students and 10 teachers of Arabic in the US. She used the Kuntz-Rifkin Instrument (KRI) with five demographic statements and 47 statements, in Likert-scale format. The results suggested that there were differences between students’ and teachers’ beliefs. The problem with
84 Kuntz’ research is that she gave the same questionnaire to teachers and students. On the one hand, this is good because she had the same statements to compare. On the other hand, some of the statements did not apply to teachers or to students. Allen (1996) investigated the extent to which a teacher’s beliefs about language learning influenced a learner’s established beliefs and perceptions of success and the learner’s own language learning behavior. She also examined how, if at all, the learner’s behaviors, strategies, and perceptions of his own language learning success were affected as a result of this influence. Her subject was from Libya. He was an intermediate-level student of English for Academic Purposes at Carleton School of Linguistics, in Canada. The methodology included classroom observations and teacher and student interviews. Classroom observations centered on the student’s and teacher’s in-class behavior, verbalizations, and explanations. The teacher interviews focused on his pedagogical approaches in the language classroom and plans for the lessons, whereas the learner interviews and written diary concentrated on his beliefs and perceptions about success in language learning. The author also looked at course textbook, handouts, and additional materials prepared by the teacher. The results indicated that the student seemed to have been affected by his teacher’s beliefs about language learning. At first the student believed that the teacher was responsible for his learning, that interaction with native speakers was best for his learning, and that he should have a native-like pronunciation. The teacher believed that learners did not have to have a native-like pronunciation. The teacher also emphasized in class the role of learners as responsible for their learning. At the end of the term, the student’s beliefs had become more similar to the teacher’s. According to Allen, “these
85 evolving criteria, in turn, had an effect on his [the student’s] sense of his level of success and his language learning behaviors and strategies” (p. 79). Summary of the Section on Teachers’ and Students’ Beliefs It has been suggested that teachers exert strong influence on students’ beliefs because of their position of authority and expertise in the classroom. However, students and teachers also have very different beliefs about their own roles and about the learning process. This conflict of perceptions may bring miscommunication. The studies about belief mismatch have not presented conclusive results, partly because the methodologies adopted in most studies have failed to investigate beliefs according to participants’ meanings. Moreover, the problems and consequences of the mismatch between teachers’ and student’s beliefs were not addressed in many studies. Allen (1996) is the only researcher who investigated teachers’ and students’ beliefs in context focusing on participants’ own perspectives. Through classroom observation and student diaries, her results indicated that the student changed his beliefs according to his teachers’ beliefs. However, Allen’s study did not consider the student’s influence on the teacher’s beliefs. Conclusion The theoretical framework has argued that Dewey’s concept of experience and his ideas on beliefs as paradoxical and context bound are useful in investigating LLB. It was also suggested that beliefs are related to learners’ and teachers’ identities and that the cultural and social nature of the classroom should be considered in the investigation of their beliefs. These aspects are largely missing in most LLB studies. Although the contextual approach considers beliefs as dynamic, interactive, and social, there are very
86 few studies within this approach. Most studies continue to use questionnaires alone, without giving students a chance to talk about beliefs that they consider significant in their language learning experiences. The studies about language teachers’ beliefs have shown how context is important. In order to understand the influence of beliefs on teachers’ and learners’ approach to teaching and learning and the relationship between their beliefs we have to look at learning and teaching experiences from their own perspectives. In Chapter III, I argue that ethnographic research is appropriate to the investigation of the relationship between teachers’ and learners’ LLB. I present the results of the pilot study. I also describe the setting, the participants, and the procedures to gain entry to the site and to collect data. I conclude the Chapter by discussing issues of credibility and trustworthiness.
87
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Qualitative inquiry cultivates the most useful of all human capacities – the capacity to learn from others. (Patton, 1990, p. 7) Introduction This Chapter describes the design, methods, and process of research. I first present the assumptions and rationale for using ethnography, followed by a description of the setting, participants, data collection procedures, and analysis. I then explore the issues of credibility and trustworthiness as well as ethical considerations of this investigation. This study investigates the relationship between the beliefs about language learning of three American ESL teachers and three Brazilian students at an English language institute in the southern United States. The main argument is that beliefs are experience based. Thus, in order to understand them, it is essential to look at the context of the classroom and how participants give meaning to their actions and to each other’s actions and beliefs. The following research questions guided the inquiry: 1. What kinds of language learning beliefs do ESL teachers have? Do their beliefs inform their practice? 2. What kinds of language learning beliefs do students have? Are they similar to or different from the beliefs the teachers express (explicitly or implicitly through their practice)?
88
3. How do teachers’ language learning beliefs and their classroom practice and discourse influence students’ language learning beliefs? 4. How do students’ language learning beliefs and actions affect the teachers’ beliefs and practice? 5. How do students’ and teachers’ language learning beliefs evolve, if at all, across a given period of time? These questions imply descriptions and understandings of experience. Thus, an interpretive qualitative method was chosen for this investigation. Assumptions and Rationale for Ethnography Ethnography is the study of people’s culture. Ethnographers attempt to “make sense of human social behavior in terms of cultural patterning” (Wolcott, 1995, p. 83). Ethnography seems appropriate to investigate the relationship between teachers’ and students’ beliefs for several reasons. First, ethnography emphasizes understanding events from an emic perspective, that is, the perspectives of the participants themselves. In this study, this will be particularly helpful to understand teachers’ and students’ perspectives and actions (Fetterman, 1998; van Lier, 1990). Second, ethnography assumes a holistic outlook and tries to understand a multilayered and interrelated context (Fetterman, 1998; van Lier, 1990), making it suitable to accommodate the paradoxical nature of beliefs in this investigation. Third and finally, ethnography focuses on what people say, how they act, and the tensions between the two (Creswell, 1998). In other words, ethnography seeks to understand the tacit rules that govern behavior (Holliday, 1996). As stated by
89 Rokeach (1968) and Pajares (1992), beliefs must be inferred from statements, intentions, and actions. Is the study of teachers’ and students’ beliefs ethnographic? There is some controversy about what is considered an ethnographic study. Researchers such as Wolcott (1987) stated that field techniques, such as interviewing, participant observation, or triangulation by themselves do not make a study ethnographic. Neither does time in the field, good description, or good rapport with subjects. According to Wolcott, a study is ethnographic only if there is description and interpretation of cultural behavior. Following this definition, then, this study would be ethnographic only “in intent,” with borrowed techniques from ethnography (p. 43). Beliefs are part of culture (Jin & Cortazzi, 1993). Part of the ethnographer’s task in understanding a culture and in interpreting people’s behavior is to make explicit their values and beliefs (Riley, 1996). Thus, this study can be said to be ethnographic since the purpose is to understand students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning as part of the culture of learning and culture of teaching. The culture of learning involves students’ thoughts, opinions, beliefs about the best way to learn a language, roles of teachers and students, and other beliefs pertaining to language learning. Similarly, the culture of teaching involves teachers’ beliefs about teaching, teacher and learner roles, and other ideas related to their understanding of their work. Thus, the cultural intent is present in the description of students’ and teachers’ beliefs and actions in their language classrooms. The language classroom is viewed as a cultural setting with shared values and beliefs and its own norms of behavior (Antón, 1996; Breen, 1985; Davis, 1995).
90 Ethnographers attempt to make explicit what is implicit and tacit to informants (Spindler & Spindler, 1987). Other characteristics of ethnography that apply to this study, according to Nunan (1992, p. 56) and Spindler and Spindler (1987, pp., 18-19), are as follows: 1. Contextual: The researcher carried out the investigation in the context where subjects worked or studied (Nunan, 1992; Spindler & Spindler, 1987). 2. Unobtrusive: The researcher avoided manipulation of the phenomena being investigated (Nunan, 1992). 3. Longitudinal: The researcher spent over four months in the field (Nunan, 1992; Spindler & Spindler, 1987). 4. Collaborative: The researcher, teachers, and students were involved in collaboration during the study (Nunan, 1992). 5. Interpretive: The researcher interpreted participants’ meanings and actions, and the tensions between the two (Nunan, 1992; Spindler & Spindler, 1987). 6. Organic: The research questions, data collection, and interpretation interacted with each other and emerged from the data (Nunan, 1992; Spindler & Spindler, 1987) Setting Many overseas students come to the US to pursue an undergraduate or graduate degree. Other overseas students come specifically to study or learn English. Both types of students, if not yet proficient in English, first come to English language institutes where English is taught as a second language.
91 The setting of this study was an English language institute, which I called Southern English Institute (SLI), at a large southeastern university in the US. This setting was chosen for two reasons. First, the purpose of this study was to investigate Brazilian students’ language learning beliefs (LLB) while they were learning ESL. The place where they do that in the US, or other English speaking countries for that matter, is at English language institutes. Second, in order to examine a group of students in depth and do extensive observation of classes, it is important to concentrate on just one setting. Description of SLI The SLI was founded in 1982. It serves a large and diverse population of students from around the world. In the last three years (1996-1999), most of the international students have come from Asia (55%), South and Central America (18%), and the Middle East (17.6%). Other students come from Europe (5.4%) and Africa (2.8%). The average age of the students at SLI is 22. Brazilian students make up for just 1.27% per session. The average age of Brazilian students is 24. The majority of the international students (65%-75%) come to study at the university or other universities in the US. The rest of students come only for a short term (one or two sessions) in order to study or improve their English. Brazilians are included in this last category. The SLI has a central location at the university, which makes it convenient for students to walk from their dorms on campus. The facilities include seven classrooms, the administration offices that comprise the Director’s office and the Associate Director’s office, a waiting room for students, an area with books and copy machines for teachers, and a computer/resource lab for students. The classrooms are spacious and lighted and have a nice atmosphere. Students go to the resource center in their free time to listen to
92 cassettes or to watch films and programs in English to help them improve their listening skills. The international tone of SLI is set not only by the presence of many different groups of students, but also by the pictures of all the past groups of students and teachers that have been at SLI. All the walls in the halls are filled with the pictures, which include students’ names and their countries of origin. The SLI has a Director, an Assistant Director for External Programs, an Assistant Director for Internal Programs, and a faculty staff of 11 teachers (as of January 1999). Teachers come from different parts of the US, such as the Northeast, Central, Southwest, and Midwest. All of them hold a Master’s degree in TESOL or applied linguistics. The main purpose of the SLI is to prepare students to enter successfully a university program by helping them to improve their English language skills. The SLI provides classes on communication skills, academic writing, conversational skills for different levels, and TOEFL (Test of English as Foreign Language) preparation. The TOEFL is required of all international students whose native language is not English to enter an American university. The SLI also offers optional courses such as American culture, pronunciation, and programs that encourage students to speak with native speakers of English informally, such as the Exchange Partner Program and the Conversation Partner Program. The former pairs students of different languages with American students who are studying those languages. The latter teams up undergraduate or graduate American students once a week with international students so they can practice English. Students also have opportunities to visit local schools to talk about their native countries, and to engage in social activities organized by the SLI, such as visits to museums and field trips.
93 The academic year at the SLI comprises five sessions of eight weeks each. There are two sessions in the spring semester, one in the summer, and two in the fall. Students may join the program at the beginning of each session. This makes it easier for overseas students to come at different times of the year. Before the beginning of a new session, all students take a placement exam that assigns them to one of the six levels of study (see Appendix A for a list of all levels at the SLI). The placement test consists of four parts, 30 minutes each: structure (50 questions), reading (32 questions), writing (one topic), and a five-to ten-minute interview with two teachers. This in-house test is the same every session; only the writing topic varies. The interview usually focuses on questions about students’ family, country of origin, likes and dislikes, and hobbies. They start with these basic questions and then proceed to more advanced questions. The Structure test has been revised since the data collection. Students may take a replacement test if, after attending the first day of classes, they think that any of the levels is too low or too high. If a student thinks that the Structure level is too high, he or she takes only the structure part of the test. According to one of the teachers, the percentage of students who retake the test varies from session to session, but it is usually between 5% and 10% of the students. Only 1% are actually reassigned. Students do not receive any individual feedback about their placement tests nor are they allowed to see their corrected placement tests; however, they can talk to the director to find out the percentage of correct answers. Students participate in an orientation session when they first start studying at the SLI. In this session, they receive information about the institute, the university, and the characteristics of American classrooms. They receive a student handbook that gives them
94 details about social customs in the US and academic information about their SLI, their courses, and university life. Description of the Courses Four courses were observed in spring 1999: Structure 2, Spoken English 3, Reading/Writing 3, and Structure 3. I observed each course three times a week during each session. The choice of the courses was based on the ones that the Brazilian students were taking. I tried to have a schedule that would allow me to observe at least one course with at least one Brazilian student. In the first session of spring 1999, there were three Brazilian students. I chose to observe two of them. I observed one female student, Karina,1 in a Structure 2 class, and a male student, Lauro, in a Spoken English 3 class. In the second session of spring 1999, there was only one Brazilian student, Carla. I observed her in two classes: Structure 3 and Reading/Writing 3. The Reading/Writing teacher was a participant in this study in the first session. I decided to observe him teaching a different class because this would help in the triangulation of data. Furthermore, since I had not observed any Reading/Writing class before, it would allow me to have a complete picture of all the core courses taught at the SLI. Teachers followed a content curriculum and a book that was chosen by the SLI for each level. Although the SLI did not mandate any specific approach, the program seemed to be oriented towards the communicative approach. The SLI allowed teachers a lot of freedom, and all three teachers participating in this study mentioned this. Teachers prepared their own tests and gave them as often as they thought appropriate. I describe each of the courses below. Information about each course is summarized in Table 7.
95 Table 7 Summary of Information about the Courses Course
Teacher
Length of course
Lessons per week
Time of the lesson
Level
Class size
Spoken 3
Jack
8 weeks
5
50 min
Intermediate
15
Reading/ Writing 3
Jack
8 weeks
5
1:50 min
Intermediate
10
Structure 2
Emily
8 weeks
5
50 min
Beginners
9
Structure 3
Flora
8 weeks
5
50 min
Intermediate
10
Structure 2 Emily was the teacher for this course. Students had Structure classes every day from 9:00-9:50 am. The room had a square shape, with six rows of five desks. There were three big glass windows with blinds, which made it a bright room. There was a big blackboard in the front and a small desk for the teacher. Opposite the blackboard, there was a large world map covering almost the entire wall. On the wall opposite the windows, there was a clock and a picture. It was a comfortable classroom. There were nine students in the class – three from Asia, four from South America, one from Europe, and one from the Middle East. According to the curriculum overview, Structure classes are aimed at helping learners to understand and communicate clearly in English by practicing grammar structures through speaking and writing. The curriculum emphasized that students should engage in exchange of real information, focusing on the message and not on the form or a list of structures. The language used in class “should resemble as much as possible the
1
All names are pseudonyms.
96 language used by native speakers” (SLI Course Curriculum Handbook, p. 1). Certain structures should be taught in Structure 2 (see Appendix B for a summary of the structures taught in Structure 2). When I did the member checking with Emily in January 2000, she told me that, in fact, teachers usually followed the structures from the units in the book adopted for each level. She also explained that the curriculum for all courses had been revised since the time I collected data. The book used for this level seemed to be based on the principles of the communicative approach.2 The layout was different in that it did not have only slot-filler grammar exercises, but it contained many pictures, listening exercises and dialogues that required students to use the grammar expressions they learned. Students used this book only for Level 1 and 2. Structure 3 Flora taught Structure 3 in Session II of spring 1999. Students had Structure 3 classes every day from 9:00-9:50 am. There were 10 students altogether in the class – four from Asia, four from South America, and two from the Middle East. The classroom was similar to other classrooms at SLI. There was a big blackboard in the front and a large world map opposite the blackboard. The windows with blinds were on the right side. There were three pictures on different sides of the walls. Appendix C shows the types of structures taught in Structure 3. The book adopted was different from Structure 2.3 Unlike the book used for level 2, it did not have listening
2
Schoemberg, I.E. (1994). Focus on grammar: A basic course for reference and practice. White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley, Longman. 3 Azar, B. S. (1999). Understanding and using English Grammar (3rd edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
97 exercises or many role-plays. It contained more exercises with more discrete items such as slot-fillers. Spoken English 3 Jack was the teacher for Spoken English 3. We met in the same room everyday from 1:00-1:50 p.m. There were 15 students in this class. It was very crowded by SLI standards, but the class was not split. This was a very lively group of seven students from Asia, three from South America, two from Europe, two from the Middle East, and one from Africa. In Spoken English 3, students should improve their listening and speaking proficiency by practicing listening comprehension, pronunciation, conversation management, and vocabulary. The program emphasized conversation management skills as a vital component of the Spoken English class. As can be seen in the description of the course in Appendix D, listening and pronunciation skills were not emphasized as much as conversation management skills. According to the program, listening and pronunciation skills would be acquired “as successful communication in the second language takes place” (SLI Course Curriculum Handbook, section for Spoken English, p. 1). In other words, students would, in most cases, learn pronunciation by hearing and understanding other people, then saying and using the target word. Their feedback would come from the listener’s understanding and acceptance of the word (SLI Course Curriculum Handbook, section for Spoken English, p. 1). Similarly, error correction should be covert. Teachers should not interrupt students’ expressions of ideas and make them anxious by correcting their mistakes. As we will see later, one of the students had very different beliefs about these aspects.
98
The Spoken English 3 class did not adopt any book. The teacher usually brought handouts to students with topics that they discussed in class (see Appendix E for samples of some of the handouts). The handouts illustrate the emphasis on conversation management skills. Reading and Writing 3 Jack was the teacher for Reading/Writing 3 in Session II of spring 1999. The class met every day from 10:00-11:50 am. There were seven students from Asia, two from South America, and one from the Middle East. The class met in a room at the Engineering Department, across from the SLI building. This did not resemble a language classroom at all. The ceiling was low; there was no world map, no pictures of cities of the US. Instead, upon entering the classroom, on the left side there was an old bookshelf with books on physics or engineering. In the back of the room, there was a big measurement instrument. The Reading/Writing curriculum aimed at preparing students “to function successfully at the freshman level in US university courses where extensive reading and academic essay writing are required” (Course Curriculum Handbook, Reading/Writing Section, p. 1). Through the five levels of Reading/Writing, students learn to develop effective reading strategies for different types of texts, and to respond effectively to what they read. In addition, they write in different formats and for a variety of purposes by “actively thinking, drafting, and revising their work using a workshop process” (Course Curriculum Handbook, Reading/Writing Section, p. 1). At level 3, students work with longer and more detailed texts. They expand their vocabulary knowledge and work on
99 “skills and strategies such as previewing, questioning a text, and reviewing” (p. 2). They paraphrase and reconstruct ideas in their own words. They learn to work with computers and write a variety of longer pieces with introduction, body, and conclusion. (Course Curriculum Handbook, p. 1-3). Appendix F shows the objectives for Reading/Writing 3. The book adopted for this class was quite current.4 It had short texts and vocabulary exercises. Some of the exercises involved finding information and the main ideas of a text. There were illustrations, pre-reading activities, and discussion questions. Some of the texts were about environmental issues, American history and culture, superstitions, among others. The teacher liked this book. Participants Participants were selected with opportunity and convenience taken into account. Patton (1990) called this a purposeful sample. The participants in this study were three American teachers of ESL and three Brazilian students. I decided to investigate Brazilian students for three reasons. The first reason is related to my previous research with language learning beliefs of Brazilian students (Barcelos, 1995). In that study, students expressed their belief in the target-language country as the best place to learn English. This belief would probably be true for at least some of the students in this study. A second reason was to be able to interview students in their native language. This fact allowed me to interview Brazilian students of any level at the SLI without limiting myself to only advanced-level students who would be able to communicate more fluently in English. Sharing the same culture and having some knowledge about the teaching of English in Brazil was also important to understand students’ beliefs.
100 A third reason for choosing Brazilians relates to getting a unique look at their experiences learning English in an ESL environment where neither the teacher nor the classmates speak their native language. This knowledge may be useful to me as an English teacher in Brazil. I may be able to help future students who intend to study abroad. Although my focus was on Brazilian students, I also interviewed three students from different countries (Korea, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia). However, they were not included in this study for two main reasons. First, because the Korean and Venezuelan students were not very fluent in English, their interview data did not yield much information that helped in answering the research questions. Second, there was not enough time to conduct more than two interviews with them. I was able to interview another Brazilian student; nevertheless, for pragmatic reasons, it was not possible to observe him in the classes he was taking, and he was not included in this study. Teachers Emily Emily was among the newest and maybe youngest of the teachers at SLI. She was 29 years old. She had been teaching at SLI for only one year at the time the study was conducted. She was originally from the Midwest and held an MA in applied linguistics. She had taught in Europe for three years before getting this job at SLI. She liked working at SLI very much. I found her a bit shy, but very reflective and motivated to teach. Jack Jack was 45 years old and was the most experienced teacher at SLI, where he had been teaching for 11 years. This was his first job after his graduation. He was originally 4
Blanchard, K. & Root, C. (1996). For your information 2. White Plains, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.
101 from the Midwest and held an MA in TESOL. He had spent one year teaching in Korea, and another year teaching in Saudi Arabia. Jack seemed to be a very reserved person and very low-key. Flora Flora was 35 years old. She was from the southwestern US and had been teaching at SLI for seven years altogether. She held an MA in TESOL from the university where the study was conducted. Flora was an extroverted person with students and with people in general. She was also very reflective about her teaching. Table 8 summarizes information about the teachers. Table 8 Summary of Information about the Teachers Teachers
Age
Degree
Courses taught in spring 1999
Emily
29
MA TESOL
Structure 2 Spoken English 4 Reading/Writing 3
Jack
45
MA TESOL
Session I: Structure 2 Spoken English 3 Reading/Writing 5 Session II: Structure 2 Spoken English 2 Reading/Writing 3
Flora
35
MA TESOL
Structure 3 Reading/Writing 2 Spoken English 1 Graduate course for Teaching Assistants
102 Students The three Brazilian students were all from the city of São Paulo, in São Paulo state, in the Southeast region in Brazil. The all had had previous experiences studying English in Brazil. Table 9 provides a summary of information about the students. Table 9 Summary of Information about the Students Students
Age
Job
Courses taken at SLI
Karina
26
Master’s student of Psychology
Structure 2 Spoken English 3 Reading/Writing 3
Lauro
36
University Professor
Structure 3 Spoken English 3 Reading/Writing 4
Carla
25
Just graduated in Business Administration
Structure 3 Spoken English 3 Reading/Writing 3
Karina Karina was 25 years old. She was a Master’s student of psychology in Brazil. She came with her husband, Lauro, to study English at SLI for four weeks during the first session of spring 1999. Karina had been studying English in Brazil for two years at a private English school before she came to the US. She was placed in Structure 2, Spoken English 3, and Reading/Writing 3. Karina was a very sweet person, very reflective, and more reserved than her husband. Lauro Lauro, a 36-year-old male from Brazil with a Ph.D. in School Psychology, was a professor at a private university in Brazil. He intended to pursue a post-doctoral degree in
103 the US. Lauro had traveled a lot and had visited the US and Europe many times. In these trips, he used English to communicate. He came with his wife, Karina, to study at SLI for four weeks during the first session of spring 1999. He was placed in Reading/Writing 4, Structure 3, and Spoken English 3. He was a very mature person and very extroverted. I had a good rapport with Lauro and his wife, Karina; after they went back to Brazil, we occasionally emailed each other. They told me in one of those emails that they were planning to come back to SLI for another half session in spring 2000. However, in mid-October, 1999, his wife sent me an email informing me that Lauro had been in a car accident and had passed away. I felt very sorry and very sad. Carla Carla was 25 years old and had just graduated in Business/Administration in Brazil. She came to SLI to study English for six months, but illness in the family made her go back to Brazil after three months at SLI. Carla had studied English for two years in a prestigious binational English center in Brazil when she was a teenager. She then studied in another private English school just before coming to the US. She was placed in level 3 of Reading/Writing, Structure, and Spoken English. Carla was very shy and sensitive. Data Collection Procedures Gaining Entry to the Site My first contact with SLI was through an academic friend who worked there. In 1997, I worked on a pilot project where I interviewed him and two Brazilian students who were taking his Spoken English 1 class. This friend left SLI after a year and another academic friend started working there. I observed one of her classes for an assignment in
104 one of my graduate courses. She introduced me to the director of SLI. At that point, I briefly mentioned to him my intention of conducting research at SLI. He welcomed the idea. In November 1998, I contacted the director of SLI and asked him for permission to conduct research at SLI in spring 1999. I explained the purposes of my research to him, and he was very receptive to my doing research there. He then invited me to take part in a faculty meeting in early December 1998 so that I could make the first contact with the teachers, introduce myself, and explain my research. In this meeting, I spoke briefly about the purposes of the research, the type of data collection it would involve, and the amount of time it would take. The teachers seemed to be very interested in the research. Two days before classes started in January 1999, I emailed the SLI director asking if there were any Brazilian students. He told me there were three. I then went for the orientation session for all international students to try to meet the Brazilian students. I met and spoke to Karina and Lauro and asked if they would be interested in participating in my research. They agreed. The next day, the first day of classes, I went to SLI. The director told me the students’ schedule of classes. I chose to observe each student in different classes they had. That day I observed all three Brazilians. However, I realized that observing three students in three different classes and conducting three interviews with all of them would be too much. Thus, I decided to keep observing classes of only two Brazilians, Lauro and Karina. The teachers already knew that I would be conducting research at SLI. On the first day, I asked them if I could observe their classes. After class, I explained my
105 research purposes and asked if they were interested in participating. I gave them a letter explaining the purposes and procedures of the research and the informed consent for them to sign (see Appendix I for examples of the letter and informed consent). My entry in Session II was easier since I already knew some of the teachers. I asked the teachers I had worked with if they would like to continue being part of the study and they agreed. On the first day of classes, I found out that there was one Brazilian student who was in Jack’s class, and in Flora’s class. Thus, I decided to concentrate on those classes. Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted during spring 1997. The sample was purposeful (Patton, 1990). I decided to observe a class of a teacher I already knew at SLI to make my entry easy. My idea was to interview all students in the course. However, the course was for beginners and the students, who were from different countries, were not fluent in English. Then the teacher told me there were two students from Brazil in this class, so I decided to interview those two students in Portuguese. The course was Spoken English 1. The content was organized around several communicative and real-life situations with the objective of helping students speak the language. Some of the situations were visiting the doctor, going to a restaurant, calling a friend, and so forth. There were eight students altogether in this course. They were from Korea, Colombia, Japan, Saudi-Arabia, and Brazil. Participants. The three participants were the teacher, Paul, and two Brazilian students, one male, Emerson, and one female, Dolores. All names are pseudonyms.
106 Paul was an experienced ESL teacher who had been teaching at the language institute for 10 years. He was currently working on his Ph.D. and had read extensively in the field of English language teaching. Emerson was a 35-year-old male who worked as an accountant in Brazil. He had previously studied English in public schools in Brazil, but did not think he knew English. He wanted to study English because it was important for his job. He explained that he decided to study in the US because he found out that it would be cheaper to come to the US for a few months than to pay for a private English school in Brazil. He was a quiet man, but very friendly, and he was very cooperative during the interview. Dolores, a 24-year-old female, studied business administration in Brazil. She had studied English in a public school in Brazil, but thought that she could not speak or understand a word of English. Her reasons for coming abroad, like Emerson’s, were professional. She was a very talkative person and was very cooperative during the whole data gathering process. Data collection. Three sources of data gathering were used: teacher and student interviews (one interview with each participant – three altogether), two classroom observations, and my field notes. The students’ interviews took about 45 minutes each. They were interviewed individually, at the researcher’s office at the university. The interviews were recorded with their permission; no notes were taken during the interviews in order not to make students feel nervous. The interview with the teacher was also tape recorded. It was conducted in his office and took approximately 30 minutes. Both Paul and Dolores received a copy of the transcribed interview so that they could check it. Neither of them
107 changed anything. Unfortunately, Emerson was not able to check his interview transcripts before he went back to Brazil. I observed two classes of Spoken English I. The first observation took place before I had interviewed any participants. I tried to be open and take notes about what happened in the class. The second and last observation took place after I had interviewed all the participants. I took notes focusing on the participants’ actions in the classroom. Data analysis. Data analysis was based on the principles of qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Patton, 1990). Each interview was unitized according to chunks of meaning. These units were then entered on index cards and similar units were grouped together into one category. Propositional statements were made for each of these categories. Then, each card in the category was reviewed to watch for anomalies and conflicts. Finally, all categories were reviewed for possible relationships among them. During this process, I always referred to the research questions to keep track of my own decisions. I also cross-examined each category from the interview with the data from the class observation, trying to see similarities and patterns, as well as watching for negative evidences and contradictions. Results of the pilot study. The teacher expressed his beliefs about his role as a facilitator and the learners’ role as those responsible for their own learning. Learners expressed their beliefs about their personal ability and the ideal age to learn languages. Emerson showed more concern with the formal aspect of the language (grammar) and reported using strategies consistent with this belief, such as studying verbs on his own at home. Emerson also expressed his expectations of a more grammar-based class and was somewhat frustrated because the teacher did not provide much grammar explanation.
108 Dolores, however, expressed her belief in the social aspect of the language; she showed a strong desire that classes employ more conversation and unplanned activities, instead of the ones planned by the book. This belief influenced how she perceived her teachers in general. She favored teachers who were able to depart from their language lessons and accommodate unexpected events or questions raised by students. Both learners strongly believed that the target-language country was the best place to learn English and were constantly comparing their progress with their learning experience in Brazil. Both of them believed that they were able to learn more in less time in the US than in Brazil. They both believed that the teacher should care about students and be enthusiastic. They also complained about the fast pace of the class. This fast pace, they believed, did not allow them to do other things besides what was planned and made them miss opportunities for learning. The interviews and classes observed were too few to reach any conclusive answers about the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and learners’ beliefs. However, the results seemed to suggest a mismatch, at least about how teachers and learners defined their own roles in the process. Whereas the teacher saw himself as a facilitator, students wanted him to be more of a friendly authority figure who should depart from his lesson plans in favor of opportunities for learning raised by students in class or experienced by students at the language institute. The pilot study showed that it is possible to investigate teachers’ and students’ beliefs by using interviews and classroom observations. However, this has to be a longitudinal project that allows the researcher to observe extensively how teachers’ and students’ beliefs relate to each other. After doing the pilot study it became clear that
109 longitudinal work with many interviews and much classroom observation time would help in understanding the relationship between teachers’ and students’ beliefs. Data Collection Methods Data for this study were collected from teachers, students, and the researcher, thus allowing data triangulation. Table 10 summarizes the data collection procedures used in this study and the purposes of each instrument. The following data gathering instruments were used. Class Observations Observations of classes took place in spring 1999, from January through the beginning of May (2 sessions of 8 weeks each). The classes observed for this study were Structure 2 and Spoken 3 in Session I, and Structure 3 and Reading/Writing 3 in Session II. I observed these classes three times a week, with 19 observations for each class (except Spoken 3, for which I observed 18 classes). My role was that of a participant observer. A detailed account of my role is found at the end of this Chapter. I wrote my observation notes in a stiff-backed notebook with a clear separation of the descriptive field notes from analytic comments. I typed field notes right after each class. Typed field notes were then printed and filed.
110 Table 10 Data Collection Instruments
T E A C H E R S
S T U D E N T S
R E S E A R C H E R
Instruments
Frequency
Length
Purpose
Class observations
Three times a week
Class time
To infer teacher beliefs from practice.
Interviews
Three: at the beginning, middle, and end of each session.
30-60 minutes each
To infer beliefs from teacher statements and intentions.
Stimulated recall
Once with each teacher
15-30 minutes
To understand how teachers’ beliefs influence their practice.
Class observations
Three times a week
Class time
To infer students’ beliefs from practice. To observe teachers’ and students’ interaction.
Interviews
Three: at the beginning, middle, and end of each session.
60 minutes each
To infer beliefs from students’ statements and intentions.
Stimulated recall
Once with each student
15-30 minutes
To understand students’ views about the class.
Field notes
Daily
To record data on informal conversations, observations, and interviews. To control and question researcher bias and assumptions.
Reflective journal As often as necessary
Member checking
After transcription of each interview and after data analysis
30-45 minutes
To generate data and insight, check inaccuracies, and insure trustworthiness.
111 Stimulated Recall Stimulated recall “elicits teacher’s verbalizations while [he or] she looks at a replay of herself/himself performing a task” (Fang, 1996a, p. 57). With the teachers’ and students’ permission, I audio recorded and videotaped one class of Structure 2 and Spoken 3 in Session I. In Session II, I audio recorded and videotaped one class of Structure 3. I did not audio record or videotape Reading/Writing 3. In this class, students did a lot of peer-review in pairs. Thus, it would be more effective to observe one pair of students more closely. The audio-recorded classes were transcribed and analyzed. Each teacher viewed the recording of his or her class with me and commented about it, not right after class, for practical reasons, but in the following week. Students also watched the videotape and were asked to comment about it. The purpose was to understand how teachers’ beliefs and context influenced their practice, and to check students’ views about the class. Unfortunately, I accidentally erased the tape I had recorded of Spoken 3. Fortunately, however, I had already jotted down notes about that class and watched the tape with the teacher and the student. Interviews Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted with each student and teacher. I conducted three interviews of approximately 60 minutes with each teacher and student at the beginning, middle, and end of each new session. All interviews were audiorecorded, with participants’ permission. The three-interview format helped place participants’ comments in context (Seidman, 1998). Interviewing participants over the course of one to three weeks was useful because it allowed checking “the comments of one participant against those of
112 others,” thus ensuring internal consistency of what they said (Seidman, 1998, p. 17). This procedure helped in comparing teachers’ and students’ beliefs. The students’ interviews were conducted in the students’ native language, Portuguese. They focused on a number of different issues such as reasons for studying English at SLI and in the US, their beliefs about language learning, the role of teachers and students in the classroom, and their previous language learning experiences. Similarly, the teachers’ interviews focused on the issues listed above as viewed from the perspective of a teacher (see Appendix G for representative teacher interview guides, and Appendix H for student interview guides). Each interview with each participant provided questions for subsequent interviews in a cyclical process. Some questions in the second interview were different for different subjects since the questions focused on their individual experiences. The questions for second and third interviews came out of issues that emerged during my readings of the transcripts of the previous interviews and of the classroom observation notes. In this sense, the interviews served as a form of member checking that compared teachers’ and students’ beliefs. Teacher interviews were conducted in their offices at SLI. They were audio recorded with the teachers’ permission. Each lasted about an hour. The Brazilian students’ interviews were conducted in their dorms on campus or their apartments. Table 11 shows the schedule of interviews with teachers and students. In the second session, only two interviews were necessary with Jack because I had already worked with him the previous session.
113 I wrote notes immediately after each interview. I transcribed each interview the same day or one day after it was conducted. A copy of each interview transcript was given to each teacher for him or her to read to check accuracy. Students received a summary of their interviews and were asked to comment about it. Table 11 Schedule of Interviews with Teachers and Students SESSION I Participants
1st interview
2nd interview
3rd interview
Emily Jack Karina Lauro
1/19/99 1/22/99 1/14/99 1/15/99
2/10/99 2/09/99 1/24/99 1/24/99
2/23/99 2/16/99 2/05/99 2/05/99
SESSION II Flora Jack Carla
3/24/99 4/06/99 3/25/99
4/14/99 4/29/99 4/16/99
4/28/99 5/05/99
Field Notes I kept field notes from class observations, interviews (before and after), and any other informal conversations with teachers and students. Field notes are easy to carry and unobtrusive (Fetterman, 1998) and allow easy recording of the researcher’s reflections and impressions. For each class observed there was one entry (thus, making about 19 entries for each class). Documents These included the analysis of public records, such as any teaching materials the teacher used with students, the textbook, or any other lesson materials made available to me. Appendices A through F show some of these documents.
114 Researcher’s Reflective Journal I kept a reflective journal throughout the period of data collection as a way of capturing my thoughts and personal insights about the research process. It was a way of reducing bias and trying to question my own assumptions about the study (Meloy, 1994). The reflective journal helped me cope with the emotional stress of conducting qualitative research. Several entries dealt with ‘feeling an intruder and an outsider,’ gaining entry, making plans for data collection, reciprocity in research, my role in the classroom, feelings of burnout, among others. The topics about feelings of being an outsider diminished in Session II. I also kept a handwritten methodological log, as suggested by Lincoln and Guba (1985) where I wrote methodological decisions, and a handwritten day-to-day log where each research activity was recorded. Data Analysis and Interpretation Qualitative research emphasizes illumination, understanding, and extrapolations (Patton, 1990). The process of analysis is inductive and begins with data reduction, which involves first reading all transcripts and documents and unitizing them. A unit is a heuristic, “smallest piece of information about something that can stand by itself” that is interpretable in the broader context of inquiry (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 345). These units are then entered into the computer and later grouped as categories. Units that have relatively the same content are put into one category. The categories are reviewed several times for overlapping and for possible relationships among them. Finally, the entire category set is reviewed one last time. The researcher prioritizes some categories according to their salience, credibility, uniqueness, heuristic, special interests, and content (Patton, 1990). This process was the one used in the data analysis of this study.
115 Although the main source was Lincoln and Guba’s 1985 book, I also consulted other research methods books such as Miles and Huberman (1994), Patton (1990), Creswell (1998), and Kvale (1996) for interview analysis. While there are some differences5 in terms of philosophy between Lincoln and Guba (1985), Patton (1990), and Miles and Huberman (1994), there are similarities that were summarized in the following steps: 1. General review of all data in the form of jotting down notes in the margins to obtain a sense of overall data (Creswell, 1998; Patton, 1990; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Reducing data and writing findings in the form of short phrases, key ideas, concepts. Looking closely at words used by participants (Creswell, 1998; Patton, 1990). 2. Revisiting the literature “to help focus the analysis” (Patton, 1990, p. 376) 3. Coding and systematically reading the data by labeling significant units (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). All units were identified by source, participants, and particular data collection episodes. These units were then printed out and cut into pieces that were each read and put in piles of similar categories. The coding consisted of finding out, labeling, and examining teachers’ and students’ statements reflecting (a) teachers’ beliefs and actions about teaching and their rationale behind their actions in class, (b) students’ beliefs and actions about different aspects of language learning, and (c) any relationship between students’ and teachers’ beliefs and actions.
5
See Pitman & Maxwell (1992) for these differences.
116 4. Categorizing and reading each unit and putting them in a pile of the same categories. These were revised numerous times and then put back together in the computer in a coherent order, to be revised again repeatedly. An interrelational approach was adopted to interpret the interviews. According to Kvale (1996), this approach regards “the meanings of the conversation as belonging to neither [participant], but existing between the subjects, in their inter-action” (p. 225). This approach, Kvale added, is contrary to trying to find the ‘real meaning’ of utterances, as if there was a basic meaning to be uncovered somewhere. Kvale states that the “interviewer is a co-producer and co-author of the resulting interview text.” The interviewer should “support the interviewees in developing their meanings throughout the course of the interview” (p. 226). Trustworthiness and Credibility The following verification procedures ensured credibility and trustworthiness of this study: 1. Prolonged engagement and persistent observation in the field to build trust with participants and check misinformation. Five months were spent observing classes at the SLI (Creswell, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). 2. Triangulation of methods (use of different sources of data collection), theory triangulation, and data triangulation (data from teachers, students and researcher) (Creswell, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Patton, 1990; van Lier, 1988). 3. Clarification of research bias through the researcher’s reflective journal (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Pitman & Maxwell, 1992). According to Pitman and Maxwell
117 (1992, p. 760), keeping a diary or journal can help researchers relieve feelings of confusion and rejection that are characteristics of the initial stages of research and may help the researcher understand how they can affect the research process. 4. Member checking with informants to check the credibility and accuracy of transcripts (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Creswell, 1998). As a way of generating data and insight, participants were asked to comment on transcriptions of their own interviews, drafts of the final reports, and interpretations of the data. Member checking can be both informal and formal (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 314). Informal member checking was done daily in the course of the study by (a) giving transcripts of interviews back to teachers for them to check the accuracy, (b) having students read and comment on the summaries of their interviews, and (c) testing students’ beliefs on teachers and vice-versa. This type of informal member checking allows the research to check participants’ intentionality, summarize data, and give participants an opportunity to correct errors of fact and volunteer additional information. Formal member checking was done with teachers and students in late 1999 and early 2000. They received a draft of the manuscript about their beliefs and influence on their practice to check its content and accuracy. They all thought that the manuscript was an accurate portrayal of their beliefs and practice. I also met individually with each teacher to talk to him or her about my interpretation of the results of the study. Generalizability In the narrowest sense, this study is about a group of Brazilian students and their American ESL teachers in an English language institute in the US. I hope readers of this study can reflect on the similarities to or differences with their own practice and see
118 whether and how it applies to their own contexts. Thus, “the determination of generalization [is] in the hands of the reader of a research study rather than in that of the writer” (Erickson, 1991, p. 351). Edge and Richards (1998), Eisner (1991), and Woods (1996) also support this position. According to Woods (1996), the notion of validity is based “on a more dynamic notion of ‘resonance’ to individual readers of the study who process the resulting discussion according to their own interpretive processes, and look for their own coherence” (p. 46). Limitations This study presents some limitations. First, although the idea of pairing off each student and teacher was helpful in order to understand the relationship of teachers’ and students’ beliefs in a specific context, the student chosen for the study may not be the student that most influenced the teacher, and vice versa. In this sense, a recommendation for future studies is to observe classes first, then select the students who seem to have a potential influence on teachers’ beliefs and practice. Second, I investigated three classes. The inclusion of three classes was due to having different students and wanting to observe all of them. I believe that concentrating on only one class would have allowed me to investigate it more in depth. Similarly, the investigation of general language learning beliefs may be too broad if compared to studies that have concentrated on one type of belief, such as the roles of teacher and learners (Block, 1990, 1992). Nevertheless, the investigation of general language learning beliefs allows for a holistic picture of the interrelationship of beliefs within students’ or teachers’ belief systems.
119 Third, despite having participants from different cultures, I did not focus on aspects of culture, understood here as a set of beliefs of a specific nation. Although that would be an interesting venue to pursue, my focus was on students’ and teachers’ beliefs as part of their culture of learning and teaching, rather than the national culture. As Holliday (1999) pointed out, it is important to be cautious when attributing certain beliefs to certain cultures. Nevertheless, a cultural perspective, perhaps, could have shed light on some aspects such as the nature of teacher and student relationships in Brazilian and American cultures. Related to this aspect, a further limitation is that this study is not situated within a more social and political macro-context. Like Allwright (1998), I believe the classroom is a social context, and in some cases, a macro-analysis may divert our attention from examining the social forces that are already present in the language classroom. Finally, I did not record many classes, and thus, I did not focus on a microanalysis of teacher’s and students’ interaction and classroom discourse. Further studies can make more use of class recordings and classroom interaction analysis in trying to understand the functions that language learning beliefs play in learners’ contributions to class. Ethical Considerations Informed consent was obtained from all participants in writing. They received a letter that contained details of the research. Approval from the college and university Institutional Review Board (IRB) was sought (see Appendix H for IRB documents). Participants were ensured that their participation was voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time. Anonymity and confidentiality were ensured by being explicit with
120 participants about the purposes of the research and uses of the transcripts, and by assigning them pseudonyms to protect their identity. It is important to point out that part of the agreement was to treat data from students and teachers confidentially. This meant that only at the writing-up stage did each party formally learn of the perspectives of others. However, anonymity from students to teachers was impossible to provide. The teachers with whom I worked with had only one Brazilian student in their classes and they knew I was working with Brazilian students. Nonetheless, no data from students were disclosed to teachers while students were still studying at the SLI. The Politics of Transcription I made no attempt to make the report of each teacher’s or student’s story similar to each other since they were unique to their own experiences. I let the themes emerge without trying to impose any predetermined categories. For instance, although all of the students talked about the difference between learning English in Brazil and in the US, they talked about it in different ways; this was reflected in how I wrote about this aspect for each student. A standard procedure in qualitative research is to use pseudonyms to protect participants’ anonymity. As Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995) explained, “an excerpt must protect the people, institutions, and communities by providing anonymity” (p. 194). However, this comes with a cost, since names carry connotations with them (Woods, 1996). I had decided at first to use initials for the teachers since they had suggested their preference for initials rather than pseudonyms. However, using initials “makes gender difficult to remember, lacks evocative qualities, and makes it difficult for a reader to
121 recognize that person in other excerpts” (Emerson et al., 1995, p. 194). Thus, pseudonyms were used. Several researchers recommend rendering interview excerpts into a more readable, written textual form, where it is not essential to have the exact linguistic form as it is in sociolinguistic studies (Kvale, 1996; Roberts, 1997; Weiss, 1994). In some excerpts, teachers’ and students’ quotes may be obscured because of all hesitations, pauses, restarts, and asides included in the example. Thus, I have altered the interview quotes in the following ways (based on Weiss, 1994, pp. 197-198): 1. “Hum,” “erm…,” “you know” have been eliminated from the quotes. My own encouraging “uh-huh,” “yeah,” and “right” recorded in the original transcripts of all interviews, were dropped in the final writing of this study, since they could be distracting to the reader. 2. False starts and unnecessary repetitions of a phrase were usually edited. However, no word was added, changed, or substituted except to make the sentence less redundant. 3. I reorganized a participant’s interview excerpt for coherence. Many times, as Weiss (1994) explained, a participant starts talking about a topic, goes off to something else, and then returns to the original topic (p. 198). Thus, all the materials dealing with the topic were brought together. I used square brackets to signal material that has been removed. In cases where the pronoun referents may not be obvious from the excerpt, they have been specified between square brackets.
122 All students’ quotes are first written in italics in the students’ first and native language, Portuguese, followed immediately by the translation into English marked between {}. In presenting the interview quotes and units of field note excerpts, I used both an integrative strategy and an excerpt strategy (Emerson et al., 1995). An integrative strategy “weaves together interpretation and excerpt” and “produces a text with minimal spatial marking – such as indentation or single spacing” (p. 179). In contrast, an excerpt strategy, visually “marks fieldnote extracts off from accompanying commentary and interpretation, usually by indenting and/or italicizing” (pp. 179-180). I emphasized more the integrative style in writing this study, because this strategy is especially suitable to presenting longer, continuous quotes that can be recounted as one continuing story. Furthermore, the integrative strategy, in addition to promoting a “smoother, more thematically focused presentation of field data,” allows the researcher to convey many ideas concisely, bringing together observations and occurrences scattered in different places (Emerson et al., 1995, p. 181). The excerpt strategy was also used because it provides evidence and lets readers assess the authenticity of the interpretations offered. Moreover, it “gives depth and texture to ethnographic texts” (p. 181). Researcher Subjectivity Several researchers have suggested that in qualitative studies the researcher is the instrument of investigation. Thus, it is appropriate for the researcher to make explicit his or her biases (Patton, 1990; Wolcott, 1994). I am Brazilian and this certainly influenced the choice of working with Brazilian students, as explained in the beginning of this chapter. My status as a speaker of English as a second language was present in the interviews with teachers when I sometimes
123 looked for words to express my opinions or when I asked them to clarify some words that were not familiar to me. Sometimes during the interviews, I was the one emphasizing more this aspect by making brief comments about my experience in Brazil. Other times, participant teachers themselves would illustrate something, or give examples because they knew I did not share some of their assumptions. I was an undergraduate major in languages (Portuguese/English) in Brazil, in the mid-eighties when the Communicative Approach was considered an innovative method. I completed my Master’s in applied linguistics in Brazil and became familiar with the discourse of applied linguistics and the theories of the field. All of these aspects make me a member of a culture of teaching English as a second or foreign language and allow me to perceive the teachers’ classes in a certain way and to understand some of their teaching concerns and dilemmas. As a language teacher, when observing the teachers’ classes, I found myself thinking more like a teacher observing experienced colleagues and learning new ideas from them than as a researcher trying to be judgmental and critical of their classes. I liked the classes I observed and this may have influenced my positive view of the teachers’ classes. Qualitative research involves several ethical issues and some of the ethical dilemmas may not be solved easily. I was required to have a critical and skeptical perspective of teachers’ practices. However, I also needed to be able to empathize with them and understand their perspectives. My choice was to pay attention to details that could reveal discrepancies between teachers’ beliefs and practice, while refraining from making value judgments. My goal was not to judge their practices and I did not think it would be ethical to do so.
124 Researcher Role My role was that of a participant-observer. I conducted observations, interviewed, analyzed, and interpreted teachers’ and students’ beliefs. It is advisable that the participant-observer try to avoid “going native,” that is, fully identifying with the group. The participant-observer should try to be a friendly, but professional stranger (Schwandt, 1997). My relationship with teachers and students was positive and remained positive throughout the study. In an attempt to build rapport with the Brazilian students, I informally met with all of them. For instance, on several occasions I went to the mall with Karina and Lauro and invited them once to have lunch at my house. My husband and I also took them to the airport when they left and helped them with other things they needed in town. This was one way of giving back to participants for their participation in the study. I also had a close relationship with Carla, especially after we found out that we lived in the same apartment complex. I went to her apartment several times and we went to the cinema together once. When she got sick and had to go to the emergency room, I drove her and stayed with her. I did not take advantage of those situations to introduce any topic or ask any questions related to the study. However, if they spontaneously mentioned anything about language learning or about the classes, I tried to remember their comments and wrote notes right after the event. Regarding my relationship with the teachers, I think I was successful in developing a close rapport with them. Nevertheless, that did not prevent me from feeling like an intruder or outsider at the beginning of the data collection process. I felt sometimes that I was viewed as a “stranger.” It was a friendly, but researcher-participant,
125 relationship. I sometimes wished it could have been more informal or more relaxed, but decided that that was probably the best way. Several researchers warn of the dangers of the researcher becoming a friend or going “native.” I felt extremely self-conscious about taking too much of the teachers’ time. I also felt concerned with reciprocity and wondered what I was giving to them in return. I tried to see if there was any chance for joint publication or presentation. I mentioned that to teachers. They showed interest, but we did not come up with a good idea. In addition, teachers were very busy. Moreover, the way the research was set up did not allow greater collaboration. I even talked to Jack and Emily at the end of the first session about my feelings of being intrusive. They did not feel that way. They felt that they were helping me, and this was okay. Emily said that she also enjoyed being part of the study and that she began to think of issues that she had not thought of before. That made me feel a little better. At the end of the session, I invited Emily and Jack for lunch and it was a nice informal interaction. At the end of session II, I invited all three teachers to have lunch at my house. It was one way of thanking them. I also wrote thank you letters to all of them and to the director of the SLI and gave a book about language learning to the SLI as a present. I thought teachers and students were honest with me and answered my questions in a straightforward way. If they did not think something was true, they would tell me right away. When I tried to paraphrase some of their thoughts, if it was not accurate, they would also tell me and add more details. This was evident when they said, “I don’t know,” “I don’t think so,” “I hadn’t thought of that before,” or “you brought this up.”
126 How did the researcher interfere or influence the data? It would be naïve to suggest that I had no influence on those observed. The interviews, though informal, were an artificial situation created to find out answers to certain questions. Two participants pointed out this artificiality when answering my questions. They would say, “Do you want more?” “Do you want me to talk about here or in Brazil?” “You wanted me to talk about this?” In addition, students and teachers were being asked to direct their attention to and reflect metacognitively about their beliefs, which may have made them think and reflect on aspects that they would normally not have considered. Further, it is important to keep in mind that the data are just a fraction of the development of their beliefs and reflect a specific time and context in the continuum of their experience. In observing classes, I do not think I interfered with the teachers’ practice or students’ behaviors. In most classes, I usually sat in the back corner of the classroom, observing and taking notes. I did not participate, except when the teacher requested. In Emily’s class, I participated only in the first day of class by her request. Jack requested more my participation, especially in Spoken English 3, because he had an odd number of students. I do not think my presence made students or teachers behave differently. I observed them three times a week for at least two months and this ensured the authenticity of their actions. Students also seemed to behave normally. There were occasions when they would ask me what I was doing there, or what I was writing about. My usual answer was that I was observing the teacher and interviewing some students to know their opinions about language learning. The Brazilian students also made comments with me during the interviews, such as “I don’t know if you are interested in this or not,” or “this may be
127 good for your research.” These comments seemed to indicate an attempt to understand what I was interested in, although they were informed of the purposes of the study in writing and in the first interview. When I was participating in pair work or group work, some students knowing I was a teacher, would ask me to help them with pronunciation and meanings of some words. All teachers introduced me to students on the first day and told them that I was doing research there. Conclusion In this Chapter, I have argued that ethnographic research is adequate to investigate language learning beliefs because, besides stressing participants’ perspectives, it focuses on the tensions between participants’ statements and actions. I have explained the reasons for choosing the setting and participants, which were related to the purpose of understanding thoroughly students’ and teachers’ beliefs while learning and teaching ESL. I have also described the pilot study. Its results indicated the importance of spending a considerable amount of time in the classroom to determine how teachers’ and learners’ beliefs interact and develop over time. I explained the procedures for data collection and analysis. Finally, I discussed how trustworthiness and credibility were insured, and how the researcher’s subjectivity could influence interpretation. Chapter IV presents the findings of the study.
128
CHAPTER IV RESULTS It is through the eyes of others that we get to know ourselves and others. (Kramsch, 1993, p. 222) Introduction The purpose of this study is to find out the beliefs of American ESL teachers and Brazilian students, and the relationship between their beliefs about language learning, at an English language institute in the southern US (SLI). The methodology I chose to best accomplish this purpose is an ethnographic study of teachers’ and students’ beliefs and the interaction of their beliefs and actions in context. This chapter presents and analyzes the data, by describing each teacher and student beliefs within the context of each course that they had together. The descriptions are presented according to the chronological order of observations of classes in Session I and II: Emily and Karina, in Structure 2; Jack and Lauro, in Spoken English 3; then, Jack and Carla, in Reading/Writing 3; and Flora and Carla, in Structure 3. Each description follows a similar format. I first describe the teacher’s beliefs and their influence on his or her practice. Second, I illustrate students’ beliefs. Third, I explain the relationship between their beliefs.
129 Emily and Karina Emily’s Beliefs and Practice Emily spent three years teaching English in Europe. According to her, this experience helped her to become a better ESL teacher. She started questioning some of the assumptions of her own culture and this helped her understand “how the experience is different for students when they come here [to the US]” (I 1:3, 1/19/99).1 One of the most rewarding aspects of teaching for Emily was the chance of “meeting people from other cultures” and “learning about their cultures.” She also liked watching people learning and seeing their improvement. She felt that she had accomplished something. Emily found it difficult to reach a balance and teach at middle level when “having learners at different levels in the same classroom” (I 1:4, 1/19/99). As I show later, this difficulty is related to Emily’s concern for students’ understanding. Emily’s beliefs appeared to be based on the communicative approach. Although she rarely mentioned “communicative approach” in our interviews, her beliefs in creating a relaxing atmosphere, her concern with students’ understanding, and her belief in using grammar seemed to suggest her overarching belief in communicative teaching. Creating a Relaxed Atmosphere This was a central belief in the map of Emily’s beliefs. This belief bears relationship with many of her actions in the classroom. Emily thought it was important to have a friendly atmosphere in the classroom:
1
References to data follow these conventions: I – interview; ON – observation notes about the different classes, such as Structure 2 or 3 (S2, S3), Reading/Writing 3 (R/W3), and Spoken 3 (SP3); SR – stimulated recall; MC – member checking. Each reference provides its location within the data corpus, and the date when data was collected. Thus, I1:4, 1/19/99 refers to Interview 1, p. 4, Jan. 19, 1999; S2 ON4:1, 1/19/99 refers to p. 1 of observation note number 4, of the Structure 2 class, on Jan 19, 1999.
130 I like to create sort of a friendly, relaxed atmosphere in the classroom. I hope that everyone is comfortable, that nobody’s nervous. I hope that everybody feels comfortable with each other too, not just with me. That’s why I spend some time on the names so that everyone can talk to each other. Also I try not to see myself as the only person in the room who has the answers, that other students can help each other a lot too. (I 1:4, 1/19/99)2 Emily expected the classroom to have this relaxed atmosphere where students are comfortable with each other and with the teacher. One of the ways that she tried to enact this belief in class was by making sure students knew each other’s name. Her belief in the role of the teacher as not the only one who knows the answer also influenced her practice of fostering an atmosphere where students, feeling comfortable with each other, would learn to trust that their colleagues can help them as well as the teacher. Emily’s belief in a relaxed atmosphere is congruent with SLI’s general philosophy. She thought that all SLI teachers had a non-authoritarian approach to teaching and tried to “create a relaxed, friendly environment, as much as possible” (I 1:6, 1/19/99). Emily believed she had accomplished this friendly atmosphere in her classes. She wanted to “facilitate and encourage people to get to know each other.” She was aware though that this interaction “would happen even if [she] didn’t try to make it happen.” She did not think she was solely responsible for that interaction (I 3:1, 2/23/99).
2
Transcription Key (based on van Lier, 1988, pp. 243-244): Underline: Stressed word … Pause / / Overlapping or simultaneous listening, responses, and brief comments. (( )) Non-verbal actions; ((unint)): indicates a stretch of unintelligible word. [ ] Explanatory note { } Translation […] Indicates that a stretch of talk not related to a specific quote was suppressed. (for) A word within single parenthesis indicates unclear or probable item. the::: One or more colons indicate lengthening of the preceding sound.
131 Influence on her practice. Emily’s belief in a relaxed and friendly classroom atmosphere was present in her way of structuring classes. She tried to create a friendly atmosphere (a) by stressing students’ knowledge of each other’s names, (b) by encouraging students to ask questions and help each other, and (c) by having lots of games in the classroom. I explain each one in detail in the paragraphs below. Emily spent quite some time in the first classes encouraging students to know each other’s name. She challenged students into playing a sort of game in which they had to remember everybody’s names. The excerpt below from my observation notes illustrates this point. Emily started the class by reminding students of the challenge she had given them of remembering everybody’s names. Juarez laughed. She asked if anyone could do that. I saw Gill looking at other students and trying to remember their names. Carlos reminded Emily that there was a new student in class and Emily asked the new student to go to the front and write his name on the board and tell them about himself. After that, she came back to the challenge. Nelson volunteered and he remembered everybody’s names. She said that she would check again tomorrow. Everybody laughed. (S2, ON3:1, 01/13/99) The excerpt above conveys the pleasant and relaxed atmosphere that prevailed in Emily’s class. The second way that she tried to create this relaxed atmosphere included providing students with opportunities to ask questions, make little jokes in the classroom, and help each other. Emily tried to tease students and involve them in the learning process. The third way that contributed to the relaxed atmosphere of the class involved the use of games, such as this one: Emily asked students to close their books and to put the chairs in a big circle. […] She wrote this sentence on the board “Yesterday I went shopping and I bought…” She told students, “All of you went shopping yesterday.” Students said “No.” She repeated the sentence nodding her head and laughing a bit, “Yes.” Students once again, “No.” She said, “Yes.” Emily didn’t tell students it was a game. Students seemed to not understand this at first, but they understood it the third time. Emily explained the game: Students should say a sentence about something they had
132 bought. Each student should repeat what the previous students had said and add their own item. The items should be in alphabetical order and they should use “a few,” or “a little” with each item. When students understood the game, they laughed (meaning, it is too difficult). (S2, ON3:2, 01/13/99) Emily used many games in her classes. Altogether in the 18 classes I observed, she played about 10 games. Most of these games, besides being a way of creating a relaxed atmosphere, were also related to her way of having students use the grammar that she had taught. Concern for Students’ Understanding This belief was inferred from observing Emily’s class and later, in the interviews, when she talked about the rationale behind some of her actions. Emily indicated her concern with students’ understanding, especially when teaching grammar. She wanted to be sure of what students already knew before starting a grammar explanation. She explained that she liked to “see where a good place is to start from,” if she needed to start “from the very beginning” or if she could “skip over some points.” She did not want “to bore everybody with a long explanation that they already knew” (I 3:3, 2/23/99). This belief is related to Emily’s belief in not spending too much time on grammar explanations. Thus, asking students first was her way of trying to do only a brief explanation. Emily also liked to ask students if they had questions or doubts during homework correction. Since students had the answers in the back of their books, she expected them to look at them and only ask questions about things that did not make sense to them, which suggests a belief in students’ active role. As mentioned before, one of the difficult aspects of teaching for Emily had to do with finding the right balance in teaching to the different levels of students in a class. She
133 commented that the differences in students’ levels could happen, even at SLI, where students took a placement test. She explained that in her Structure class, some students had better listening comprehension than others did (I 2:1, 1/19/99). Thus, her concern for students’ understanding seemed to be tied in with her concern about different students’ levels. This could be a potential dilemma. She might slow down for students who she knew did not understand much, but she might let down those who were more advanced: I try to make sure everybody understands. I know sometimes it’s frustrating for the students who understand what I said the first time and then they get impatient because I’ve already said it once and they may be wondering why I’m saying it again. They understood me and maybe don’t see that some other people didn’t understand me. So I try to make sure that everybody understands me and that I am not leaving some of the students behind. It’s tempting to teach to the ones who are quick and who get everything, rather than slow down a little bit for the others. (I 2:2, 1/19/99) In this quote, Emily talked about a common dilemma in teaching – catering for the needs of individual students or the group (Lortie, 1975). Emily tried to make sure everybody understood. She did not want to leave students behind. It is interesting to note her attempt to interpret what students are thinking when she said “I know sometimes it’s frustrating for the students who understand.” She acknowledged it is difficult to slow down, especially when you have students who are very quick to understand as she mentioned in this quotation: For example, Nelson is very quick and he understands and I think he’s not a real patient person, so I think he just sort of wants to go on to the next thing and doesn’t always see that not everyone is getting it. (I 2:2, 1/19/99) Emily cited an example from her experience in class with a specific outspoken student, Nelson, who was quicker than the other students. Again, it is possible to see Emily interpreting what Nelson wanted to do based on her perception of his actions in class.
134 Influence on her practice. Emily enacted her concern for students’ understanding by asking questions of students before and during a grammar explanation and by allowing them time to answer. These two ways suggest that she favored students’ understanding. As I explained earlier, this was one way she had of finding out how much grammar explanation to do after all. Students’ answers acted as a barometer that guided her decisions. Her concern for students’ understanding cannot be separated from her inductive method of explaining grammar that focused on students’ own discovery of the rules. Teacher and Learner Roles Emily’s beliefs about teacher and learner roles were similar to beliefs found in the literature in applied linguistics that portrays teachers as facilitators and learners as active and responsible for their learning. Emily explained that a teacher should “give students opportunities to learn in as many different ways as possible.” That did not mean the teacher should refrain from giving explanations or offering guidelines. What it did mean was that the explanation should be followed by opportunities for students to practice (I 1:6, 1/19/99). The learner, on the other hand, should take an active role in learning a language. Learners had to understand that what teachers can do is limited, and that learners had to do a lot on their own. According to Emily, the learner should Make an active effort to learn rather than expecting that everything that they learn in class will be because the teacher explicitly said “Ok, learn this now.” They should take more of a role in that and take responsibility for their own learning and make an extra-effort outside of class to do things other than what the teacher expects. I can’t give them everything they need, I have only one hour a day and that’s not nearly enough. And I really think most of their learning is going to come from the outside anyway, just from being in an English-speaking environment, rather than these five hours a week I spend explaining grammar
135 rules. […] I think they have this extra responsibility, if they really take their English learning seriously, to go out in the community, meet people, and talk to them. (I 1:6, 1/19/99) This quotation illustrates not only Emily’s beliefs about what learners should do, but also her awareness that learners will not always learn what teachers want them to learn. The learner role involves going to classes, being active in the classroom, as well as working beyond what teachers expect. Emily pointed out the role of an ESL environment in helping learners learn. It is related to her other belief that grammar rules are not necessarily going to help learners to be better speakers. If they really want to learn they will have to let go a bit of this emphasis on learning grammar rules. Good learners will “ask lots of questions, take extra responsibility, and make an extra-effort to learn.” Emily believed that good learners “don’t take the teacher’s word as absolute,” and “are willing to accept that a teacher can make mistakes or leave things out and still be a good teacher.” Emily seemed aware of some learners’ belief that teachers are the only ones who know the answers. This suggests that teachers usually interpret what goes on in the classroom, including their students’ beliefs. Emily believed that teacher and learner roles were complementary and “the ideal relationship is one in which teachers and learners work together” (I 1:7, 1/19/99). Good teachers should “facilitate that relationship.” Emily tried to enact this belief in practice, as I explain next. Influence on her practice. Emily’s belief about teacher and learner roles was enacted by using information gap activities where students had to rely on each other’s help, and by using pair and group work where students compared their answers together. One of Emily’s basic belief about the teacher and learner role had to do with this active
136 role of the learner and with the teacher not being the only one with answers. In her class she encouraged students to help each other as illustrated in the excerpt below: Emily asked students to check answers with a partner. Students checked their answers with each other. She then asked Nelson to write down his list on the board. He wrote down “Seven dollars.” Students laughed because he was able to say how much money she had put on the table. He didn’t know how to spell toothpaste and she said, “Can anybody help to spell toothpaste?” Students helped him. After he finished, she went over the list and asked if anyone had put something different. (S2, ON 5:1, 01/21/99) In this excerpt, we see Emily’s belief in action. She asked students to check answers with each other, enacting her belief that the teacher is not the only one with answers. She also encouraged students to help each other. Belief about Teaching Grammar Emily’s belief about grammar was closely connected to her belief about students’ understanding. Her concern for students’ understanding and her belief about the role of the teacher and the learner influenced her way of teaching grammar – by giving students opportunity to think and by providing opportunities for practicing grammar. She believed students learned grammar by actually using the grammar. Her belief about grammar was also congruent with SLI’s general approach to the teaching of grammar. It was part of SLI’s “non-authoritarian approach of getting students to speak and interact and “participate and not just to listen to [teachers’] talk, but actually use English for a purpose rather than just memorizing grammar rules, but putting it to some practical use” (I 1:6, 1/19/99). Emily relied on students’ feedback to teach grammar. She wanted to know what and how much they already knew before she went on to explain something because she did not want to spend a lot of time explaining things. This was related to her belief that
137 explaining grammar rules might not actually help students to be better speakers. She was constantly searching for the learners’ points of view by expecting feedback from them: What I want mostly is to get some kind of feedback when I am doing a grammar explanation. I like to know what is going on in their minds. I don’t like when everybody just sits and looks at me because then, I have no idea if they understand me, or if they are bored because they’ve already heard it all before. (I 3:3, 2/23/99) Emily expressed the need for a real collaboration between her and her students. If students are involved, she should be able to get some feedback in terms of what they understand or not. That may be one of the reasons she gave students time to think to answer and to ask questions in class. The belief in teacher and student collaboration is related to Emily’s concept of a good class. A good grammar class to her meant that she did not talk much and students were actively involved: I feel like it’s not a good class if I spend too much time explaining things, when I mostly hear the sound of my own voice. What I really want them to do is to practice the structures themselves. It can make perfect sense to them. I write it on the board and then they write it on their notes. It makes perfect sense, but it may not make much sense if they actually try to use it. I always had the experience as a student in math classes, where it would make perfect sense and then I would get home and the homework wouldn’t make any sense, because I couldn’t do it myself. So my goal for them is to make use of the structure as much as possible, rather than listening to me talk about it. So a good class is when they’re doing a lot of the talking but they also know what’s going on. So a nice balance between an explanation that’s clear and them practicing it in a way that is also clear for them. And also a good class is when everybody is involved and seems interested and people are not yawning and fidgeting. (I 2:8, 2/10/99) Emily’s concept of a good class emphasized students’ active involvement and grammar practice. It was not necessarily tied to her not talking, as she explained to me later. Even if she did most of the talking, as long as students were actively involved and participating, she considered it a good class. This belief derives from her own experiences as a student.
138 Emily seemed to believe that explaining grammar rules might not be the best way. However, she acknowledged that depending on the context, teachers might do that or not. As she explained, I don’t know how useful it is really. I guess it depends on our goals. If you are teaching in a program where we give tests, and grades, and we are teaching them, many of them are going to the university where it’s the same kind of system and part of what we are teaching them is how an American university works and so, in that sense, I guess explicit instruction is... /useful/Yeah. But in the sense of becoming better, having more knowledge of the English language I don’t really know if it’s the best way. (I 2:4-5, 2/10/99) This quote shows Emily’s knowledge that students have different goals in learning a language. It also suggests that the objectives and aims of the language institute, functioning as an entry door for international students to the university, may play a role in how she taught grammar. Besides these factors, students’ expectations also influenced Emily’s teaching of grammar. Although Emily believed that grammar rules might not be useful for students to become better speakers of the language, she thought that she did more grammar explanation than she would like because that was what she thought students expected. This will be explored later when I discuss students’ influence on Emily’s beliefs and practice. Influence on her practice. Emily tried to build her grammar explanation by teaching it inductively, eliciting students’ help to discover the rules. This was a very common procedure in her classes according to my observation notes. She used many games in the classroom and lots of visuals when explaining grammar, and encouraged students to ask questions and to find out the rule. The use of visuals, as I interpret it, was a way of not spending much time on grammar explanation. This excerpt from one of the first class illustrates this point:
139 Emily grabbed a chair and showed it to students and asked, “What’s this?” Students answered. She wrote it on the board. She did the same for each object she showed: book, pen, apple, and umbrella. She then said, “This is a chair” and wrote “a” before “chair” on the board. And the same for all the objects she had shown. She had put these objects in separate columns on the board (a, an). She then asked students why some had “an” and others “a.” Students volunteered answers and when they got it right she would repeat their answers and explain it. The students themselves, through her guiding questions got the rule for “an” – vowels – and “a” – consonants. It was a very inductive process with examples. (S2, ON2:2, 01/12/99) Emily allied visual aids with grammar explanation. She tried to accomplish her belief of a good grammar class, where she did little talking, and students were actively involved. Visuals serve that purpose well, as illustrated in the above excerpt. Emily’s beliefs about error correction seemed to be interrelated with her beliefs about the learner role and about grammar. Emily tried “to focus as much as possible on the structure that [was] being taught and not worry about other things” (I 1:8, 1/19/99). In the classroom, her response to error correction depended on many factors, as she explained: It depends on a lot of things, a lot of situations, it depends on the mood I am in ((laughter)). Sometimes it depends on the students. If I see that students will catch it, then I go for a little more than with someone who I’m just trying to get them to say something, or to use any kind of structure. Maybe I do it more with a little bit more advanced student or someone who I think would benefit from. Sometimes I think it may be more confusing for a lower-level student to catch what you are trying to correct. So it depends on the situation. (I 1:9, 1/19/99) Emily alluded to the “it-depends” phenomenon in teaching that Johnson (1999) mentioned. Her way of correcting students’ errors depended not only on her mood, but also on students’ levels and ability to handle the correction. According to my observation notes, Emily tried to correct students’ mistakes the same way that she taught grammar – building on students’ own knowledge, trying to find how much they knew, and relying on their ability to correct themselves. The excerpt below shows this aspect.
140 Emily told students that they should come up to the board and write one sentence for each picture. Students did that. When they finished, she read each sentence, correcting a few grammar mistakes and sometimes asking them to correct themselves. This was the case with the sentence “He’s going to broke.” She read it, then told students there was a small grammar problem, and asked them what was it. Students answered. (S2, ON 10:1-2, 2/03/99) The excerpt shows that Emily usually corrected students’ errors by asking them to correct themselves. Only after doing this, would she tell them the answer. She also tried to enlist other students’ help to make the student see his or her mistake and to avoid her telling the answer. Her approach to error correction is interrelated with her belief about teacher and learner roles. In conclusion, Emily’s beliefs seemed to inform her practice as shown in Table 12. It is even hard to attribute one action to the influence of one belief only. They all seem interconnected. The combination of her belief in the teacher as facilitator, the learner as active, in creating a relaxed atmosphere, in students’ understanding, and in the use of grammar all influenced her structuring the classes the way she did. Thus, in her classes, she asked students many questions and tried to get them involved. She also used lots of games and visuals to minimize her talking time and explanation of grammar rules and maximize students’ use of the language and involvement in the class.
141 Table 12 Influence of Emily’s Beliefs on Her Actions Beliefs
Actions
Creating a relaxed atmosphere
Stressing students’ knowledge of each other’s names Encouraging students to ask questions Promoting students’ collaboration Using games
Concern for students’ understanding
Asking lots of questions to students Providing students with opportunities to answer and ask questions Using visuals
Teacher as facilitator Learner as active
Encouraging students to ask questions and help each other Using pair-work and information-gap activities Asking students questions Involving students in correcting their own mistakes
Students learn grammar by practicing and Using lots of visuals speaking the language Using games Teaching grammar inductively, and helping students to discover the rules.
Karina’s beliefs Karina was a 26-year-old Master’s student of psychology in Brazil. Before coming to the US, she had been studying English continuously for two years at a private English school, where she was an advanced level student. Karina emphasized the importance of English as an international language and the fact that by studying it, she would be a step ahead of other people. Studying English would help her have a better job. These aspects motivated her to study it (I 1:2, 1/14/99).
142 Teachers at SLI considered Karina a very good student, according to one of her teacher’s comments to me and to her teachers’ evaluations of her performance in the midterm conference. Karina got straight As in all courses (I 3:2, 2/5/99). By talking to Karina and by observing her in the Structure 2 class, it was possible to infer some of her beliefs about learning English. Her beliefs focused on beliefs about her English, about the differences between learning English in the target language country and in the native language country, beliefs about teacher and learner roles, and about her level in Structure 2. Beliefs about Her English Since the beginning of her English learning experience in Brazil, Karina did not seem to have had a very positive view of her knowledge of English. When she talked about her English-learning experience in public school or with a private teacher, she emphasized the fact that “she was not very good at English” or “didn’t have any English” (I 1:2, 1/14/99), although she was able to understand and communicate with people. Karina expressed having difficulties with English at first. She felt as if she had started “getting dumb” or had “diminished her knowledge.” This difficulty, as she explained, had to do with grammar knowledge and with knowing what verb tenses to use. She believed that that there was a “correct way of speaking,” but [she was] not “speaking that correct way” (I 3:2, 2/5/99). This difficulty seemed to trouble Karina. Her husband’s comment that her English had worsened in the first weeks at SLI made Karina more convinced that she was indeed having trouble. The next quote illustrates how her husband’s comment influenced how she constructed her identity as a language learner.
143 […] É tão estranho, porque assim você começa saber o tanto de coisa que ainda falta pra você aprender né? E assim ontem mesmo eu tava conversando com o Lauro e a Myko, a gente ficou conversando. Aí ele falou pra mim que … meu inglês tinha ficado muito pior. Que regras gramaticais que eu tinha ensinado pra ele eu não estava usando. E coisas assim de… que eu sei que eu estou tendo dificuldades mesmo. Presente, passado, futuro, tá tudo uma bagunça na minha cabeça. Eu não consigo saber. Às vezes eu quero falar que ‘ontem eu ouvi na previsão do tempo que amanhã vai chover’. ((num tom de voz mais alto)) Eu não sei falar isso, eu não consigo montar essa frase pra falar. Tá tudo tão complicado na minha cabeça, que às vezes eu quero falar alguma coisa e até deixo de falar porque eu sei que eu não estou conseguindo aliar o raciocínio. Então eu estou bem preocupada com isso, eu quero ver se hoje eu pego os verbos e dou uma olhada. (I 2:8, 1/24/99) {It’s so odd, because you begin to realize the number of things that you have yet to learn. And just yesterday I was talking with Lauro [her husband] and Myko [a Japanese student], when he told me that my English had worsened, that I wasn’t using the grammar rules that I had taught him. I know that I’m having difficulties. Present, past, future, it’s all mixed up in my head. I am not able to know. Sometimes I want to say, “Yesterday I heard on the weather forecast that it’s going to rain tomorrow.” I don’t know how to say this, I can’t put this sentence together to say it. ((in a higher pitch)) It’s all so complicated in my head that sometimes I want to say something but I give up because I know I can’t reason. So, I’m very worried about this. Today I’ll try to study the verbs.} Karina expressed concerns about her supposed inability to form sentences correctly. She implied that she had lost her grammar command of the language and felt this “confusion” and “mess in her head.” She decided then to study the verbs. Although Karina agreed with her husband, she told me that she was not too keen on his correcting her all the time, since this made her ashamed of speaking (I 2:8-9, 1/24/99). Karina also thought that part of her problem was because she was too anxious to speak and believed “it’s not good to stop to think” (I 2:9, 1/24/99). Her explanation suggests a belief in a correct way of speaking that involved being able to speak fast and without mistakes. The previous quote showed the role of a new context in shaping Karina’s beliefs and constructing her identity. In this new context, peers, teachers, and close friends (or husband) helped to shape her beliefs. This new environment required Karina’s adaptation
144 and adoption of new strategies. It may be that some of her strategies were not adequate to this new environment. Karina talked about one of her experiences with the conversation partner, where although she was able to say something, she knew that the conversation partner did not understand what she had said. When she heard her partner’s answer to her question, she realized that she must have said something other than what she really wanted to say (I 2:12-13, 1/24/99). This episode may have reinforced Karina’s perception about her English. The episode also suggests how actions and experience may have shaped her beliefs and the construction of her identity as an ESL learner. By the end of the half-session, Karina thought that she had improved a bit. In her perception of improvement, grammar knowledge was an important factor. She said that she was speaking more, and had learned “new words and new verbs.” Nevertheless, she thought that she was still feeling insecure to speak (I 3:3, 2/5/99). Karina’s difficulties could have been partly due to her perceptions about the differences between learning in the US and in Brazil, as I explain next. Differences Between Learning in Brazil and in the US Karina commented extensively on the differences between learning English in the target language country (TC), that is, the US, and in the native language country (NC), that is, Brazil. She emphasized three aspects that made her see these differences: (a) her difficulty of applying knowledge in the TC, (b) the unreal side of learning in the NC, and (c) the amount of time needed to learn in both countries. “Applying knowledge.” Karina experienced difficulties applying in the TC what she had learned in Brazil. These difficulties, as well as her experiences in a new environment, contributed to reinforce, and perhaps create, the differences she perceived
145 in learning English in these two places and her evaluation of both experiences. She seemed aware that what she used to do in Brazil would not fit in this new context. She had expected that it would be easier and that she would be able to understand people’s spoken language. As she explained: […] Então quando você conversa com uma pessoa por exemplo, ela usa um monte de gíria, ela usa um monte de coisa que você nunca viu, nem pensou em ver lá. Quando você escreve um negócio, você está vendo que o negócio está escrito errado, o professor está te corrigindo, tá em cima. Você está falando, você está sendo corrigida né? Por mais que você saiba a gramática, a hora que te colocam uma série de testes, aquilo está tudo tão próximo, que você não conseguiu guardar o suficiente pra saber o certo. Então eu acho que tudo acaba ficando muito mais difícil do que você imaginou. Quando você vem, a idéia é muito mais light, é um negócio muito mais tranquilo. (I 1:3-4, 1/14/99) {When you talk to a person, for instance, she uses a lot of slang, a lot of things that you have never seen before, or even imagined seeing there [in Brazil]. When you write something, you see that it’s written wrong, that the teacher is correcting you. You speak and you are being corrected. Even if you know a lot of grammar, when they start giving you a lot of tests, everything is so close that you can’t keep it in your memory to know if it’s the correct way, so I think everything is harder than what you imagined. When you come here, you have a lighter idea and believe that is going to be easy.} Karina seemed surprised because things were not as easy as she thought they would be. She appeared bewildered by putting everything together, seeing the grammar used in speaking. These were her first impressions of staying in the TC. Her use of the word “applying” suggests a view of the TC as this place where she would use the rules that she had learned in Brazil. Karina started realizing that it was not so easy to “apply” this grammar: […] Por exemplo, eu trouxe uma gramática, uma gramática não, um resumo, sabe aqueles resuminhos que você vai fazendo pra estudar pra prova e tal, a gente colocou no computador e trouxe um sumário daquilo que a gente tinha visto. Então eu achei que.. porque lá no Brasil como é que você faz, três horas por semana, no meu caso, eu faço duas vezes por semana, uma hora e meia. Então juntando tudo dá três horas. Três horas por semana, você chega lá, você faz aquela lição, você em geral vai bem naquela lição, tem um regrazinha, uma gramática pra você estudar e acabou. Você vai embora. Então, dentro daquilo
146 que o curso te exige, você é uma excelente aluna, você vai bem, no meu caso, por exemplo, nunca tive problema. Mas isso porquê? Porque o que te é exigido é muito pouco em relação ao que é exigido aqui. Aqui o tempo inteiro você vai estar utilizando…muitas das gramáticas que você tinha visto lá passo a passo. Aqui tá tudo junto. […] (I 1:4, 1/14/99) {For instance, I brought a grammar, I mean, not a grammar, a summary, you know, those little summaries that you do to study for a test. We put it in the computer and we brought a summary of what we had studied. So I thought…. Because in Brazil, what do you do? Three hours a week, in my case, I go twice a week, for one hour and a half, so altogether it’s three hours a week. You go, you do the lesson, you do well in the lesson, in general, there is a little rule, some grammar to study and that’s it. You go home. So, within what the course demands, you are an excellent student, you do well, in my case, for instance, I have never had a problem. But why is that? Because what they demand is very little compared to what they demand at SLI. Here all the time you will be using at once many parts of the grammar that you saw there step by step. Here is everything together.} Karina gave more details about some of the differences between studying in the TC and in the NC. In Brazil, besides having little time to study every week, she studied the topics one at a time, whereas at SLI, she studied many topics at once, and had to be able to use them in speaking. Because of that, Karina concluded that they “demanded” little in Brazil and described learning English in Brazil as a “fantasy island.” “Fantasy island.” Karina characterized her learning experience in Brazil as a “fantasy island.” In Brazil she did not have any problems and she spoke English “correctly” (I 3:10, 2/5/99). However, as seen in her previous comments, things appeared to be more complex in the TC. Karina seemed to perceive the TC as a place that would tell her if she really knew English. This view was apparent when I tried to challenge Karina’s statement about her perception of Brazil as a fantasyland. When I pointed out to her that she knew English before coming to the US and that she was able to communicate with people, she answered me,
147 Exatamente, pra conseguir chegar, mas é muito pouco em relação ao que você precisa pra dizer que você fala inglês. Eu acho que assim, eu conseguia me comunicar, mas falar inglês não. E agora o problema é que eu sei que eu tenho que melhorar mais ainda ((ela ri)). Eu até acredito que a hora que a gente chegar no Brasil, a gente vai se sentir mais fortalecido, mais encorajado, porque aqui você está falando com todo mundo que é a língua nativa é essa, no teu país não. Então provavelmente eu vou conseguir falar com pessoas que antes eu não conseguia falar, pessoas que falam inglês há mais tempo que antes eu não entendia, talvez agora eu consiga falar bem mais próximo. Eh… essa é uma expectativa que eu tenho, mas eu não estou bem certa ainda. Só depois que eu vou te dizer. ((ela ri)) (3 I:11, 2/5/99) {Exactly, but it’s very little compared to what you need, to say that you speak English. I think I was able to communicate, but not speak English. My problem is that I know I still have to improve much more ((she laughs)). I believe that when we go back to Brazil, we will feel strong/strengthened, more courageous, because here you are speaking with people whose native language is English. In your country it’s not like that. So maybe I will be able to speak with people with whom I could not speak, people who have been speaking English for a longer time whom I couldn’t understand before. Maybe my English will become similar to theirs. This is my expectation, but I’m not sure yet. I will only be able to tell you later. ((she laughs))} When I questioned her belief, Karina downplayed her knowledge of English by distinguishing between communicating and speaking in English. This was the first reason for believing that learning English in Brazil was not real. She emphasized the role of the TC as the place that would make her English stronger and give her some credentials to be able to speak more English in Brazil, especially to people whom she perceived as having more knowledge than she had. Thus, Karina seemed to have a positive image of learning in the TC and a negative one of learning in Brazil. Perhaps because of this, she believed that people should learn English abroad, as long as they could afford it. (I 2:11-12, 1/24/99) The second reason for Karina’s perception of learning in Brazil as a fantasyland was related to her belief about the kind of English that she learned in Brazil. Karina believed that in Brazil one learned a correct English, an English that was not used in the
148 TC because it did not include expressions or slang. Two facts helped to reinforce this view. The first one was her personal experience in the US while watching TV: Porque a gente aprende tudo muito certinho e quando você começa a conversar, … você vê na televisão por exemplo, a gente estava assistindo um desenho hoje antes de vir pra cá, o Lauro aprendeu que dólar era, como é que é? bucks. Então no desenho, o rapaz fala, “oh, give me 10 bucks”. Aí o patinho dava pra ele os dez dólares. Aí eu falei, ué. Quer dizer, no Brasil você não vai aprender 10 bucks, você vai aprender 10 dollars. É diferente”. (I 3:3-4, 2/5/99) {Because we learn everything very correctly, but when you start to talk … you see on TV for instance. We were watching cartoons; Lauro learned that a dollar was, what was it? Bucks. So in the cartoon, the guy said, ‘oh, give me 10 bucks’. Then the little duck gave him 10 dollars. Then I said, in Brazil you don’t learn 10 bucks, you learn 10 dollars. It’s different.} Karina’s experience watching TV and learning a new word that she had not been taught in Brazil convinced her of the poor quality of her previous learning in Brazil. The second fact was related to a teacher’s comment in class about the English that international students learn in their countries. Karina recollected it as follows: […] “No teu país você aprende o ingles básico, por mais avançado que você esteja nele muitas vezes ele é o básico quando você chega no outro país”. É o que a Sally [a professora de Spoken English] falou pra gente, “o inglês que vocês aprendem no seu país, não dá pra se comunicar com os americanos daqui porque o inglês de rua, é muito diferente daquele que você aprendeu lá”. (I 2:11-12, 1/24/99) {“In your country, you learn the basics. No matter how advanced you are, it’s basic when you arrive in the other country.” This is what Sally [her Spoken teacher] told us, “The English you learn in your country is not enough to communicate with Americans because the English from the streets is very different from what you learned there.”} Karina drew a distinction between the kind of English that people learn in the NC and in the TC. In this quotation, she shows the influence of her Spoken English teacher at SLI who commented about these two “Englishes.” Listening to her Spoken teacher may have reinforced her belief about the different kind of English that she learned in Brazil. Her experiences at SLI might have influenced her talking about it and how she talked
149 about it. Her perception shaped what she experienced, and what she experienced in turn shaped her perception. Karina compared the opportunities for speaking available in both countries. She believed that in the NC one does not have opportunities to speak. Even if one does, the content of what one says is very limited. However, in the TC, because there are opportunities to speak with lots of people every day, one has to enlarge the kinds of topics to talk about and be able to chat about the new things that have happened (I 3: 2-3, 2/5/99). Karina believed that speaking and listening to international students helped her improve not only her speaking, but also her listening. She thought that students should take advantage of that opportunity and speak to each other since they did not have that in Brazil. In spite of perceiving the opportunities for speaking in TC, Karina placed a lot of importance in doing the homework. She said that she talked to several “older” and “more advanced” students who told her about the importance of doing one’s homework. Karina felt that the homework helped her to process a large amount of information. She explained that she needed to see things more than once to understand them. The homework helped her in reviewing and “memorizing” the grammar points and everything else she learned (I 3:12, 2/5/99). Equivalency rule. Karina compared the number of hours needed to learn English in both countries. This is what I called the “equivalency rule.” Eu sei também que quantos anos eu vou ter que ficar lá por semana pra aprender o que aprende aqui. Porque a gente contou mais ou menos o número de horas, o que eu aprendi aqui em um mês, eu não aprendo no Brasil em seis meses em matéria de hora, se você for comparar, dão seis meses de estudo. Isso é bem diferente. Aí, eu não sei, você fica pensando muito, qual que vai ser o melhor método de voltar a aprender. (I 3:10, 2/5/99)
150 {I also know how many years I will have to be there to learn what I learn here. We counted more or less the number of hours. What I learned here in one month, I don’t learn in Brazil in six months, so in terms of hours, if you compare, it’s six months of study. This is very different. Then you keep wondering what will be the best method for learning [English] again.} Karina emphasized the number of hours needed to learn English in both countries. According to this rule, one learns much faster in the TC since it takes half of the time needed to learn in the NC. Her belief about these differences influenced her evaluation of the experience in both places. At the end of the half-session, she doubted that she would be able to learn English in Brazil again. She talked about it in the third interview: Eu acho que mudou bastante coisa pra gente. Porque pra mim por exemplo, acho que a gente conversou sobre isso na última vez, eu tô muito em dúvida sobre como voltar a aprender inglês no Brasil. Primeiro você sabe que aqui você tem uma coisa muito mais intensiva. Eu sinto que assim hoje qualquer aula de inglês que eu for fazer não vai ser tão bom como se eu tivesse fazendo aqui. Esse eu acho que é um ponto ruim. Ao invés de ser um ponto bom, é um ponto ruim porque eu estou desmotivada a continuar o inglês lá. Entao é assim, eu sei que tem muito mais coisa, então eu vou ficar pagando curso, indo toda semana, pra quê? Será que vale a pena ou não vale? Hoje é uma questão que a gente tem. […](I 3:10, 2/5/99) {I think many things have changed for us. Because for me, for instance, I think we talked about this last time, I feel very insecure about how to go back to learn English in Brazil. First you know that here you have something that is much more intensive. I feel today that any English class that I will take will not be as good as if I were studying here. I think this is a bad aspect. Instead of being good, it’s bad because I feel demotivated to keep studying English there. Thus, I know that there is so much more, why am I going to keep paying a private English school, going every week? What for? Is it worth or not? Today we have this question.} Karina did not feel motivated to keep studying English in Brazil because of the amount of time needed to learn in that country. Because of all the comparisons she made between both places, because of her experiences at SLI, her belief that one learns better in the TC became much stronger than before and she began to doubt she could learn English in Brazil. The way she dealt with those difficulties and her current experiences at SLI reinforced her belief in the TC as the best place to learn.
151 Teacher and Learner Roles Karina’s beliefs about teacher and learner roles seemed to differ from Emily’s beliefs. Whereas Emily believed the teacher should be a facilitator, Karina believed that the teacher should be more than that. That was apparent in her comments about her previous teachers in Brazil, and her teachers at SLI. Karina emphasized that a good teacher makes an “effort to pass the content to students.” A good teacher has good “didactics.”3 She complained about one teacher at SLI who was not very good “didactically” because “she was not able to tell students what she wanted from the exercises” (I 2:8, 1/24/99). A teacher should prepare classes well and bring extra material to students when they are having difficulties. This was clear in her comment about her teachers in Brazil: Eu tive uma professora por exemplo que ela era muito boa. Era aquela aula que você sabia que tinha sido bem preparada. Ela preparava a aula pra gente, no final ela falava com você sobre a sua dificuldade, no outro dia ela trazia alguma coisa pra você e falava “olha eu acho que a gramática do livro não está sendo suficiente. Eu trouxe uma outra que eu acho que é melhor sobre esse ponto. Então eu acho que esse tipo de coisa reforça muito a tua boa impressão do professor. Eu os considero bons professores. (I 1:5-6, 1/14/99) {I had a very good teacher. It was that class that you knew it had been well prepared. She prepared the class for us. At the end of the class, she would talk to you about your difficulties. The next day she would bring something for you and say, “Look, I think that the grammar of the book is not enough. I brought another one that I think is better about this aspect.” Thus, I think this kind of thing reinforces your good impression of the teacher, so I consider them good teachers.} Karina expected teachers to have an active role. Teachers should tune into students’ needs and be able to offer them help. She believed that a good teacher should make an effort and try to anticipate students’ needs, care for them, and bring extra
3
The word didactics comes from Greek didaktikos, which means “skillful in teaching.” The American Heritage Dictionary (1992, p. 519) lists two other meanings that are not present in the definitions of the word in Portuguese: didactics as meaning morally instructive and inclined to teach or moralize excessively.
152 material for students with difficulties. A good teacher must also “know his/her students a little better” (I 1:6, 1/14/99). Teachers’ concern with students’ difficulties seems to act as a motivating factor for Karina. Karina expressed her view about the role of a teacher when she commented about the Structure class. On one occasion, when I asked her why students did not use “going to” much in the game that they were playing (whose objective was to practice “going to”) Karina responded, “I think that the [the teacher] didn’t tell us to use ‘going to’ so we forgot to use it” (I 3:5, 2/5/99). This answer indicates that she expected the teacher to exercise this role of reminding students of the grammar expressions they should use. In the stimulated recall, when I commented that some students did not say much, she also thought that the teacher could have asked specific students to answer. These two episodes indicate that Karina perceived the teacher as other than just a facilitator. Karina believed that students must be available, obey the teacher, and pay attention to class. A good student must be interested in the class and have a real purpose to learn other than “I’m here because my father paid for me”: Acho que o bom aluno é que aquele que está disponível pra aprender. Ele vai ter que se esforçar pra conseguir acompanhar aquilo que dá, tem que fazer os exercícios, não tem jeito, porque principalmente quando você está no Brasil, tem uma hora e meia de aula, depois você só vai dois dias depois. Nao há inglês também que entre desse jeito. Você tem que fazer o exercício. Então eu acho que é essa colaboração. Estar aberto, disponível, ter um esforço pessoal, porque vai requerer um esforço pessoal seu, e fazer as tarefas. Eu acho que isso dá. Às vezes eu por exemplo não tenho muito tempo fora da aula pra fazer exercício. Então eu já tento prestar o máximo de atenção na aula porque aquilo ali é o que eu tenho. Então, pouco ou muito, eu tenho que prestar atenção naquela aula e depois dar um jeito de fazer os exercícios que têm que ser feitos. Não sei, eu não estou sendo modesta, mas eu me considero uma boa aluna, dentro do meu conceito de bom aluno. Eu não estou falando de inteligência, “ah eu sou um bom aluno, porque um bom aluno é inteligente”. Não, eu sou uma boa aluna porque eu cumpro com as minhas obrigações de aluno. Acho que respeito muito o papel do professor. Acho que isso é importante sim. (I 1:7, 1/14/99)
153 {I think a good student is one who is available to learn, she will have to make an effort to be able to follow what is being given, she has to do the exercises, there’s no other way. Especially if you are in Brazil, you have just one hour and half of class, and then you only have classes two days later. There is no way English is going to get into your head. You have to do the exercises. So I think there’s this collaboration. To be open, available, make a personal effort, because it will require your personal effort, and do your homework. I think this way is good. Sometimes for instance, I don’t have much time out of class to do the exercises. Thus, I try to pay most attention I can in class because this is what I have. So, little or not, I have to pay attention to class and later, try to do the exercises that have to be done. I don’t know, I’m not being modest, but I consider myself a good student, within my concept of good student. I’m not talking about intelligence, “I’m a good student because a good student is intelligent.” No, I’m a good student because I do my duties as a student. I think I respect the teacher’s role very much. I think this is very important.} Although Emily talked about collaboration, Karina used the term differently. For Karina, collaboration meant that students were available and willing to obey the teacher and do the exercises. The teacher had to be more active and guess what students needed and bring it to them. She explained that if students do not have much time to study after class, they should pay close attention to class and do the exercises. She did not equate the concept of good student with intelligence, but with performing her role as a student. Some of the key words in her remarks are “interest,” “availability to learn,” “openness,” and “duties.” This is a different view from Emily’s concept of good learner. Beliefs about Her Level in Structure 2 Karina thought that Structure 2 was not the right level for her. She took the replacement test the next day, but she stayed in the same level. She was very upset with her placement in this level. She explained why: Eu fiquei um pouco chateada principalmente pelo fato de eu ter ficado em um nível que eu considerei baixo na gramática. Eu fiquei chateada tanto comigo, porque eu pensei “pôxa você podia ter feito melhor.” Você vem estudando, então você podia ter ido um pouco melhor. Então eu fiquei um pouco chateada comigo e também faz a gente pensar quando eu vejo alguém com muito mais dificuldade que eu, tipo Jorge[student in class], que nao fala uma palavra em inglês, esta
154 falando tudo em espanhol, a outra que chegou hoje também, que não conseguia entender “what’s your name” e está no mesmo nível que eu. Você fica duvidando um pouco qual é realmente esse critério. (I 1:4, 1/14/99) {I was a bit upset especially because I was placed in a low level of grammar. I was upset with myself, because I thought, “Gee, I could have done better. You have been studying and you could have done a little better.” Thus, I was upset with myself. But you also begin wondering when you see somebody who has many more difficulties than me, such as Jorge, who doesn’t speak a word in English, speaks only in Spanish, or the other student who arrived today and doesn’t even understand “What’s your name” and is in the same level as I am. You start doubting the criterion [of the placement test].} Karina blamed herself for having been placed in that level. She also blamed the test, especially when she compared herself with other students in the class. She did not understand how they could be in the same level. She wondered what the criterion for the placement was. She would like to have some feedback from SLI about why she was placed in that level of grammar. This is evident in this next quote: […] Porque eu acho, eu tenho necessidade de saber onde eu estou errando. Se eu fui mal eu gostaria muito de ter visto os resultados. “Ah você está no Structure 2 porque você errou aqui, você tem esses tipos de erro.” Eu acho que tinha que ter um retorno para o aluno sobre o nível dele. Ou pelo menos que nem no Brasil, pega o gabarito. Nao custava nada ter o gabarito pra comparar. Você sabe como você foi. Pelo menos isso. Olha, “em 100 questões eu acertei 50”, ou eu acertei noventa ou trinta. Isso te dá uma noção pelo menos. Pra mim eu calaria a minha boca. “Olha Karina das 45 que tinha voce acertou 20.” Fui mal. Nem a metade. Então eu vou me conformar pelo menos com aquilo. (I 1:12, 1/14/99) {Because I have this need to know where my mistake is. If I didn’t do well, I would like to have seen the results. “You are in Structure 2 because you made this mistake and you have these kinds of mistakes.” I think they should give this kind of feedback to the student. Or they could do as in Brazil, give the answer key for us to compare our answers. They could at least do this. “Look, in 100 questions, I got 50, or 90 or 30.” This would give me an idea. I would shut my mouth. Look, Karina, in 45 questions, you got 20. That is not good. Not even half of it. Then I will accept that [her placement level].} Karina emphasized her need for feedback in order to know how she could move on. She compared this system with the system in Brazil where students at least have the answer key and can check their answers. She emphasized her need to know how many
155 questions she got right or wrong, so she could understand her placement. She believed that all the classes could start by working with students on the results of their tests. She suggested, for instance, that in Reading/Writing classes they could start with the first piece of writing that they did and build on that. This would show her improvement and development along the course. Karina’s belief about being in the wrong level for Structure influenced her perceptions and expectations about this class. She expected the class to be “profitable” and “heavier.” A “profitable” class. Karina evaluated the different groups in the classes she was taking at SLI. She evaluated positively the classes in which she perceived students were more interested. According to her, this contributed to a better interaction among them. When she talked about her Reading/Writing class as a model of a good group of students, she characterized it as a profitable class: […] É uma turma diferente. São pessoas que estão fazendo o curso há muito mais tempo, pelo menos seis pessoas que estão lá, já vem fazendo outros módulos, já fizeram um estágio, estão no segundo agora, então assim, já conhecem o procedimento do curso, e tudo mais. Mas são pessoas bem interessadas que estão aqui pra aprender mesmo, vieram por causa de trabalho, ou por causa de estudo. Não porque, ‘ah, nem sei direito’, pai mandou. Vieram por algum motivo mais específico. Pretendem estudar na universidade, então aí a aula rende mais também. Eu prefiro mais essa turma. (I 2:1-2, 1/24/99) {It’s a different group of students. They are people who have been taking the course for a longer time, at least six of them are in their second session, thus they already know how the course works and all of that. But they are very interested people who are here to learn really, because of work, or because of study, not because “ah, I don’t know very well,” their father sent them. They came for reasons that are more specific. They intend to get into college, thus the class is more profitable. I prefer this group of students.} One of the essential aspects in having a good group of classmates is their purpose in studying the language. Karina stressed the fact that in this class, students were “serious” in their purposes for studying the language. They were not there to play. These
156 aspects made that class “more profitable” in terms of what the group of students could accomplish. What makes a class profitable? Karina cited two aspects. The first aspect, as already mentioned, is students’ serious purpose and motivation to work. According to Karina, being with a group of students who are motivated to learn makes one more motivated to study. She talked about some students in the Structure class whom she liked working with and whom she perceived as interested and motivated. However, she thought that most of students in that class were not very serious in their purposes: […] Eu acho, a maioria dos alunos que estão ali, é o pai ou a mãe que estão pagando, é a família que está pagando. “Ah se der tudo bem, se não der, não tem muito problema”. Pra mim já é diferente. Eu estou pagando, eu sei o quanto custou vir pra cá e o quanto está custando. Então, até por esse custo, eu gostaria de aprender o máximo possível.[…] (I 1:13, 1/14/99) {I think that most students are there because their parents are paying. “If I get it, ok, if I don’t, there’s no problem.” For me it’s different. I am paying and I know how much it cost me and it is still costing me to be here. Thus, it’s exactly because of that that I want to learn the most I can.} Karina mentioned two aspects in this quotation. First, she seemed to be aware of the difference between her purposes and other students’. In this awareness, the economic factor is one aspect that is present in her discourse. Second, she wanted to make the most of her time at SLI because it was hard for her to pay for the course and for coming to the US. The second aspect of a profitable class refers to good management of time. A profitable class is one that “produces” more results because all students do the exercises, do not waste time, and get things done quickly (I 2:2, 1/24/99). This is related to Karina’s short time at SLI (only half-session). As she explained, “I end up being very critical. I am here to learn, I only have one month, I have less time than other people, then my degree
157 of urgency is higher and I wanted everything to be faster.” She believed that some students in the Structure class took too much time to answer the teacher’s questions or do things that the teacher asked them to do. This made her volunteer to answer the teacher’s questions in class and even tell other students to pay attention to the class (I 2:2, 1/24/99). Karina believed that the teacher should not wait so much for students’ answers and should go faster. She was referring to the homework correction, which, according to her, would be faster if the teacher just asked each student to answer the questions instead of waiting for them to tell her their doubts (I 3:6, 2/5/99). It is important to point out though that this perception of time is not exclusive to the Structure class. She made similar comments about the Spoken class, where the teacher spent half of the class, asking student to discuss the meaning of a proverb. Little time was left for the class objective, according to Karina, which was to learn how to disagree (I 1:14, 1/14/99). “Heavier” grammar classes. Karina thought that level 2 of Structure was easy for her. She believed that the classes could be “heavier.” She seemed not to like the atmosphere that reminded her of “basic,” “easy” things. She kept comparing her classes with her husband’s and believed that he had much more homework and more lessons. She seemed not to like the fact that she was not working as hard as her husband was in his levels: […] Vejo que Lauro tem sempre mais lição pra fazer. Em uma aula dele, eles fazem mais páginas do livro deles do que eu, então eu acabo considerando isso mais sério. Na verdade eles trabalham mais pesado talvez. Eu acabo considerando isso mais sério. Não sei se é exatamente isso. Mas eu acho que deve ser mais ou menos nesse sentido. Eles acabam fazendo sempre bastante coisa e a gente no mesmo tempo de aula, não faz tudo isso. (I 1:15, 1/14/99) {I see that Lauro has much more homework to do. In one class, they do more pages in their book than I do. I end up considering this more serious. In fact, they may work harder. I end up seeing this as more serious. I don’t know if it’s exactly
158 this. But I think it’s sort of like that. They end up doing a lot of things and in the same time, we don’t do all of that.} Karina seemed to see the amount of lessons or homework that a student has as a criterion to judge whether the class is serious, difficult, and thus not basic. Some of the key words in her comments illustrate that: “more homework,” “more pages in the book,” “work harder,” “do more stuff.” Karina expected grammar rules to be explicitly taught in class. This expectation is evident, first, in her comments about activities done in the Structure class. When she evaluated some activities, she usually focused on how much grammar she had learned. Such was the case of one activity where students had to formulate questions using the future “will” and “going to.” Karina thought that this was good because it gave them a “chance of ‘training’ what they had studied.” She compared this activity with one in which they had to take part in a telephone dialogue using “will/going to.” She believed that this telephone activity was not very “productive” because they did not pay attention to using those two forms. With the activity of making questions, “although it was not the most fun, it was the most productive” (I 3:4, 2/5/99). The reason for her enjoying that activity better was because she enjoyed learning about the rules. Karina mentioned “feeling comfortable” when Emily put on the board “will and going to” and explained when both were used (I 3:6-7, 2/5/99). Karina seemed to want this metaknowledge where the rules of how language works were explained, and this could be one of the reasons why she believed she had learned more grammar in the TOEFL class than in the Structure class (I 3:9, 2/5/99). She seemed to enjoy getting explanations about what was grammatically correct or incorrect about the sentences.
159 Karina’s concern with grammar was also present in how she evaluated some of the games done in class. When she commented about a spelling game where students were supposed to spell the word and use the noun with the correct quantifier (“a little,” “a few”), she highlighted the fact that this helped her in the test. She also commented that the teacher “could have used the time to explain the plural of nouns, which she hadn’t done so far.” Thus, she thought that the teacher instead of “giving the game, should have explained the grammar [used in the game]” (I 2:7, 1/24/99). Karina participated in class either by asking questions or by volunteering to answer the teacher’s questions. Her questions usually referred to details about aspects of grammar, as the following questions from my observation notes show: “Is mail count or non-count?” (S2, ON 4:1, 01/20/99). Karina asked if “would” was not a modal; Karina asked at the end, “Do I say I would like to go?” (S2, ON9:2, 2/02/99) Karina did not criticize everything. She did see the value of some activities in class, such as some games that helped her remember some vocabulary for the test. In the end of the half-session, she also noted that the subject had become more difficult in the Structure class (I 3:4, 2/5/99). She also wanted to make it clear that she was not criticizing the teacher in any way. She thought that “this can even show how being placed in a level that one doesn’t exactly know why, can be harmful to the student and not make him/her interested” (I 3:9, 2/5/99). At the end of the half session, in the last interview, her evaluation of this experience was positive overall. Karina expressed sadness for leaving, especially because, having been at SLI for only a half session, she felt as though she was missing something. As she explained, “We’re going but I know the course is not over. On
160 Monday, everybody will be handing in his or her homework, but me. Thus, I know I will be missing something” (I 3:11, 12/5/99). Karina’s problem with the level influenced her identity as a learner. It also influenced her perception of her classes, especially because she kept comparing them with her husband’s classes. In this comparison, she seemed to perceive her classes as too “basic.” She did not want to be treated as less competent and as doing something she perceived as “easier.” Thus, she expected the Structure 2 class to be “heavier” and more demanding. These aspects influenced the types of criticisms she made to the Structure class. These criticisms, as Karina emphasized, were the result of her placement, and not criticisms of the teacher. In conclusion, Karina’s beliefs about the group and her concept of a profitable class shows, first, her awareness of the group’s influence and contribution to the class as a whole. Second, it shows how this perception of her classmates, as well as her concern with grammar, influenced her actions in class. She took the initiative to answer the teacher’s questions, so that they were not stuck waiting until one student decided to answer. This shows how beliefs interact with actions. Table 13 summarizes Karina’s beliefs.
161 Table 13 Summary of Karina’s Beliefs about Language Learning Beliefs about
Comments
Her English
Not good Difficulties in speaking
Differences between learning in the TC (USA) and the NC (Brazil)
• • •
Difficulty of applying the rules in the TC NC seen as “fantasy island” (English learned in NC is not the same as in TC) Equivalency rule – Exposure in TC is more intensive than in NC
Teacher and Learner Roles
Teacher: • Pass content to students • Is aware of students’ difficulties and offers help • Prepares classes Learner: • Is interested • Is available to learn • Pays attention to class • Respects the teacher • Follows his or her duties as a student
Her Level in Structure 2
Level too low and basic for her She wanted classes to be more Profitable: • Students are motivated and serious in their purposes • Time is not wasted Heavier: • More grammar exercises and homework • More explicit explanation of grammar rules
Relationship Between Emily’s and Karina’s Beliefs How did Emily’s beliefs relate to Karina’s beliefs? Were they similar or different? Did Emily’s beliefs or actions influence Karina in any way? The analysis of Emily’s and Karina’s beliefs seemed to indicate that their beliefs were different.
162 Although Karina acknowledged the value of having a nice atmosphere in class, she emphasized students’ interests and purposes of studying rather than the relaxed atmosphere that Emily mentioned. Karina stressed that the course needed to be “heavier” and more “demanding,” whereas Emily wanted students to feel “comfortable” with each other. The beliefs about teacher and learner roles were also different. Whereas Karina expected the teacher to have a more central and caring role, Emily emphasized the role of the teacher as more of a facilitator and enacted this belief. Karina also thought that Emily should save time just by asking students to read their answers instead of waiting for them to voice their doubts. Karina believed that they wasted time in class, especially spending time learning each other’s name, whereas for Emily this was an essential part of her belief about students’ understanding and about creating a relaxed atmosphere. Emily wanted to make sure they understood and participated in class, other than just answering her questions. The problem with determining one teacher’s influence on a student is that that particular teacher may not be the one who will influence that student. Teachers other than the one observed may have influenced the student. Karina mentioned two instances of beliefs that another teacher expressed in class that she already believed. Such was the case of the comments made by her Spoken English teacher on the kind of English that students spoke. As Karina already thought that she spoke a different English than the one spoken in the US, when her teacher mentioned that in class, Karina’s belief was reinforced. In another occasion, the same teacher talked to students in class about their course level, something that Karina was questioning. Karina had problems at first
163 understanding her Spoken teacher’s English and she talked to her teacher about it. Karina seemed to have accepted her teacher’s explanation about it: Ela falou “olha, eu não vou mudar o meu estilo por causa de vocês. São vocês que tem que correr atrás, não sou eu que tenho que mudar, falar mais devagar. Se você consegue pegar 70% do que eu falo, já tá bom. Se você entender 100% você está na sala errada.” Então assim, eu acho que essa noção pra mim é importante. É verdade, se eu souber tudo que tá falando como eu sei na Structure, é … acaba sendo… nível errado porque você não está aprendendo nada. Então isso ela deixou muito claro. Ela falou “olha você não tem que entender 100% do que eu falo, porque senão você não precisa estar nesse nível, você precisa tá no maior, né? Então isso eu acho que é uma verdade. Se tá tudo muito fácil pra você, pode ser que você esteja no nível errado. Você não está aprendendo muito […] (I 3:10, 2/5/99) {She told us “Listen, I’m not going to change my style because of you. You are the ones that have to change, not me. I don’t have to speak slower. If you get 70% of what I say, it’s good. If you understand 100% you are in the wrong class.” Thus, I think that this notion is important to me. It’s true. If I know everything that is being spoken, as I know in Structure [class], it’s… it ends up being…the wrong level because you are not learning anything. She made it clear. She said, “Look, you don’t have to understand 100% of what I say, because then you don’t need to be in this level, you need to be in a higher level, isn’t it?” I think this is true. If everything is easy for you, maybe you are in the wrong level. You are not learning much. […]} Karina seemed to agree with this teacher. This appeared to have influenced her because, as I said before, it was a problem that she was experiencing. Her teacher’s comments may have given her a reason to believe she was indeed in the wrong level in Structure 2. Teachers’ Influence on Students’ Beliefs As explained in Chapter II, the assumption in current studies is that influence means students following the teachers’ advice or beliefs. However, when teachers and students have different beliefs, this could also be an influence since it may affect students’ actions and perhaps, what students express as their beliefs.
164 This seemed to be the case between Karina and Emily. Karina perceived the Structure class as easy. Because of that, she might have adopted certain actions such as doing more grammar exercises with her husband, studying hard to have a good grade, and participating in class by asking grammar questions. As shown in the interactive and organic process represented in Figure 1,4 several factors influenced Karina’s belief about the Structure class and her actions, such as her previous identity as an advanced learner, her comparison with Lauro’s classes, her placement in that level, and her comparison with her classmates. Her actions, in turn, influenced Emily’s perception of Karina as more mature than the other students and as somebody who helped her in class. Emily said that Karina would usually “bring out a point that [she] had not thought about explaining or that [she] had forgotten to explain.” Emily perceived Karina’s questions as a “guide to what wasn’t clear for the rest of the class” (I 3:5, 2/23/99). Thus, at least indirectly, Emily’s beliefs and her class influenced Karina’s actions. This does not mean that Karina adopted Emily’s beliefs or changed her beliefs. However, Karina’s placement in a lower level than what she expected may have made her perceive Emily’s agenda as essentially different from hers, and perhaps try to pursue her own agenda. Students’ Influence on Teachers’ Beliefs and Actions Overall, Emily thought that students influenced teachers. Teachers needed this involvement and interaction with students. If students do not respond to it and do not give teachers any feedback, it is hard for them to know what to do next, how to plan their classroom decisions.
4
This figure illustrates the unique relationship between Karina’s and Emily’s beliefs and actions. This relationship did not happen for the other participants. Thus, I do not have similar figures for them.
165
Classmates’ actions in class
Her husband’s classes at SLI
K’s perception of level as easy
K’s previous identity as advanced learner
K’s actions in and out of class
E’s perception of K as more mature
E’s ways of structuring the class
Figure 1: Interactive Relationship between Karina’s and Emily’s Beliefs and Actions
166 One limitation of this study was that I was observing one specific student to try to be able to see in more detail how this influence happened. However, nothing guarantees that the influence is going to happen with that particular student. There may be students in the class who exert more influence on the teacher, or whom the teacher perceives as influencing him or her more. This was the case of Emily and Nelson. She seemed to think that Nelson influenced her more in going faster with the subject. She sometimes felt this could be a problem for her. It had to do with her dilemma of choosing a balance for the different levels in class: I suspect that Nelson for example has more of an influence on the class, on what I do than I would really want him to. But I can’t think of… /How so?/ I feel like maybe I let him sort of direct what I do a little bit too much or I maybe speed things up when I didn’t mean to, because he is so quick, that I sort of teach to him sometimes. And he is quick and he is very vocal and so, I know I’ve mentioned this before, but he really stands out. So I think, “Ok, he’s got it, let’s go on to the next thing.” Then later I think “Well, did everybody else get it too?” (I 3:4-5, 2/23/99) In this quote, Emily talks about a specific student who she thought made her sometimes ‘forget’ about other students. It may be that Emily’s belief about students’ understanding might have made her more susceptible to students’ influence. Emily also thought that she might have used more teacher talk than she wanted to, especially when assigning homework, or telling them what was going to be on their test. She was aware that her ‘teacher talk’ could pose a problem to students who would probably not find that in the real world (I 1:8-9, 1/19/99). However, she made that choice in favor of students’ understanding. This choice may have also influenced her in how she thought she taught grammar, as she explained: […] I do more explicit instruction than what I would like to do, I think. I don’t know if it’s explaining grammar rules is necessarily the best way to teach grammar or not. Although I think a lot of students, because they are accustomed
167 to that kind of instruction, like it, and feel more comfortable maybe feel they are learning more because they can say “Ok this is the grammar rule.” But I don’t know if they are actually going to learn it the best way. I do it in part kind of to make them feel like, there is the notebook with notes on it, kind of a quantitative, “this is what I learned in grammar class today,” although I don’t really know if that’s going help them to be better speakers. It might help them do well on tests but I don’t know if that’s actually going to help them be better speakers of English, writers or readers of English. (I 2:4-5, 2/10/99) In this quote, Emily acknowledged doing more grammar explanation than she would like to because she thought students might feel more comfortable with that. Since one of her beliefs is to make them feel more comfortable, she did it. However, she still doubted that this was the best way of learning. This indicates how her interpretation of students’ beliefs influenced her. She decided to do a little bit more grammar explanation, because she believed students would benefit from it, even if it were just because the teacher did something they expected. According to Emily, respecting and adapting to students’ expectations could make them feel respected by their teachers. If students see that teachers are doing what students expect, they may feel more motivated to learn. Emily explained: Part of it is the psychological feeling that they have this notebook that has rules that they can kind of refer back to and use. And I don’t know, maybe psychologically, that does help them, because they feel that they are learning something and maybe, that’s what I hope, maybe that helps them actually learn it. Even if the memorization of grammar rules is what causes them to learn, maybe that the feeling that they have the rules, does it make sense? /yes/ (I 2:9, 2/10/99) This quote shows Emily’s interpretation of students’ beliefs and their influence on her practice. Emily also stated that students feel good when they know that the teacher is trying to adapt to their beliefs. If students think that they learn best by learning the rules, maybe they do learn best that way and teachers may need to adapt and negotiate their own beliefs with students’ beliefs. This negotiation is not explicit and may be just based
168 on teachers’ interpretation of students’ beliefs. The teacher’s interpretation of students’ beliefs may be influenced by the teacher’s own experience as a student. Emily admitted that to “some extent,” when she was a student she did “like to have some explicit instruction, and grammar rules.” She believed that if she felt that way, her “best guess is that at least some of the students must also feel that way” (I 2:12, 2/10/99, SR). In the member checking I did with Emily, she commented more about the importance of considering students’ expectations. She thought that interpreting students’ belief was an important aspect of teaching: I think it’s a really important part of the classrooms and guessing what students want… even if… there’s a balance between doing what you feel as a teacher is ideologically sound, or methodologically in favor or whatever. There’s a balance doing that and then doing what students expect when they come in the classroom and I think that if you do only what you think is right without thinking about what they think is right there’s an important psychological aspect to it where maybe they won’t feel like they aren’t learning as much and possibly, I’m just guessing, but possibly as a result will not learn as much because you’re not taking their expectations into consideration. So I think the psychology of that is an important factor in learning. (MC 1:7, 4/08/99) Knowing about students’ beliefs was very important because it was related to students’ motivation to learning. Students would probably feel more motivated if they saw that teachers were doing some of the things they expected in class. Besides her interpretations of students’ beliefs, Emily also admitted that students’ questions about grammar in class might have influenced her in doing more grammar explanation than she would like to (I 2:9-10, 2/10/99). She interpreted her students’ beliefs based on their actions. This shows how the interaction in the classroom shapes teachers’ beliefs, which in turn shape what happens in the classroom. Students’ questions in class may have influenced her interpretation of students’ expectations for explanation of grammar rules.
169 Emily liked the fact that Karina asked many questions because Emily thought that this helped other students who were shy or simply did not ask questions. She noticed how the class changed after Karina was gone. She had the impression that Karina was looking for rules. She remembered Karina asked many questions about correctness. Emily thought that that was great because, as she wanted to have feedback from students, Karina gave her this opportunity to know “what was going on with them” (I 2:10, 2/10/99). Emily saw Karina as somebody who helped her in class. She talked about it when we watched the videotape of the class. We were watching the part when Karina told Nelson to “stand up” to do the pair work. Emily said, That’s what I miss. ((she laughs)). /what? What do you miss?/ I miss her ((pause)) helping me out, making sure everybody else is participating too. She kind of fills that role in the class and that was really nice to have. Someone who didn’t feel it was only me that was supposed to tell them what to do, but also in a very nice way. It was really helpful. (I 2: 13-14, 2/10/99, SR). Emily talked a lot about the teaching of grammar and how she believed students expected her to explain grammar rules. Although she admitted doing more of that than she wanted to, she did not mention it as students’ influence on her teaching. However, this was one of the most evident aspects of students’ influence on her. Karina did expect a formal explanation of grammar rules as discussed before. Emily’s actions were not based solely on Karina’s ideas, but in this general belief about students’ belief in learning rules. In any case, it is possible to say that Emily’s interpretations of students’ beliefs represented one way that students’ beliefs influenced her actions. Emily mentioned other interpretations she had of students’ beliefs. For instance, she thought that students believed the teacher was the only person with the answers. I think students tend to think that the teacher is the only person who knows the answer in the classroom. I used to do the same thing as a student. “This is the
170 person with the knowledge, why should I trust these other people in the class, because they are students too.” But I’d like for the student to see it’s not always like that. (I 1:4, 1/19/99) This excerpt shows Emily’s interpretation of students’ belief about the role of the teacher. Her own experience as a student helped in her interpretation. She used to think that teachers knew everything. Therefore, she believed that her own students might have the same belief. In conclusion, this section has shown that the relationship between Emily and Karina’s beliefs is one of mismatch. This mismatch influenced Karina’s action in class. The analysis also indicated that Emily interpreted her students’ beliefs about language learning. She thought that students expected her to do more grammar explanation and she tried to consider that in her practice, by doing more explanation of grammar rules than she would like to. Jack and Lauro Jack’s Beliefs and Practice Jack was the most experienced teacher in the group of teachers I observed. He had taught two years abroad, one year in Saudi Arabia, and another year in Korea. He thought that such experiences are important because they force teachers to change their teaching styles or methods and make them more flexible and versatile. For him, having been to these two countries gave him a “point of contact, especially with Saudi students” (I 1:3, 1/22/99). In fact, a Saudi student who moved to Jack’s Reading/Writing class told me that besides liking Jack’s teaching style, he felt Jack understood his culture. Jack liked having successful classes and being around people from different cultures. He preferred teaching Reading/Writing to Spoken, because of the opportunity he
171 thought he had in that class to share knowledge with students about specific topics such as some parts of American history. He did not think that Spoken class was “that kind of sharing class” (I 2:6, 2/09/99). Jack did not talk about any specific difficult aspects of teaching, but by talking to him it was possible to infer that he perceived teaching as a very uncertain activity. The following comments illustrate this point: […] It’s good to have successful classes because next time you never know what will happen and there might just not be any rapport at all. […] (I 3:7, 2/16/99) […] Some days are up and some days are down. Some days it depends on me, it seems like, some days it depends on them. Some classes they are always with me, some classes they are not. […] (I 2:4-5, 2/09/99) Jack’s comments suggest his awareness of the uncertainty and ambiguity that teachers live with, as mentioned by Lortie (1975). No matter how much teachers plan, the results do not always depend on them, but on several factors, such as teachers’ or students’ mood, students’ interests and motivation, and teachers’ flexibility. This belief in uncertainty may also be related to his belief about teacher and learner roles. If teaching is such an uncertain business, teachers do need students’ collaboration. I will explain this in more detail shortly. By talking to Jack and observing his classes, it was possible to infer that he had four prominent beliefs: belief in the communicative approach, beliefs about teacher and learner roles, beliefs about himself as a teacher, and beliefs about the Spoken and the Reading/Writing class. His beliefs about the Reading/Writing class will be dealt with later.
172 Belief in the Communicative Approach Jack believed in the communicative approach, which seemed to be the general approach that SLI expected teachers to follow, as mentioned in Chapter III. Jack’s belief was apparent when he talked about his philosophy of teaching: I think there are things that are generally accepted in the ESL field. One is that classes should be communicative as much as possible. Grammar classes for example are not only reading grammar and exercises but it should involve some writing, and it should involve some speaking practice. Same for Reading/Writing class, a lot of group work and talking. So I think that’s a general thing that everybody here accepts. (I 1:5, 1/22/99) Jack seemed to suggest that the communicative approach was so widespread that it had become a sort of “general accepted truth” in the ESL/EFL field that he himself accepted. He also believed, based on the communicative approach, that classes “should not be too teacher-centered.” Teachers should present and explain things, but then should step aside for students to practice the language (I 1:8, 1/22/99). This is related to his belief about teacher and learner role. Belief about Teacher and Learner Roles Jack saw teacher and learner roles in an interactive way. Teachers and learners had to meet each other halfway. His way of talking about it resembled a metaphor of a road where students and teacher walked along the same path. Jack was not very keen on the idea of the teacher doing it all alone, without any active engagement or feedback from students, as it is possible to note in this quotation: I think they have to meet each other and meet halfway. Teachers need the help of students to have a good class. I’ve had some good classes with some material and had some not-so-good classes with the same material. I think the only thing was one class where students were kind of lazy maybe. Every class is different and we just didn’t connect. Part of the success or failure of the class is the responsibility of the students. Other than that, I guess, obviously the teacher has to present,
173 explain as clearly as possible. Students are expected to study and learn and do their homework, do those kind of traditional things. (I 1:8, 1/22/99) Jack explained that having good classes is in the hands of both teachers and students. If they do not connect with each other, the teacher may have a problem. Yet, he believed that part of the success or failure of a class is placed on students, who are expected to do their part, ask questions, and participate. The teacher also has to do his or her part. Jack’s concept of a good class also involved the collaboration between students and teachers. He felt he had a good class when “students were with him on anything,” and a bad class was when he felt he was just “doing it all alone in front of the class and nobody seems to be really into it.” He seemed to believe that the class was usually not good when he tried to lead too much and rush when students were not ready. Thus, he tended to “go a little slower and not do too much in one day” (I 2:5, 2/09/99). He talked about one class that he did not think was very good because he rushed, and students might have noticed that he was not very well prepared: […] I remember that day as a not really good day. I think I hadn’t planned much that day, I was just rushed and I thought, “Ok, we’ll do this and this and we’ll put it into a phone context.” I think that there’s some subtle body language or something that students know when I’m just coming up with something and I just remember that as sort of a chaotic day. I remember it as being a little out of control like my class gets sometimes and I thought it was out of control because I wasn’t exactly sure what I wanted to do. (I 3:5, 2/16/99) Jack talked about the control aspect of the class. He articulated his belief that students somehow are tuned into teachers’ actions and may sense when teachers are not exactly sure of what they are doing. This may contribute to chaos in the classroom. To use Jack’s metaphor of teachers and learners on a road, it is as if students got lost because
174 the guide (teacher) did not know how to give them exact directions about what to do. His concept of a good class is related to his belief about a good teacher. A good teacher, according to Jack, does not have to speak the students’ L1. He believed that good teachers have curiosity about their students, talk to them, and have empathy (I 1:4, 1/22/99). Furthermore, being a good ESL teacher involved other things: Well, I think preparation is important, and I think students know if you are well prepared or if you are not well prepared and I think they obviously respect their teacher more. I think it’s important to prepare. It’s not just a piece of cake because English is my native language. So, I think preparing, putting them to work, caring about students, being interested in them if they’re making progress. We should also give them lots of opportunities to learn the language, to have a good atmosphere in the class. It’s not easy to get everyone to speak in class. They bring a lot of inhibition with them. They’re learning a new language and a new culture. I think it’s important to try to have a friendly class or a non-threatening kind of atmosphere. (I 2:5-6, 2/09/99) Being a good teacher means being prepared, giving students activities, caring about them, being interested in their progress, and providing them with opportunities to learn the language. Jack seemed aware of the problems that students may face in this new environment. Some may be shy and being in a new culture is not easy. Thus, he thought it was important to have this friendly atmosphere in class. According to Jack, good learners pay attention, do the homework, and “go a little beyond of what is expected in class.” However, there were different types of good learners: I think there are different kinds of learners. There are learners who can learn just by being on the streets and making friends and talking, like Pedro in our class, maybe. And other students like Julie are more book-oriented. She is kind of a traditional type of student. I guess I am thinking about Spoken English too and so Pedro would be a good student probably in Spoken English but he is probably not a good Reading/Writing student. I don’t know, maybe more traditional-book stuff is just not his style. So there are different kinds of people. I hope everybody is a good student in class, but different people are there for different reasons. Some
175 are here just to have fun, it’s just a vacation for them, they don’t want to do a lot of homework. (I 2:6, 2/09/99) Jack gave examples from his Spoken class when talking about different types of good learners. Students can be good at different classes or different areas of language learning. Jack was aware of that, as well as of students’ diverse purposes in studying English. Influence on his practice. Jack’s belief in communicative teaching, in this relaxed atmosphere where the teacher presents things and then has students take center-stage influenced how he structured his class. His beliefs about teacher and learner roles also influenced his practice. Jack had three distinct phases in his Spoken class: a moment for questions, presentation, and practice. The first phase, was a warm-up where students were invited to bring their questions about anything they would like to know about the language. Jack talked about this the first day of class: Jack told students that this was a good class for them to bring their doubts about pronunciation, about things they hear on TV, movies, or any questions about vocabulary, pronunciation, and so forth. He asked if anybody had any questions. (SP3, ON 2:1, 1/12/99) In 19 classes I observed, students did take advantage of this time and they asked mostly vocabulary questions. Some students asked more questions than others did because they were obviously more outspoken. This part of the lesson gave students a chance to contribute with their input. If Jack believed in this collaboration between teacher and learner and that a good class depended on both, then students’ contribution in terms of questions were an important part of that collaboration.
176 In the second phase of the class, presentation, Jack introduced a new topic, usually about vocabulary. Jack presented new vocabulary expressions, but he elicited students’ participation, as seen in this classroom observation excerpt. Jack started a new topic. He mentioned that some students might remember this from last semester with another teacher. He said they say many things to say hello other than “how are you.” Some students immediately started volunteering answers such as “what’s up man” and so forth. Jack wrote all those expressions on the board and asked students what they would answer to those. Students asked questions and it was a good interactive part of the lesson. […] (SP3, ON 2:2, 1/12/99) This excerpt shows how students participated in this part of the lesson and how Jack included their contributions. He usually had the handout for each of the new vocabulary topics he used (see Appendix E for examples of those). In the third part of the lesson, practice, Jack would ask students to get in pairs or in groups to practice the new expressions. Sometimes, he would give them a situation on the spot: Jack then told the story about another student who went to his office and didn’t know what to say before leaving. He asked students what they should say and Lauro said “thank you for your time.” He said ok, and he wrote this and other expressions on the board. He asked students to turn their chairs back to back as if they were calling each other on the phone. They should call each other and use those expressions. It was very noisy for a while, but students seemed to be enjoying. […] (SP3, ON 6:2, 1/21/99) Other times, Jack would have the situation ready in the handout and students would practice those situations in pairs. In addition to these speaking practices in class, students were also required at the end of the session to make a five-minute speech about one topic they were interested in. Jack’s beliefs about communicative teaching and about teacher and learner roles seemed to have informed his practice in terms of the structure of the class, the non-
177 authoritarian approach, and relaxed atmosphere where students were encouraged to ask their questions, participate, and contribute. Jack gave students plenty of opportunities to practice the language and to engage in groups and pair-work activities. In addition, he stepped aside, and let students take center-stage to practice the language. Belief about Himself as a Teacher Jack liked having successful classes. Being able to do it well and helping people learn made him feel good (I 3:7, 2/16/99). He was aware of his strengths and what he believed to be his weaknesses. He did not think he was a “super dynamic” teacher. This will be clearer in the section dealing with his beliefs about the Spoken class. Jack also thought that he tended to talk too much in class. He was constantly aware of the balance, which was related to his belief in the communicative approach. He talked about how he dealt with this in class: I am always aware of the balance. Am I talking too much here? Should I pass things over? And if I notice that students are getting somewhat restless it’s usually because I am talking too much. “Ok, I get the message.” And I can give it back to them. But they do need to hear some comprehensible input. (I 2:7-8, 2/09/99) The quote above illustrates Jack’s concern about talking too much in class. His doubts expressed in the questions, “Am I talking too much here? Should I pass things over?” are good representations of the kinds of dilemma that teachers who believe in communicative teaching may have. Students do need to hear some input, but teachers have to find a balance between providing comprehensible input and opportunities for students to practice the language. Students’ feedback seems to be an important key in showing teachers when they should move to something different. In the next quote, Jack expressed his beliefs about himself and what he considered important as a teacher:
178 I think I am a teacher who is always aware of time, a person who tries to utilize the time as much as possible, as good as possible, which doesn’t mean doing a lot in any given day or racing through things. There are always choices of what to do and I am always trying to do the best thing for the time frame. Time is a big resource for teachers. So I am a teacher who is thinking about that. And I am a teacher who ((pause, thinking)), that covers a lot, trying to do the best thing in any day in that situation, there’s a lot of planning involved. I am teacher who tries to give students what they want at the time. I am aware of the class as a group, as one unit. I try to tell what they need, if they get bored, do I need to switch to something else? […] (I 2:7, 2/09/99) Jack highlighted the importance of aspects such as the wise use of class time and awareness of students’ needs. He saw himself as a teacher who tried to pay attention to those details. One of his strongest concerns seemed to be this feedback from students that will guide teachers’ actions in class. This aspect indicates Jack’s beliefs about this collaboration between students and teachers. Jack’s beliefs about himself as a teacher seemed to be related to his beliefs about the Spoken class. Beliefs about the Spoken Class Jack had several expectations about the Spoken English class and about what it should be like. He believed that students should have some personal attention in Spoken classes: It should be a time where students get some personal attention and a chance to learn some stuff about English, a chance for them to ask questions about things that maybe they are interested in. It’s kind of unfortunate that our class is so big. I always try to begin with “do you have any questions?” […] (I 2:4, 2/09/99) Although Jack believed students should get personal attention, he recognized that the size of the class was a limitation. That may be one of the reasons that he always tried to start his classes by giving students a chance to ask the questions that they were interested in. Jack had two basic beliefs about the Spoken class. They referred to the spontaneity and fun character that he believed Spoken English classes should have.
179 Spontaneity. Jack believed that the Spoken class should be spontaneous. In other words, if students were talking and discussing their ideas, the teacher should not interfere much. This was evident on two occasions. First, when I asked him if students were really practicing the expressions he wanted them to practice in groups, he responded, I think the number one situation is to practice speaking and those expressions gave them a reason to practice it, even though they didn’t always do it. I am not sure how to solve that problem. I could really regiment it and say “don’t say anything unless you introduce those expressions,” and that will probably kill a lot of the spontaneity in the conversation. Some people do that and say, “Ok, I am going to grade you, if you use the expressions I will put a check, if you don’t, I don’t.” That’s not my style really. I’d rather have them talk and try to use those expressions. So that’s why I still go around and try to get everybody to remember to do that. I think in general it was ok, more than half of the students actually used those expressions. (I 2:12, 2/09/99) Jack felt that the major goal of the class – communicating – was being accomplished. Thus, he decided not to interfere to tell students they should use the expressions he wanted them to use, first because it was not “his style,” and second, because it would kill the spontaneity that communicative classes are supposed to have. It is almost a sense of letting the class develop by itself and not interfering much. The second occasion Jack talked about the spontaneity of Spoken class was when he commented on the time students took to do one activity in class: I think it went longer than I had thought. I thought it would be a 30-minute thing, but it went the whole time, so I just let it play out like today, I thought that we would be done by 1:30, 1:35, but this one group over here, they kind of went in a big group, which I just let it happen. ((pause)) It’s Spoken English and everybody is speaking and communicating and I didn’t have any great thing to do anyway, just some pronunciation, so I didn’t want to interrupt for that. (I 3:6, 2/16/99) Jack expressed his belief that since his goal was for students to communicate and practice the language, he thought it would not make sense to stop them. He thought it was
180 better not to interfere. These two quotations above illustrated how Jack’s belief about spontaneity was enacted in class. “Fun” class. Jack believed that Spoken classes should be fun. This belief was related to his perception about himself as a teacher of Spoken English. He believed that Spoken was not his strong point (I 1:4, 1/22/99) and that his Spoken classes were not good. He talked about it: […] I think that they’re terrible. And it might be just my imagination. But I just feel less… like Spoken English… I think Spoken English should be fun. I am not really a fun kind of teacher. I don’t give games and things like that. Reading/Writing and Structure are kind of more naturally tuned to my /style/ style /and your personality/ yeah. I do OK in Spoken, you know, but I think I am more successful with others. (I 1:5, 1/22/99) Jack talked about how he perceived himself in the Spoken class. He thought he was not as lucky in that class as in other classes. He said he did all right in Spoken, but he still believed he was a better teacher in Reading/Writing for instance, because it was more suited to his style. As I inquired in subsequent interviews about the reasons for this belief, Jack gave more details on his belief about the nature of Spoken class: Jack: I guess Spoken is more kind of a fun class or in general more “gamey.” Reading and writing is a little more serious. […] This is kind of what I meant. My temperament is more… more … /reserved/ more. Yeah, more reading/writing like, ((J laughs)) than /ok/ having fun and games. “Ok, let’s have fun everybody’ ((A laughs)). Ana: And Reading/Writing is more suited to you, as reading doesn’t have to be…. Jack: It can be fun /it can/ yeah, but in grammar too. I guess just Spoken kind of has that fun element to it. I do OK in Spoken. (I 4:1, 2/16/99) Jack seemed to perceive the Spoken class in general as more “gamey,” more fun. When he exemplified it, the voice of, perhaps, other teachers appeared in his mind. It is as if he had heard somebody saying at one point that sentence (“let’s have fun
181 everybody”) in one class and that may have been the source of his belief. His characterization of Spoken class was usually done in comparison with the Reading/Writing class that he believed was more tuned to his style. Where does his belief come from? Why did Jack think that Spoken class should be fun? Is this a common belief in the TESOL field? Maybe it is related to a popular view of the communicative approach where games are encouraged, and students are expected to have “fun.” In fact, the use of games has been characterized as trivial within a more popular view of the communicative approach (Holliday, 1994). However, Jack did not mention any of this. He did mention students’ expectations. In this next quotation, he develops this idea: […] Well fun is just kind of a general half serious observation. /half-serious?/ yeah. It doesn’t have to be fun really, it doesn’t necessarily should be fun, but I kind of feel like it’s what most students expect me to do. […] (I 2:4, 2/09/99) Jack clarified that the Spoken class did not have to be fun, but he felt like students expected that from a Spoken class. Thus, that is the first source of his beliefs about Spoken class. The other source comes from his own observations of other teachers in his context. When I asked him if he had heard that from students, he said: I don’t think I ever heard anything from students. But just kind of talking to other teachers about what they do, I think mostly that’s where that comes from. Walking down the hall, you know, I slip out of class, go to the bathroom or something and just see what other people are doing. (I 4:7, 2/16/99) Although students never said that to Jack, he still thought that students expected him to do it. More importantly, his explanations show how teachers create an image of what their classes should be like, sometimes by listening to other teachers’ comments or by observing their classes. Thus, images about ideal classes are formed. In our fourth and
182 fifth interviews in the second session, Jack talked about another belief that he and other teachers at SLI thought students had about the Spoken class: […] I think students come expecting that there won’t be much homework, that it will be kind of easy, that they’ll just be talking and stuff, which may be true. We don’t have as many tests in Spoken English. It’s not as quantifiable as Structure for example. But we were talking in our meeting about giving students more homework in Spoken English. So we will try to do that more. (I 4:1, 2/16/99) The Spoken class seemed to have this reputation of not being a serious class, where students did not expect too much homework. This may contribute to students’ perception of that class as an “easy” class. Jack admitted that Spoken class was more difficult than the Structure class to “quantify.” He gave more details in the fifth interview: Jack: Well, I think that it was just a general feeling that students might take it more seriously if it had more homework and that it might be easier for teachers to get a grade, to pull a grade together if they had that, easier to quantify and justify grades if there’s some kind of grades or homework. I think it gets students to take it more seriously too. I think they sometimes see Spoken as, ‘doesn’t have a book, isn’t supposed to have a lot of homework, that kind of thing’. Ana: So, do teachers in general think that students don’t take it seriously? Jack: Uh…as seriously as their other classes. Spoken, obviously is very important, so they are all serious about it in that sense, but of all the classes it’s kind of more of a fluff class, because of that. So I think that’s the general reason why, but also it gives people, maybe new teachers in level 1, a handle on grades, you can defend that a little better, it’s not too subjective. So, I think that’s why. (I 5:1, 4/29/99) Jack suggested that SLI teachers believed that students did not take the Spoken class as seriously as other classes because there was not much homework. Thus, teachers had decided that they should give more homework in the Spoken class. Moreover, that was going to help teachers, since there was a perception that it was more difficult to figure out the grade in Spoken class. Thus, having something concrete and quantifiable
183 would not only help new teachers in the process of grading students, but also help teachers counteract students’ perceptions of the Spoken class. Influence on his practice. Jack had two beliefs about the Spoken class. He believed it should be spontaneous and fun. He enacted his belief on spontaneity by not interfering much when students were talking. Jack’s beliefs about himself and the Spoken class present more difficulties in terms of understanding their influence on his practice. Jack thought he was not a “fun,” “dynamic” teacher. These concepts by themselves are difficult to explain. What is a fun teacher? A teacher who gives games and tells jokes? He believed Spoken classes should be fun. Nevertheless, this did not mean he brought games, or tried to make his Spoken classes more fun. If this is what Jack meant, then this belief did not inform his practice. It seems that Jack’s belief was related to what he thought Spoken class should be like, based on observations and conversations with other teachers, and to what he thought students expected from a Spoken class. It did not necessarily mean he did it in class or that he had it as a goal for the Spoken class. It was not part of his style or personality to make this class more “gamey.” In this case, one possible explanation for this discrepancy is that his belief and awareness about his own teaching style was hierarchically superior to this espoused belief about the ideal Spoken class. In summary, Jack’s beliefs in communicative teaching and about spontaneity in Spoken class seemed to have informed his practice, as shown in Table 14. His belief in the communicative approach translated into trying to have a friendly and relaxing atmosphere in class where students could participate and practice the language. His belief about teacher and learner roles was also enacted by trying to instill a non-authoritarian
184 atmosphere and having students work together. His beliefs about himself and about the Spoken class were interconnected. They seemed to have created sort of a dilemma about talking too much in class or letting students speak and not killing spontaneity in class, and resisting to enact this sort of stereotypical view of Spoken class as “gamey” and “fun.” Table 14 Influence of Jack’s Beliefs on His Actions J’s beliefs
Actions
Belief about communicative teaching
Promoting a relaxed and non-threatening atmosphere
Belief about Teacher and Learner roles
Giving students opportunities to ask questions in class
Cooperation between teachers & students Classes should be student-centered
Using pair and group work Encouraging students’ participation
Belief about Himself as a Teacher
Being aware of time and trying not to lead or talk too much
Beliefs about Spoken class Should be spontaneous
Hesitating in interrupting students when they were talking in groups
“Fun” and “gamey”
Not using games
Lauro’s Beliefs Lauro was very reflective and mature. He had strong opinions about what language learning should be like. He was very talkative with people in general and was not ashamed to speak his mind. As a psychologist working with cognitive models, his knowledge about language learning was not naïve. He did have some knowledge about linguistics, more particularly, behaviorism. He had reviewed books on English teaching
185 and had even helped some applied linguists in Brazil to advise students regarding psychological aspects of language learning. (I 3:13, 2/05/99) Lauro’s interests in studying English were related to professional reasons, such as “writing in English, writing a paper, and working on a Post-Doctorate in the US” (I 2:9, 01/24/99). He studied English “because [he] liked, because [he] thought it was a pretty language, because [he] needed it scientifically, and because [he] could use it wherever [he] traveled” (I 1:11, 01/15/99). He and his wife had decided to come to study English abroad because they wanted to check “how much [they] knew, and what would be [their] level of difficulty adapting to live in the US.” In other words, they wanted to study abroad because they though it would “develop, and make their English stronger” (I 2:1, 01/24/99). Lauro seemed to perceive the target country as the place that would validate his knowledge of English. Lauro came to this state in the southern US because there were not many Brazilian students. In addition, Lauro and his wife, Karina, could stay for just one month and this was the only language institute that accepted students for four weeks, or halfsession. When I asked Lauro to talk about his previous English experience in Brazil, he immediately mentioned his four phases of learning English: (a) studying English in private schools as a child, in Brazil; (b) reading technical/scientific texts in his area, as he worked on his Master’s and Ph.D.; (c) studying with a private teacher, together with his wife, which did not work because, according to him, he was faster than the teacher, and because his wife had a different level than he did; and (d) coming to study abroad, and in Brazil his experience with another private teacher, where she worked with his needs. This
186 was very important to Lauro (I 1: 2-4, 01/15/99). Lauro’s beliefs about language and language learning involved beliefs about the differences between learning English abroad and in Brazil, about teacher and learner roles, about how to learn English, and about his level in the Spoken English 3 class. Differences between Learning in Brazil and in the US Lauro talked about the differences in learning in the target country (TC) and in the native language country (NC). He emphasized two aspects – time and the kind of English that they learn in both countries. Time – the equivalency rule. This rule involves a math calculation that equates “one week in the TC is equal to 11 weeks” in the NC. Like Karina, Lauro believed that coming to the TC speeds up the process of learning English. He thought that he got more hours in one month of class in the US than one year of classes in Brazil (I 2:2, 01/24/99). He compared the higher intensity at SLI with the two hours a week in private English courses in Brazil. He did not think that was enough to learn (I 1:12, 01/15/99). Lauro figured out how much, in terms of time, he had gained at SLI: […] Então a gente não conseguiu falar inglês entre a gente como a gente tinha se proposto, mas com certeza, em um ambiente de imersão você fala mais. Porque eu falava inglês duas horas por semana, passei a falar 32. Eu acho que logo de cara, eu fiz mais de um ano de inglês, em um mês. […] (I 3:13, 2/05/99) {Thus we [he and his wife] were not able to speak English between us as we said we would, but surely, in an immersion environment, you speak more. I used to speak two hours a week, and here I started speaking 32. Thus, I have had more than a year of English in one month.} Lauro clearly expressed his belief that one got much more exposure to the language in the TC. In contrast, in Brazil, the only chance students would have for this
187 exposure was by studying English in expensive and very well known private English schools, because they usually offer daily classes.5 Although Lauro admitted that the intensity is higher in the TC, he believed that this could also cause more confusion, as it happened to him. He said that he started “to doubt whether or not he knew how to say something.” In the beginning, he felt that he was learning, but then, he “felt more confused,” as if he “had learned a lot in a short time to be able to assimilate it” (I 2:2, 01/24/99). This confusion could also be a result of the first weeks, when students are still trying to adjust to using the language more intensively and to cope with a new culture. “Bookish” English. The second aspect of the difference of learning English in the TC and NC referred to the kind of English that is learned/taught in both places. Lauro, like Karina, believed that the English taught in Brazil was grammatically correct, but it was not used in the TC. He called it a “bookish” English, that is, English that “doesn’t have slang, colloquial expressions, or idioms.” He thought that was the reason that it was difficult for him to talk to Americans (I 3:2-3, 2/05/99). According to Lauro, they did not learn those aspects in Brazil for two reasons. First, because the book used was probably written by a non-native speaker. Second, because [some] teachers in Brazil did not have specialization or experience abroad to know what kinds of expressions were used in the US in daily life (I 2:4, 01/24/99).
5
Private English schools in Brazil offer a variety of arrangements for students and this depends on each school. It is common for students to have classes of 1:30min twice a week. However, most schools also offer ‘Intensive’ courses where students come every day for one hour or 50 min.
188 As mentioned before, a large part of Lauro’s learning was through reading academic texts in English, in Brazil. According to Lauro, that was how his vocabulary was formed, and when he spoke English, he sounded “like a book, because it was too impersonal” (I 1:2-3, 01/15/99). He believed that his English was too “technical” since he had been exposed to a more technical English where the verb “to be” was not used much (I 1:2-3, 01/15/99). Thus, he believed his English was more “written” than spoken. He said that he had to “speak the whole sentence as if [he] would write it, otherwise [he] could not speak” (I 2:4, 01/24/99). It may be because of these aspects that Lauro thought that the English learned in Brazil was not the same as the one taught in the TC: “The English you learn in Brazil is never going to have the same level as abroad. The English there will always be inferior to here, isn’t it?” (I 2:15, 01/24/99). In spite of saying this, he believed that one should first study English (in a good private English school) in the NC, before coming abroad. He thought students should know “the basics” first and then “strengthen it, and review it” abroad. Lauro seemed to put a lot of importance in studying in a good private English school in Brazil. He said that those who studied “10 years” at ALUMNI (a famous private English school in Brazil) would be able to speak English well. Yet, the experience abroad was important for several reasons: Eu acho que a experiência da imersão é muito importante. Muito mais do que o estudo em si é …não é o curso, é o fato de estar estudando o inglês. Professor falando inglês, alunos falando comigo pelo menos em inglês, então a coisa flui por causa disso. Com certeza eu saio daqui com um inglês um pouco melhor do que quando eu entrei e com muita coisa revista e solidificada /huh-huh/ mas é… não de uma forma ordenada, quer dizer, eu vou ter que fazer essa ordenação por mim mesmo, a posteriori. (I 2:15, 01/24/99) {I think that this immersion experience is very important, more so than the study itself. It’s not the course, it’s the fact of studying English, teachers speaking English, students speaking in English with me. Things flow because of that. For
189 sure, I will get out of here with better English than when I arrived, but it’s not in an orderly form. I will have to put some order by myself later.} Lauro highlighted the positive aspects of the experience of being in the TC, such as the opportunity to speak and listen to English all the time. He also seemed to view the TC as this sort of transient place where he was trying to “store” everything to talk to his teacher in Brazil so that she could see what he did, and from there they would continue this process. He said he would have to “find a way of keeping his English” (I 2:15, 01/24/99). Thus, in a way, whereas his wife, Karina, saw the TC as the place where she would apply the knowledge acquired in Brazil, he saw the TC as the place that would “give him the knowledge” that he would have to sort out later. Teacher and Learner Roles Lauro believed that good teachers of English had to have professional qualification, be able to deal with different learning styles, and speak a second language. The professional qualification of a teacher, according to Lauro was important because it would “guarantee” or assure students that the teacher “knows the rule,” that the rule is “in fact the rule, and not what the teacher thinks or imagines it is” (I 1:8, 01/15/99). He wanted to be sure of what he could do or not with the language, grammatically speaking. He believed there was “the correct rule,” and he expected teachers to be able to tell him what it was according to the grammar, not according to the teacher’s personal opinion. He did not trust teachers who would answer his questions by saying, “I don’t use this.” Lauro wanted to know if something was possible to say grammatically speaking (I 1:1011, 01/15/99).
190 Lauro thought that teachers’ knowledge of a second language was an important aspect of a good teacher, because it would give teachers the possibility to empathize with students in their difficulties in learning another language: […] Seria interessante que todos tivessem essa aprendizagem pra entender por exemplo como é difícil você começar a fazer links com a tua língua e não conseguir, ou quando você consegue, entendeu? Como é dificil “você ter que pensar em inglês.” É muiiiito difícil isso, entendeu? Como é difícil enrolar a língua às vezes, ou desenrolar a língua ((risos)). (I 1:9, 01/15/99) {It would be interesting if all of them [teachers] learned a second language to understand, for instance how difficult it is to make links with your own language, whether you get it or not. How difficult it is to “think in English.” It’s very difficult. How difficult it is to roll your tongue, or unroll your tongue. ((laughter))} Lauro believed that teachers’ knowledge of a second language would help them to empathize with their students and to understand the kinds of difficulties students have when learning a second language, such as trying to make links with their L1, thinking in the second language, and rolling or unrolling the tongue. Those were aspects that Lauro found difficult and that, he believed, second language teachers should know first hand. Lauro’s beliefs about teacher roles were closely related to his beliefs about error correction. He did not like when teachers knew he was speaking incorrectly and did not correct him. He believed teachers did that because they knew students were learning. However, he said, “if teachers don’t correct me, I think I speak it correctly, keep saying it, and memorize an error” (I 2:13, 01/24/99). Lauro wanted teachers to correct him on the spot, otherwise he would forget the context of his mistake. He seemed to need teacher feedback about the correct way of speaking (I 2:11, 01/24/99). He thought it was the teacher’s job to correct him every time, to “pull the student’s leg” (I 2:7, 01/24/99). In the stimulated recall in the second interview, he talked about one of the teachers in the
191 program that did that to him. When he saw himself on video and I mentioned to him one grammar mistake he made, he immediately remembered this teacher: […] Aí eu acho melhor o Sam. Ele pára, ‘an old’ ((imitando o professor falando, corrigindo)) an old, an old. E às vezes eu continuava e ele, “Pss, Lauro, come back’. E falava a palavra. […] (I 3:12, 2/05/99) {I prefer Sam [Reading/Writing teacher]. He stops, and says, ‘an old’ ((imitating the teachers’ way of correcting)), an old, an old. Sometimes I would go on and he would say, “Hey, Lauro, come back.” And he would say the word again.} Lauro compared his Reading/Writing teacher’s way of correcting mistakes with Jack’s. He thought it was part of the teachers’ job because he knew the teacher meant no harm. Lauro’s view on error correction shows that he believed that the teacher should be more than facilitator. Nevertheless, one episode seems to throw some doubts about Lauro’s belief on error correction. In one class, when Lauro misspelled a word on the board, Jack corrected him on the spot. Lauro then refused to correct the word and seemed not to have understood what Jack was saying. He even spoke to me in Portuguese to ask me what was happening. After a while, he fixed his mistake, but he said, “I will check it later.” One wonders, why this behavior when he was so adamant for teachers to correct him every time. In order to understand this apparent contradiction, it is essential to go beyond Lauro’s words and analyze his actions within the context of his complaints about Jack’s class in general. By refusing to accept Jack’s correction, Lauro seemed to question Jack’s authority and credibility as a teacher, perhaps because of his frustration with Jack’s failure to correct him in past times. This episode also questions the validity of Lauro’s statement that he wanted to be corrected all the time. In regards to the learner role, Lauro thought that learners should know their purposes in studying a language. Learners should also search for activities that would put them in contact with the language, such as watching films and listening to music (I 1:11,
192 01/15/99). He believed that one important aspect of being a good student was hardship and struggle. This was evident when he talked about one student at SLI: […] Você quer saber quem é o melhor aluno daqui? O judeuzinho. Porquê? Porque ele não teve condição de estudar, terminou o colegial com muita luta, foi pro exército perdeu três anos no exército e se não é o pai da namorada dele estar bancando, ele não tinha como vir pra cá. Então ele vem de bicicleta, ele come um sanduíche, ele faz a lição, ele escreve a composição, “Lauro dá uma lida pra mim” troca. […] Ele é sério, ele quer ir bem, ele quer entender porque ele está indo mau, ele sempre faz pergunta pra ampliar. Então quer dizer, esse é um comportamento que outros alunos não tem. (I 3:16, 2/05/99) {Do you want to know who is the best student here? The Jewish guy. Why? Because he couldn’t afford studying, he finished high school struggling, went to the army, lost three years there. His girlfriend’s father is the one paying for him, otherwise he couldn’t come here. He eats only a sandwich, he does the homework, he writes essays, he asks me to read it for him. He’s serious, he wants to do well, he wants to know why he got it wrong. He always asks questions to know more. It’s something that other students don’t have.} Based on his classmate’s example, Lauro portrayed the good student as a person who works hard, wants to succeed, and seeks feedback from others to know his or her mistakes and learn from them. Lauro provided a more complete picture of a good student than the one painted by researchers. His definition emphasizes students’ struggle to survive hardship in their learning experiences. Beliefs About How to Learn English Lauro’s beliefs about how to learn English referred to the role of L1, role of repetition, and order of skills. His beliefs about error correction, mentioned earlier, also indicate that he believed learning from mistakes and having feedback from the teacher is a good way of learning. Role of L1. Lauro apparently saw the L1 as having a positive role for language learning. He believed that one learned a language from his or her own L1. He used a computer metaphor to explain:
193 […] Eu acho que o problema é quando você já tem o código verbal e todo o seu processo de estruturação, todo seu processo cognitivo já está estruturado pra funcionar com uma linguagem e você vai trocar né? Quer dizer, é muito difícil porque você no fundo está instalando um outro sistema operacional. Fazendo uma analogia com o computador, você está instalando um outro sistema operacional. Só que os sistemas só vão ser instalados como se um estivesse lá. Eu acho que você aprende a segunda língua a partir da sua. (I 3:2, 2/05/99) {I think the problem is when you already have a verbal code and all your cognitive system is structured to function with one language and you will just exchange, right? It’s difficult because you are installing another operational system. Making an analogy with the computer, you are installing another operational system. But these systems will be installed as if one was already there. You learn a [second] language from your own [native language].} Using a computer metaphor, Lauro explained that learning a second language meant changing one language for another. He also believed that those who do not know any language could not learn in a target country because they needed to relate it to their L1. Two other aspects seemed to be related to this belief about the relationship between the two languages. First, Lauro suggested that the kinds of difficulties that speakers of other languages have in learning English are related to their L1. This may be directly related to his experience at SLI. His observation of his classmates led him to suggest that the classes at SLI should be with students from the same language together. He suggested that it would be interesting to put students who spoke the same language in the same class, and work on their pronunciation problems (I 1: 12-13, 01/15/99). Hoje chegou um rapaz novo. Ele tem uma bela pronúncia pra um espanhol. Então se ele tiver em uma classe só de espanhóis, ele serve até de modelo. Quer dizer, se ele consegue, os outros conseguem também. (I 1: 13, 01/15/99) {Today a new guy arrived in class. He has a beautiful pronunciation for a Spanish speaker. He would be a great model for his Hispanic classmates. If he can do it, others can too.} This quotation indicates the role of experience in helping students with their hypotheses or suggestions. Experience serves to reinforce or deny students’ beliefs. Lauro manifested a belief that has been suggested by researchers in the language teaching
194 field – to use the non-native speaker as a model (Cook, 1999; Murphey, 1998). However, as I show later, his views about not seeing any benefits in listening to international students seem to contradict this belief. Second, Lauro believed that speakers of different languages find different aspects of language learning more difficult. He believed that in reading and writing for instance, a student who spoke Portuguese would have first to understand that the order of adjectives in the sentences is different. In terms of writing, he mentioned that English had shorter phrases and fewer connectors than Portuguese. English had short paragraphs with several short sentences, whereas Portuguese had paragraphs, sometimes with only one sentence in it. This aspect has been mentioned in studies in contrastive rhetoric and about differences in writing in Portuguese and English (Delgado, 1998). Lauro believed that that aspect presented a great difficulty for Portuguese speakers learning English. He commented that when he began to write short sentences, he got a better grade in his essay in English (I 1:13-14, 01/15/99). Although Lauro believed that the L1 had a positive role in learning a language, in other occasions he seemed to suggest that L1 could be harmful. This was evident, first when he mentioned advice from his friends that he should think in English, not in Portuguese (I 1:4, 01/15/99), and second, when he expressed a belief that Brazilian students should be forbidden to speak L1 in classes in Brazil (I 1:12, 01/15/99). This is contradictory to his belief, just mentioned above, that L1 speakers should be put in the same class. Third, when he talked about his difficulties in speaking the language, he emphasized the influence of L1. When I asked him if he was still having difficulty speaking English, he said,
195 Continuo. Primeiro porque eu já tinha passado uma fase de pensar em português, traduzir palavra por palavra e depois falar em inglês. Eu já penso direto no inglês, e depois (sai automatizado). Eu sei que sai errada. Eu não tenho dúvida que é falho em termos de gramática. O que eu acho que aconteceu é que em alguns momentos, o que é português e o que é inglês, se misturou um pouco pra mim. Porque você já começa a lidar com as duas. Na medida em que o inglês cresce, você mistura um pouco e realmente a falta de treino, muitas palavras que você sabe e esquece, muitas palavras que você poderia utilizar mas que não utiliza e principalmente regras que você sabe e que não utiliza quando fala. (I 3:1-2, 2/05/99) {Yes, I am [still having difficulties]. First, because I have passed that phase of thinking in Portuguese, translating word for word and then speak English. I already think straight into English and then it (becomes automatic). I know my sentence comes out wrong. I have no doubts that it is not grammatically correct. I think that what happened was that in some moments what is Portuguese, what is English was mixed up in my head, because you start dealing with both of them. As one [language] grows, you mix a bit and because of lack of practice, you forget many words and rules that you could use, but you don’t use when you speak.} In this quotation, it is possible to confirm the role of L1 in Lauro’s difficulties. Although he explained that people should learn a second language through their first language, he seemed to believe that it is not good to think in Portuguese and keep translating. He thought he was past that phase and was already able to think in English. He believed that his difficulties were in discerning where both languages were. It is important to point out though that Lauro also cited other sources for his difficulties in speaking, such as the different levels he was placed in, and his desire to correctly use what he learned (I 2:13-14, 01/24/99). Repetition. Lauro believed that repetition was an important component of learning a language. This belief may be related to his belief in audiolingualism. […] Tem algumas coisas dos métodos antigos que a gente perdeu que são muito importantes. Não dá pra fazer 10 frases de past perfect pra aprender. Tem que fazer 100, 150, 200. Entendeu? Composição, toda aula. Pra isso tambem você precisa de mais tempo. Voce só automatiza as coisas com repetição. […] não adianta eu saber gramaticalmente quando eu tenho que usar um [tempo verbal] quando que eu tenho que usar outro, se eu não consigo automatizar isso. Na
196 primeira vez que eu vou falar isso, na segunda, tudo bem vai sair artificial, mas tem que chegar um momento que a coisa seja automatizada, automatizada ao ponto de incorporar no seu pensamento de forma que você não precise pensar “o que eu uso aqui agora, é alguma coisa que começou no passado, que está continuando,… ah então vou usar o present perfect.” […] (I 3:14-15, 2/05/99) {We lost some very important things from the old methods. It’s not enough to write 10 sentences in the past perfect to learn. I have to write 100, 150, 200. Write essays in every class. For that, you also need more time. Things only become automatic with repetition. There is no other way. […] It’s not worth for me to know when I have to use one or the other [verbal tense] if I can’t make it automatic. The first or second time I say it will be artificial. But there has to be this moment when it will become automatic, so that I incorporate it in my thought, and don’t need to think, “what do I use now, it’s something that has started in the past, and it still continues …, ok, then I will use the present perfect.” […]} Lauro expressed his belief that one learns a language by repetition, by doing the same things repeatedly, so that they become automatic. His reference to “old methods” seems to confirm his belief in audiolingualism. He seemed to be against what is one of the most central principles of communicative language teaching – that meaning depends on context. According to him, it does not help much to know when to use certain structures if they are not “automatized” in the mind. Lauro’s belief in repetition is reflected in his practice. On several occasions, he mentioned that he learned better with repetition, and many times he would “get home and write one or two times the vocabulary list, because that was his way of memorizing” (I 3:13-14, 2/05/99). He criticized some of the classes for not encouraging more use of repetition. This next quotation illustrates this point: […] O que falta realmente é repetição. Eu não tenho que fazer dez [frases] do perfect tense. Eu tenho que fazer 100. Então ela deu uma lição de casa com os phrasal verbs, que era pra escrever 15 sentenças de 23, eu escrevi 50 sentenças. Escrevi duas de cada. Porquê? Porque eu quero aprender. (I 3: 14, 2/05/99) {What is missing is repetition. I don’t have to write ten sentences in the present perfect. I have to write 100. She gave homework to write 15 sentences using phrasal verbs. I wrote 50 sentences. I wrote two for each [verb]. Why? Because I want to learn.}
197 Lauro voiced his need to distance himself from a kind of environment that he saw as too much “laissez-faire.” He seemed to emphasize the fact that he, unlike other students, was willing to learn and for that, he could do 50 sentences instead of only what the teacher suggested. Order of skills. Based on his readings on audiolingualism, Lauro believed that there was a correct order for people to learn the language skills. He thought that he had learned English “backwards,” since he learned to read first, which is one of the last skills one should learn (I 1:7, 01/15/99). He believed people needed to learn to speak first (I 3:13, 2/05/99). In addition to these three basic beliefs, Lauro also thought that in order to learn English, students should do other things. They should (a) find a good private English school in Brazil, (b) find somebody with a better or similar proficiency level to speak English, (c) constantly expose themselves to the language, (d) do one’s homework, and (e) avoid the use of the dictionary. Lauro also suggested music as a good way to learn English. This may be related to his past job experience as a disc jockey for 14 years. He said that music helped him a lot. He did not think learning a second language was such a difficult task and thought that anybody could learn it (I 1:7; 11-12, 01/15/99). Beliefs about His Level in the Spoken Class This category refers to Lauro’s complaints about his placement in Spoken English 3. In order to understand his beliefs about the Spoken English class, it is necessary first to understand his belief against a laissez-faire type of education. I discuss this belief first. Then I focus on his specific comments about his problems with the level and his opinions about the content of the Spoken English 3.
198 Laissez-faire. As a school psychologist, Lauro was very critical of education in general. Some of his criticisms about students at SLI and his views about the Spoken class reflect his profound dislike for a laissez-faire type of education: […] Eu acho que a educação de uma forma geral virou muito um laissez-faire. “Não, deixa, motiva”. Até um dos temas de composição foi, ‘você acha que o professor deve transformar suas aulas em coisas mais interessantes?’ Não. Porque senão ela fica muito lúdica e ensina pouco e o professor esquece de ensinar e o aluno esquece de aprender. Depois o professor não pode avaliar porque não ensinou. (I 3: 14-15, 2/05/99) {I think that education in general has become too much of a laissez faire. “No, let’s motivate.” It was the theme of one of the essays, “do you think the teacher should make his or her classes more interesting?” No, because it gets too playful and the teacher forgets to teach and the student forgets to learn. Then the teacher cannot assess because he or she didn’t teach.} Lauro believed that teachers and administration needed to exert more “pressure” so that students would not manipulate the system. He thought it was an easy system to manipulate, and students did not always act with good intentions. In fact, one of his greatest criticisms had to do with his perceptions about the lack of “seriousness” of most of the students at SLI. His perception was obviously related to the difference of age between him and most students at SLI, whose average age was 22. Besides the age difference, Lauro was aware that he had a different educational background, that is, having a Ph.D. and being a professor at a university (I 2:3, 01/24/99). One aspect of this seriousness referred to students’ purposes in coming to SLI. He felt this lack of seriousness especially “in major groups that came to SLI, such as Asian, Hispanic, and Arabic.” He thought that most students came to SLI “on vacation” because their parents were paying, whereas he was paying for himself (I 3:6, 2/05/99). His purposes were serious. He needed English for survival (I 1:13, 01/15/99). According to him, this was very different from the type of students at SLI: “Who comes here, Japanese,
199 Koreans, Saudis, people with money isn’t it? And from Latin America, when they come, come those who can” (I 1:10, 01/15/99). These students, besides coming with a lot of money, usually stay five, six years and go to school in the US. To Lauro, they probably had a very different notion of time from those, like him, that came for shorter periods (I 2:3, 01/24/99). This aspect shows how Lauro is aware of the environment around him and how he reasoned about it. His beliefs against a laissez-faire type of education may have colored his perception of a relaxing atmosphere as something that was not fruitful for learning. Lauro perceived this lack of seriousness in his classmates in the Spoken class as well. He complained about students who talked too much and did very little. In the stimulated recall, he commented about one class in Spoken English 3: […] Você pode ver que as pessoas dão risada, quer dizer, é muito descontraído, só que é muito pouco proveitoso. (I 3:10, 2/05/99) {You can see that people laugh. In other words, it’s very relaxing, but not very fruitful or productive.} His perspective goes against one of the principles of the communicative approach where classes should have this non-threatening atmosphere so that students do not feel anxious or nervous and are able to speak, without worrying about being punished or judged by the teacher. Lauro commented that the Spoken class did not have a lot of homework. He perceived it as “an easy” class, where everybody passed. As discussed earlier, Jack was also aware of this kind of perception that students had about the Spoken class. Lauro thought that it was a perfect class for the kind of students who were not serious (I 2:9, 01/24/99). This made Lauro emphasize vehemently the difference between his purposes and other students’:
200 […] Nessa última aula de Spoken, ali do meu lado, o Saleh não tinha feito a lição, o Vasala não tinha feito a lição, o Cássio não tinha feito a lição, o Nelson não fez a lição. O Pedro não fez a lição. A Lily não tinha feito, O Mustaf não tinha feito. Porquê? Porque passa a ser uma aula que todo mundo passa. Tem um grade C, B, ou E. ((pausa)) Só que eu não estou aqui pra aprender 70% de inglês. Eu quero aprender 100%. (I 3:5, 2/05/99) {In this last class of Spoken several students hadn’t done their homework. Saleh, Vasala, Cássio, Nelson, Pedro Lily, Mustaf, all of them did not do their homework. Why? Because it a class that everybody passes. There is a grade C, B, or E. ((pause)). But I’m not here to learn 70%. I’m here to learn 100%.} Because of his perception of the lack of seriousness in students’ purposes and their behavior at SLI and in class, it was important for Lauro to try to reassert his identity as a serious and competent student. One way of doing that was to show, at least to me, that he was different from those other students because he had different purposes. Lauro’s perceptions of his classmates’ purposes and their English are one of the aspects that influenced his beliefs about the level he was placed in. Level. Lauro told me that his private teacher in Brazil tried to prepare him so that he would not be placed either in a low level or in discrepant levels (Structure 1, Spoken 4 and so forth). He thought that he was placed higher than he expected in Reading/Writing (level 4) and Structure (level 3) (I 1:4, 01/15/99), but he thought that his level in Spoken was lower. There were several reasons for Lauro’s dissatisfaction with his level. The first reason had to do with level of difficulty. Lauro thought that everything was easy and so far and he had found no difficulties at all (I 1:9, 01/15/99). When I asked him if he thought he should be in level 5, he answered me, “Up to now, I have had only plus. All my homework is excellent” (I 1:9, 01/15/99). The second reason had to do with his own perception of his knowledge of English, which differed from how the SLI evaluated his knowledge:
201 […] Eu não sei, eu posso estar errado, mas eu acho que falo melhor inglês do que eu escrevo e melhor do que a minha gramática, só que eu acabei ficando…. Eu não sei eu não concordo tanto com a minha colocação. (I 2:13-14, 01/24/99) {I don’t know, I may be wrong, but I think I speak English better than I write, but I ended up… I don’t know if I agree with my placement.} Lauro thought that his speaking skills were better than his writing and grammar, but he ended up staying in higher levels for Reading/Writing, not Spoken. SLI, by giving him a placement that he did not expect, made a statement about his identity as a learner. He had a perception of himself and his English in Brazil, and this changed when he was placed at SLI in different levels than what he expected. He said, “I leave here sort of inverted. What I thought I did better, I found out that I do not do better” (I 3:2, 2/05/99). A third reason had to do with his constant comparison with his classmates’ knowledge of English: Então você tem lá o Nokiuki que não fala nada. Eu não sei porque que eu e o Nokiuki estamos no mesmo ritmo. Se é porque nós falamos inglês igual, então eu estou me supervalorizando, ou se eu falo inglês errado, ele fala pouco mas fala correto, então estamos no mesmo nível ((pause)). Quer dizer, qual é o critério? ((pause)). De repente você tem lá, o meu partner tem sido o Mustaf, eu não sei como alguém pode estar em nível 1 de estrutura, 2 de Reading/Writing, e 3 em Spoken. Quer dizer, tem alguma coisa errada em critério. Quer dizer, o cara consegue falar e não faz nada de gramática? […](I 2:7, 01/24/99) {You have Nokiuki [from Japan] who speaks nothing. I don’t know why we are in the same level, if it’s because our level is the same and I’m being overconfident or if I speak English wrong, but he speaks a little, but correctly. I mean, what is the criterion? ((pause)). You have Mustaf, my partner. I don’t know how he can be in Structure 1, Reading/Writing 2, and Spoken 3. There is something wrong with this criterion. I mean, he can speak but he doesn’t have any grammar?} In this quotation, as in many others throughout the three interviews, Lauro compared his English with other people in the classroom and was confused because some students, whom he thought did not speak well, were in the same level as he was. Thus, he was not sure if his English was good or if his English was as bad as theirs. He repeatedly asked, “what’s the criterion” for him to be in this level of Spoken. Lauro seemed to be
202 particularly confused by one student from Japan whom he thought did not speak well.6 Lauro questioned: Olha, eu queria entender se eu falo inglês tão mal quanto algumas pessoas que estão lá. Ou se eu falo errado. E a falta de critério de saber porque eu estou lá. Porque tem pessoas que quando falam eu não consigo entender pa-ta-vi-nas. Tem pessoas que pra construir uma frase….demoram e tem pessoas que já vieram perguntar pra mim porque que eu não vou pra um outro nível. Quer dizer, então, você não fica muito seguro onde você está. (I 2:5-6, 01/24/99) {Look, I wanted to know if I speak as bad as some people there. Or if I speak wrongly. And the lack of criterion to know why I’m there. There are people there that I can’t understand a word of what they say. Some people take forever to say a sentence. Others have asked me why I am not at another [higher] level. Thus, you are not sure where you are.} Not knowing the criterion for being placed in a level with students he thought did not speak well made Lauro wonder if his English was incorrect. He felt very insecure about his English. This might have represented a problem for his identity as a learner. Lauro felt this need to receive feedback, I believe, from the teacher or from a native speaker, about some mistakes or language “vices” he had noticed in some other students. When we watched the videotape of the class, he noticed that one student said “and the…and the…and the….” He wanted to know, “is this allowed in English? Is this common? Is this a mistake? How do I correct this?” (I 3:11, 2/05/99, SR) He said: […] Eu saio sem saber até que ponto eu sou compreendido. Isso é um problema pra mim. […] Só que eu não tenho feedback claro do professor de Spoken se o meu inglês e compreensível, 10%, 20%, 50%, 100%. Se ele é 100% compreensível mas ele está gramaticalmente errado. Ou se ele é 70% compreensível, e está gramaticalmente certo. Isso eu não tenho. (I 3:8, 2/05/99) {I leave without knowing to what extent people understand me. This is a problem for me. […] I don’t have this clear feedback from the Spoken teacher if my English is understood 10%, 20%, 50%, 100%. I don’t know if it’s 100% understood but grammatically incorrect. Or if it’s 70% understood but grammatically correct. I don’t have that.}
6
This was in fact confirmed later by Jack who thought that Nokiuki should probably not be in level 3.
203 In this quotation, Lauro explained that he needed this feedback from the teacher so that he could know to what extent people understood him. He wanted to know what his English was like. This seems to be related to his belief about the teacher role and about the target country as this place that would tell him how much he knew English. Thus, it is up to native-speaker English teachers to assure him whether he was understood. The fact that other L2 users could understand him was not enough. In fact, he did not think other L2 users had this authority; after all, they made the same, or worse, mistakes than he did, as suggested in his remarks above. Lauro was even more puzzled when one of his classmates asked his wife why he was in level 3 if his English was so good. This just reinforced Lauro’s doubts about the criterion for having been placed in that level of Spoken (I 2:8, 01/24/99). At the same time, other teachers had corrected him. Thus, he did not know whom to believe. In sum, Lauro’s comparison with other classmates, a classmate’s comments about how good his English was, and another teacher’s correction of some of his mistakes contributed to this confusion in his mind about what kind of English he spoke. All of these aspects show how the group influenced his beliefs, his perceptions about himself and his English, and his ways of establishing and constructing his identity. Content of spoken class. Lauro expected the Spoken class to deal with pronunciation and not with vocabulary. As discussed previously, one of the objectives of the Spoken class was to teach students conversation management skills. Vocabulary was a great part of that. However, Lauro wanted his and each student’s specific pronunciation problems to be dealt with in the Spoken class:
204 No fundo ela se torna uma aula de vocabulário. […] Primeiro porque você fala muito pouco, quando fala, fala todo mundo junto. Eu acho que eles deveriam ter um laboratório onde as pessoas falassem e escutassem, talvez até mais baseado em vídeo, passar as pessoas falando. […] O Spoken ficou uma aula de vocabulário. (I 3:3, 2/05/99) {It’s a vocabulary class. You speak very little, and when you speak, everybody speaks at the same time. I think they should have a lab where people spoke and listened, and saw themselves on video. […] Spoken has become a vocabulary class.} Lauro seemed to believe that in a Spoken class the teacher should deal with students’ pronunciation. He saw the Spoken class as a vocabulary type of class and he did not like it, because he wanted more listening and more pronunciation. He believed that students with the same L1 could be put together or that the problems of a specific group should be dealt with separately. Essa foi a única que ele trabalhou, porque ele levou a fita, e fez nós falarmos algumas palavras, repetir os movimentos. Só que aí as pessoas brincam porque falta por exemplo, pro asiático que não consegue fazer aquele som, um suporte pra que ele faça aquele som. O latino americano tem problema com uma outra vogal, então vamos trabalhar essa vogal. Foi a única aula que ele trabalhou pronúncia. Porque o resto, era a gente conversar ou repetir a palavra dele […] Mas isso é uma coisa que a gente pode fazer no audiovisual. (I 3:8, 2/05/99) {This was the only class where he worked [with pronunciation], because he took the tape and asked us to say some words and repeat them. But then students play, because they miss a model. For instance, Asians can’t make that sound. They need a support to make that sound. South American students have problem with another vowel, so let’s work with that. He worked with pronunciation only in that class. The rest was based on repeating words after him. […] But this is something that we can do in the audiovisual.} Lauro had very specific ideas about how pronunciation should be done in class. Jack did work with pronunciation in class according to my observation notes, although it received very little attention compared to the emphasis on vocabulary. Lauro did not think there were enough of these activities, nor did he like them. He thought pronunciation work should be aimed at each specific language. This is a complicating aspect because it requires ESL teachers to have knowledge of each language in the class.
205 I think Jack expected students to work on their own and ask him questions, whereas Lauro expected to know about the rules of pronunciation, and have feedback about his own accent, and how he could improve it, as he said in the third interview (I 3:12, 2/05/99). Lauro seemed to want the teacher to work on specific pronunciation aspects, such as the “ed” at the end of verbs that he saw as problematic for Portuguese speakers (I 3:8, 2/05/99). When I asked Lauro if he could not ask his questions in the question moment that Jack had in class, he explained: Ana, o problema que eu vejo é assim, se voce é um aluno padrão, uma pessoa que está chegando aqui no ritmo que os outros estão, você pode colocar coisas sem provocar um sofrimento. (I 3:4, 2/05/99) {Ana, the problem that I see is that if you are a normal student, somebody who arrives here in the same rhythm as others, you can ask things without provoking much suffering.} Lauro did not think he could express his doubts in the class because those were his specific problems. He was not a full-session student and he thought he could not take other students’ time to do that. This is related to the concept of co-presence that Allwright (1998) mentioned. His claims for more pronunciation and listening practice in the classroom had to do with his need for more specific feedback from the teacher. Lauro thought that he could learn pronunciation by reading texts aloud. He believed that in the Reading/Writing class he learned more pronunciation because the teacher had them read a text and corrected his pronunciation problems. He wanted to know if Americans, besides the teacher, who usually know about students’ difficulties, would understand him (I 3:9, 2/05/99). This seems to be still based on Lauro’s bigger belief in the target country as the place that would give him this “stamp of approval.” Lauro wanted to know if the English he learned in Brazil was valid in the target country and he expected the teacher to help him with that.
206 At one point, I reminded Lauro of the opportunity he had in class for talking and listening to his classmates. Lauro did not think that was worth much since he wanted to listen to Americans, not international students (I 2:8, 01/24/99). Some international students, according to him, spoke slowly and he did not feel he was able to evaluate whether his English was good or not from those interactions. He understood it was strategic to put students who spoke different languages together. Yet, he explained, […] só que é muito complicado porque você pronuncia e o japonês não entende. Então eu falei ‘mouth’ e ele não entendeu. Eu não sei se ele não sabe, se ele não tem o vocabulário. A presença de um americano, de uma pessoa nativa na língua, ou alguém com alto domínio na língua, te ajuda. (I 2:8, 01/24/99) {It’s very complicated because you pronounce and the Japanese guy doesn’t understand it. I said ‘mouth’ and he didn’t understand it. I don’t know if he does not know it, or if he doesn’t have the vocabulary or what. Then the presence of an American, a native speaker, with a stronger knowledge of the language, helps.} Lauro did not value this opportunity of speaking to other students. He thought it was complicated because he was not sure if others understood him or not. Thus, a native speaker with “strong” knowledge about the language would help. He wanted to listen to native speakers, because listening to international students was easy: […] O que eu não consigo escutar é americano falando! Numa aula de Spoken eu estou escutando é:::: árabes, chineses, japoneses. Quer dizer, e o americano, que é com quem a gente se interage, não é? Quer dizer, isso eu acho difícil. Será que tem diferença conversar com o rapaz da recepção e com a Myko [do Japão). Lógico que tem. O ritmo dela é outro. É o meu ritmo. A gente se entende fácil. (I 2:10, 01/24/99) {What I don’t seem to have is the opportunity to listen to Americans! In a Spoken class, I’m listening to Arabic, Chinese, Japanese. I mean, what about Americans, who are the ones we interact with? I mean I think this is difficult. Is there a difference talking to the guy in the reception desk and with Myko [from Japan]? Of course, there is. Her rhythm is a different one. It’s my rhythm. We understand each other easily.} This quotation seems to show a contradiction in Lauro’s beliefs. He previously characterized the interaction with international students as complicated. Here, however,
207 he states that it is easy to understand international speakers. One possible explanation is that both arguments, albeit contradictory, are used to support his belief that speaking to international students does not help him to speak better or to know what kind of English he speaks. Lauro recognized that some of these problems with Spoken class were related to his short time at SLI, the short time for the class, only 50 min, and the size of the class, 15 students. Eventually, Lauro did evaluate his experiences at SLI in a positive way, saying that aspects that went beyond the course were what made it valuable (I 3:15, 2/05/99). In summary, Lauro had four main beliefs about language learning, as shown in Table 15. He believed there were several differences between learning English in Brazil and in the US, including the time of exposure that was higher in the target country and the kind of English that they learned in both places. He believed teachers should be more than facilitators. A good student involved being successful with hardship and struggle. His suggestions to learn English involved repetition, order of skills, and exposure to the language.
208 Table 15 Summary of Lauro’s Beliefs about Language Learning Beliefs About Differences between learning in the TC (USA) and the NC (Brazil)
Comments • •
Equivalency rule – Exposure in TC is more intensive than in NC; Learning is faster in TC “Bookish English” – English learned in NC is not used in TC
Teacher and Learner Roles
Teacher: • Should know the correct grammar rule • Should speak an L2 • Should correct students’ mistakes Learners: • Know their purposes for learning an L2 • Search for activities to learn the language • Struggle • Work hard • Seek feedback from others • Learn from their mistakes
How to Learn English
• • • • • • • •
His Level in Spoken 3
Against a laissez-faire type of education Level too easy for him His own perception of his English His perceptions of his classmates’ English
Through L1 Through repetition Through music Learning to speak first (order of skills) Studying in a good, private English school Talking to people Doing the homework Avoiding use of dictionary
More pronunciation and listening, instead of vocabulary
209 Relationship Between Jack’s and Lauro’s Beliefs Jack and Lauro seemed to have different beliefs about language learning and about the Spoken class. They did agree on some beliefs. Jack, like Lauro, believed that students should have personal attention. However, the size of the class was an obstacle to that. Jack tried to solve it by having a moment where students could ask their questions, but as already discussed, Lauro felt discouraged about asking his questions during that moment. Jack believed that students perceived the Spoken class as an easy class, something that Lauro also mentioned. Nevertheless, in most cases, Jack and Lauro had very different beliefs, especially concerning the content of the class. Lauro wanted more listening and pronunciation, whereas Jack structured the class by emphasizing vocabulary, which was according to SLI curriculum. Jack admitted that listening was part of the curriculum, and he tried to do some activities related to that, but not much. He took students to the lab once, after Lauro had left, to show them some web sites where they could practice listening. However, he did not think that “absolved” him from having to do some listening (I 3:3-4, 2/16/99). Jack also acknowledged pronunciation was part of the program and he did do some pronunciation activities, although they were few. Jack’s emphasis on vocabulary was influenced not only by the curriculum, but also by his interpretations of students’ expectations. According to him, he emphasized vocabulary because “many people asked for it” and because he knew “students like slang” (I 2:1;2, 2/09/99). Another difference between Lauro’s and Jack’s beliefs referred to error correction. Whereas Lauro thought that the teacher needed to correct every mistake, every time, Jack, although aware of this student belief, interpreted it differently:
210 Jack: I remember that he [Lauro] said; “correct me.” Correct me when I make a mistake. I find that most students say that. I think they mean it within reason. Ana: What do you mean, within reason? Jack: Just sometimes. To give occasional feedback, that kind of stuff, you should say it, to listen up. I think that goes a long way for students, just a little bit of personal attention. I try to make it a point and catch one person after class everyday and say, “You should go to the lab and practice pronunciation.” “You should say this and should say that.” (I 2:3, 2/09/99) Jack interpreted Lauro’s request for correction according to applied linguistics theories that emphasize covert correction. This excerpt showed how even knowing that Lauro wanted correction, Jack interpreted according to his own beliefs about error correction. Jack did not think he should interrupt students in groups to correct their mistakes. This is how he thought he should correct mistakes: In their groups I wouldn’t interrupt. I can catch them after class sometimes and say “You made this mistake,” and then sometimes as a group too, I probably talk about a few general things. And sometimes correct like I have done in many classes, I just talk to them, and correct them, or repeat it back and tell them the correct way. (I 2:3, 2/09/99) Whereas Lauro wanted to be corrected all the time, Jack tried to do covert correction, without putting students on the spot. Lauro also tried to interpret Jack’s beliefs. Such was the case when he commented on Jack’s way of doing error correction: Muitas vezes a gente fala errado e ele não corrige, eu acho que ele passa por cima, porque ele sabe que você está num processo de aprendizagem então, você já, já aprende isso. Só que aí, como eu falei, ele não corrigiu, eu acho que eu estou certo, memorizo isso e aí continuo fazendo erro. Daí, aquela questão que eu te coloquei que o feedback pra mim é muito importante. […] (I 2:13, 01/24/99) {Many times we speak incorrectly and he doesn’t correct it. I think he does that because he knows we are in the process of learning and we will learn it soon. But, as I said before, if he doesn’t correct, I believe I’m right, I memorize it, and then I keep making the same mistake. That’s why feedback is so important to me.} Lauro believed that Jack did not correct students’ mistakes because Jack knew students were learning and would learn as they progressed. However, Lauro disagreed
211 with that. Lauro believed that if nobody corrected him, he would make the same mistake all the time. He did not want that. He wanted feedback from the teacher. In short, Jack and Lauro’s beliefs were conflicting. Thus, it is not possible to say that Jack influenced Lauro in a positive way. However, because of the conflict, Lauro acted differently. He was obviously more outspoken in class than other students. He would comment sometimes that some exercises were easy. He tried to call the teacher’s attention to himself, hoping to receive more feedback, by saying after answering a question that he did not speak English well or by reading a letter aloud to the teacher without the teacher asking him to. His admiration for his Reading/Writing teacher is also an indirect influence of Jack’s actions in class. Unlike Karina, who took a more active approach in class to pursue her own agenda, Lauro seemed to show his resistance by criticizing the class and proposing other ways the teacher should act. Indirectly, the mismatch between their beliefs did influence his actions and beliefs. Students’ Influence on Jack’s Practice Jack did not think Lauro influenced him. Nevertheless, he acknowledged students’ influence on teachers’ planning of a lesson and their practice. According to Jack, students influence “not what you do, but how you do it and the pace you do it” (I 3:9, 1/16/99). As it happened with Emily, Jack interpreted students’ actions and beliefs. A first example was Jack’s interpretation of students’ beliefs about error correction, as just discussed. A second example refers to Jack’s interpretation of students’ beliefs in vocabulary as helpful in understanding other people, as shown in this next passage:
212 Yeah, I think the vocabulary thing is kind of asking for help, that they are having trouble understanding people, like Guil said, he can understand all the teachers. Did you hear him say that today? /no I didn’t/ […] ((trying to imitate G’s way of talking)), “I don’t know why in SLI we can always understand the teachers,” but when they go outside they can’t understand. They think it’s vocabulary they are asking for vocabulary, it’s valid but also at the same time they are saying, this is what they latch on to, in a general way they can’t understand many people, they think it’s vocabulary. Many times it is. […] (I 2:2, 2/09/99) In this quotation, Jack interpreted students’ beliefs through their actions or comments to him. He tried to interpret one of his students’ comments and used this example to justify his argument that students did want some vocabulary in that class. Like Emily, Jack believed that there was a positive aspect in considering students’ expectations or beliefs in the classroom. Thus, in the first class he asked students to write their expectations about the course: I don’t really have to do it. I could have kind of predicted that 90% would say vocabulary, pronunciation./yeah/ But I think psychologically it gives them, makes them feel good, because it gives them a little input into the class, maybe. Ok, I told my teacher my opinion. Plus it is a big class, it’s 15. That helps me to kind of get a grip on what their main problems and concerns are. (I 1:7, 1/22/99) Jack thought that students might feel good about having their suggestions considered, and that is one of the reasons that he gave students the chance to write about their expectations. Students’ feedback influenced Jack’s approach to the class, as many students expected vocabulary to be the focus of Spoken class. The group of students as a whole had more influence on Jack’s teaching approach. The students in that class were very vibrant and seemed to like talking to each other. Jack commented about this: I think they need more discussion, more group discussion. They want to get together, have more group problem-solving situations, things like that. A couple of people told me at the mid-term conferences that they wanted that, to just talk more, have more opportunities for talking. I kind of thought so too. (I 2:3, 2/09/99)
213 Jack commented that this group needed more group discussion, since a couple of students had told him that they needed more opportunities to talk. This may have helped in Jack’s interpretation that this was a group that “liked getting together and talking to each other, and [were] happy in groups” (I 3:4, 2/16/99). Students’ answers may have reinforced Jack’s interpretation that they expected the Spoken class to deal with vocabulary, and to have a more relaxed and non-judgmental atmosphere. Jack also believed that students wanted information on how to learn English. Thus, he also gave them a handout with suggestions on how to learn English (see Appendix E). That’s kind of a form that all the teachers have and probably every teacher gives that to their Spoken English students in every class. It’s been around for a while. This teacher made it originally and I updated that a few months ago. And yeah, students often ask, they are often interested in meeting Americans, you know, and getting involved in English as much as they can. I think that list gives those suggestions. How to meet Americans … just different things in society that they can take advantage of. Some they know about, like TV, some they don’t. So I think students want that kind of information. (I 1:7, 1/22/99) Jack was referring to a form used by all teachers at SLI. He thought that students wanted this kind of information on how to learn English because they usually asked him for suggestions on how to improve their English. However, when Lauro asked Jack in class about how to improve his listening, Jack interpreted it as asking for vocabulary and expressions: And a lot of people ask that, like Lauro did, how can I improve my listening, or at the end of a class they will ask, what can I do to continue improving my reading and writing. You know the answers are always pretty much simple things. Keep reading, read as much as you can. Like Lauro, watch TV, watch movies, have a dictionary. I gave them that handout “how to improve your spoken English” which is full of things that I could have repeated back to Lauro to do all these things. I think he was asking for vocabulary and expressions. (I 1:7, 1/22/99)
214 My observation note shows that Lauro in fact asked about listening, how he could improve it, how he could understand people. Jack may have interpreted that Lauro was asking for vocabulary because he was thinking about most of the students. In conclusion, Jack and Lauro’s beliefs were very different. Several factors contributed to this difference. For Lauro, his short time at SLI, his age, his educational background, and his placement in Spoken English 3 colored his perceptions of his classmates as not serious, and the Spoken class as easy. The classmates’ actions and the activities in the Spoken class reinforced that opinion. He then expected the teacher to exert a stronger role and to give him more personal feedback. Jack, on the other hand, had to follow a curriculum that was based on conversation management skills. In addition, most students wanted vocabulary, not pronunciation. The analysis also showed that although Lauro did not influence Jack in any way, Jack did have interpretations about student’s beliefs and some of them indirectly influenced his practice. Such was the case of error correction. Jack interpreted that students, including Lauro, did not mean they wanted to be corrected all the time. Jack’s interpretations of students’ belief, as well as his belief in the communicative teaching made him do more covert than overt error correction. Jack and Carla Jack’s Beliefs about Reading and Writing Jack liked reading, and he thought that the Reading/Writing class was more suited to his style. He liked the Reading/Writing class and the group of students, although he felt “rushed” in that class because there was always a lot to do. He had not taught level 3 of Reading/Writing for a while, so, he commented, it was causing him more work. He
215 was trying to find “different kinds of writing activities or ways to do writing,” because he was not really enjoying the material he had used before. He said “he had done it too often” or had just “evolved since that time” and did not think it “was good anymore” (I 4:4, 2/26/99). Jack’s beliefs about writing included a belief in writing as an expression of ideas, and a belief in writing as a process. I discuss each of these below. Writing as Expression of Ideas Jack liked the “reading aspect” more than the writing aspect of the Reading/Writing class, but he did not like reading the essays very much. He explained why: Because the topics are not so creative in a sense, you know, there’s not a lot of room for personal expression and ideas. So you don’t really learn much about students. Sometimes you do. I just feel like I’ve seen everything, I’ve read everything. It kind of takes an effort to force myself to look at them afresh. What can I learn about these students from their papers? […] I don’t really enjoy reading the papers very much. Just because you don’t read for ideas, I guess. And I see the same old mistakes all the time, you know. I see the paper as a chance for students to express their feelings, their true opinions about things. It’s more of a formal exercise. They have to take their ideas, and organize things. Even if they’re true ideas or not true ideas, I can’t even know that. I mean, when I was a student if I needed to make up something, I would make something up, and students do that, you know. (I 5:9, 4/29/99) In explaining his reasons for not enjoying reading essays, Jack expressed some beliefs about reading and writing and about some of the difficulties he found in it. First, he thought the writing topics7 did not allow students to express themselves personally. Jack regretted that he did not learn much about students when he read their essays. This was partly due to his many years of experience. He mentioned that it takes him a certain
7
Some of the topics were, “Differences between my country and the USA,” “The person I admire most,” and others.
216 amount of effort to try to look at the essays afresh because he felt as if he had seen everything. He said that when he read essays, he was not exactly reading for ideas, but for formal aspects. He saw the paper as a chance for students to express their ideas and personal feelings, but he felt that the essay was a “formal exercise.” Thus, he was not sure whether what he was reading was true or not, because having once been a student, he knew that students could make up something. Influence on his practice: Jack’s practice represented a mixture of asking students to write more freely and to express their personal opinions, and giving students practice in writing a formal essay. Although students mostly practiced writing formal essays, Jack gave students opportunities to write without concerning themselves too much about the formal organizational aspects of an essay. If he saw the essay as a formal exercise where students had to pay attention to organization, then the free writing was an opportunity to read for their ideas. One example of such free writing was the letter of introduction that Jack asked students to write to him. The purpose of that letter was not only to learn about each of them personally, but also to get a feeling for their level of English (I 4:3, 2/16/99). Later in the course, he also asked them to write their opinions about the death penalty. He explained that that was an interesting, classic topic, and he “just wanted to have [students] read and write something informally without looking at all the organization” (I 5:11, 4/29/99). In another occasion, he asked students one day to go to the quad and pay attention to all the things happening around them. He divided students in different groups. Each student should choose one of the senses (smell, touch, vision, etc) to write about trying to use similes and metaphors. By asking students to write these types of
217 assignments, Jack enacted his belief that students should get a chance to write more informally and freely. Writing as a Process Jack believed that students learned how to read and write basically the same way that they did in their first language. He talked about it: […] I always like to remind them that you don’t read word by word because you don’t do that in your native language, you know? Think about how you read in your native language and apply it to English. That takes some time to do. It’s confidence building. They just have to read a lot. Develop their confidence and develop their reading skills and just get better and better. Just through practice. This is how we learned to read when we were children. We just practiced, and it helps to read things that you are interested in. And in terms of writing, kind of the same thing. The grammatical level seems to develop as their English gets better. And then there’s lots of organizational things that they have to learn, what’s a good essay in The United States, and things about transition words, summary writing. There’s different techniques or writing styles or writing techniques that can be learned and taught and improved right along with the actual sophistication of the expression of their ideas. (I 4:5, 2/16/99) Jack thought that students could apply the reading strategies they use for reading in their L1 to English. Helping students learn how to write took time because it involved building students’ confidence and a lot of practice. Jack believed that students learned to write by writing. Accuracy would develop as they get better at it. Of course, students had to learn about formal aspects, such as transition words, different writing techniques, and aspects of a good essay in the US. Jack believed that these could be taught to students and, as they learned about those aspects, they would improve the expression of their ideas. The Reading/Writing class followed the process approach. This process involves teaching students how to brainstorm, outline, rewrite, and peer-review. According to
218 Jack, “it’s just kind of always been accepted as part of writing classes” and of “communicative teaching in most classes” as a good thing to do (I 5: 2, 4/29/99). Jack had his own way of following the process approach. He acknowledged that some teachers really emphasize the process by having students do an outline, revise, brainstorm, and then having students to rewrite their drafts. He used to do all of that but does “less and less now.” He said that he “got away from the strict process.” He liked talking about brainstorming, outlining, and making a draft, writing it again, maybe checking it,” but that was all (I 5:3, 4/29/99). He explained why he changed: Well, I think out of respect for students’ differences. Like I’ve never done myself that whole process thing. I might brainstorm in my head, or I might organize in my head or just jot down a real rough outline of some ideas before I forget them. But the whole idea of introduction, thesis, and conclusion, I had to learn all that when I went to grad school. I mean I almost kind of did it naturally, but I was an undergraduate student. So I don’t really need a lot of those things myself. I think some students do and some don’t. Some are more confident about writing down their ideas and some are not confident for whatever reasons. Maybe in English because they don’t have the confidence. So, I think I got away from that, just because different people have different styles, and in the end, as long as they can give me a decent paper then that’s good. How they got to it is kind of their own business. And also I started doing it because it was more work for me to have to look at outlines, and papers, and drafts, and drafts, and drafts. (I 5:3, 4/29/99) In this quotation, Jack talked about two aspects that influenced him in his adaptation of the process approach. The first one was his respect for students’ differences and styles. He used himself as an example. If he as a student never did all the steps in the process approach, he might have students who feel the same. He acknowledged though that some students might need it more than others. The second aspect referred to the load of work that the process approach brings to the teacher. Thus, he adapted it a bit having not only his students’ different styles in mind, but also the amount of work for him as a teacher.
219 One of the aspects of the process-approach is peer review, which involves having students reading and giving feedback about each other’s papers. Jack thought that peer review and pair work was important in this class. It had to do with his perception of writing as “a lonely activity.” On many occasions, he himself wrote things on the board with students and helped them shape their thinking about their topics. He thought that the peer review was a good opportunity for students to read each other’s papers “just to see that other people are doing the same kind of thing I’m doing.” (I 5:3, 4/29/99). This would give students a little more confidence (I 4:3, 2/16/99). Jack also expected students to pay attention to some of the more formal aspects of their papers with each other. He wanted students to be able to spot in each other’s papers some of the organizational things that they were learning in class, such as how to write an introduction or a thesis sentence, how to organize their papers and support their ideas: I would hope that everybody is doing what I wanted them to do in that regard, so that it will be possible for them to say “Yes, this is the thesis sentence,” “This is the main support.” If the person is not doing that, if the writer is not doing that, then it’s harder for the reader. I don’t know if the reader… knows or has enough confidence to say, “No, this isn’t right, this isn’t what the teacher wants.” Maybe the reader thinks, “This is what I should be doing, maybe I did it wrong.” So, who knows what’s going on in their heads. (I 5:4, 4/29/99) Jack hoped that students were able to talk at least about those things in the peer review, but he knew that some of them might not have enough confidence to do that. He said it was hard for him to know what went on with them, as they were discussing their papers. As he explained, in contrast to the Spoken class, where he “cruised” around and listened, in the Reading/Writing class he did not do that much. I decided one day to pay close attention to one pair of students to listen to what they talked about during their peer
220 review. I found out that students had their own ideas about what they should do in the peer review. I observed Carla, the Brazilian student, and Yune, a girl from Korea talking about the paper they had written on “The person I admire most.”8 They had already discussed parts of that paper in the previous class. In this peer review, they first read each other’s papers silently. Sometimes they would stop to ask a question about vocabulary that they had not understood. When they finished reading their papers, they started asking questions about the content of the paper and not necessarily giving suggestions on grammar points or on how their partner could improve their papers. They seemed to have interpreted the task as a topic for conversation, as Carla confirmed later to me. Instead of talking about the more formal aspects of their essay, these students focused on meaning and content. Jack saw the following reasons for that: (a) students may have already read each other’s papers the day before and did not have much to talk about, (b) students were probably not motivated, (c) students were good writers and they thought that each other’s papers were good, and (d) students just had not understood what they had to do (RW3 ON11: 3, 4/15/99). Although Jack recognized that students might not have the confidence to criticize each other’s papers, he thought the peer review was a good thing to do because it gave students opportunity to read each other’s papers and compare their writing. He believed that “subconsciously they get something out of it” (I 5:3-4, 4/29/99).
8
The complete observation note about this episode is in Appendix J.
221 Influence on his practice. Jack’s beliefs in the communicative approach also seemed to have influenced his practice. The positive and relaxing atmosphere in class, the use of group and pair work, not only for the peer review but also for checking homework and exercises suggested the implementation of the communicative approach. It was a non-threatening atmosphere, as shown in this excerpt: Jack asked them to get in groups and talk about the sentences on page 2 and 3 about occasions when they kiss in their country, culture. I think students kind of waited for him to tell them which group they should go to. He divided them and there were two females in each group. He told students “just relax, have a good discussion for 15 min.” One student said, “Just relax for 15 min?” and they laughed. Jack corrected and said ‘talk for 15 min.” (RW3 ON1: 1, 3/18/99) The non-threatening atmosphere was achieved by Jack’s posture and by his use of humor in class. He seemed to be more comfortable with this class, and I take that as evidence of his liking for Reading/Writing class, compared to the Spoken class that I had observed the previous session. The excerpt below illustrates Jack’s use of humor in class: Jack started talking about the conclusion [of an essay] and asked students what a conclusion should have. Students volunteered answers. Carla said something and Jack didn’t understand it very well. He told them that there was not a technique like there was for the introduction, but usually, you shouldn’t say anything new for the conclusion, and look to the future. He gave the example of reporters on TV who usually do that. He tried to imitate the reporter by using his hand as a microphone and saying at the end “JR reporting from Bosnia.” Students laughed. (RW3 ON7: 3, 4/07/99) These practices, although few, indicated that Jack tried to use some humor in this class. I interpreted his use of humor as efforts to lighten up and make students more interested in the class. I also noted a few more instances than in the Spoken class of Jack’s metaphor for the class as teachers and students riding together along the same road. It was common to hear him ask students from time to time “Are you with me? Are you with me so far? Is everybody with me?” (RW3, ON 2, 6, 14, 18.)
222 Another practice that suggested Jack’s belief in the communicative approach was the kinds of advice on how to read and write that he offered students in class, as summarized in Table 16. To Jack, those pieces of advice seemed to be part of a way of teaching writing, sort of a “general truth” in the field and at SLI, where some aspects have come to be accepted and have been incorporated into the teaching of writing. His suggestions on how to learn to read and write indicate a possible transmission of beliefs. Carla appeared to agree with most of them. However, it is not possible to say to what extent all students believed or incorporated any or all of those suggestions Jack gave them. Jack’s pieces of advice seemed to stem from the communicative approach, from the course curriculum, and from the general approach of teaching Reading/Writing at SLI. By giving those types of advice in class, Jack was possibly trying to deconstruct some of the myths that students might have about reading and writing. It may be that Jack thought that students had different beliefs and he wanted to address their beliefs so that he could do his job. Teaching students how to write specific parts of a formal essay was another aspect related to the process approach. Jack first taught students how to brainstorm ideas for a paper, then the concept of a paragraph, introduction, and conclusion. His way of explaining involved asking students questions and bringing good models of an essay. Sometimes he would also bring paragraphs and introductions that were not so good, and ask students to find the problems with those kinds of writing, as shown in this next passage:
223 Table 16 Summary of Jack’s Advice on How to Read and Write in English Type of advice Using dictionaries
Comment “You can learn a lot in dictionaries.”
Source (RW3 ON2: 1, SII, 3/19/99)
Guessing in context
Jack said that students can guess many meanings of the words and that they usually do that already in their native language.
(RW3 ON2: 1, SII, 3/19/99)
Reading at different speeds
“People say you have to read everything at the same speed; if you are reading the newspaper you have to read it differently.”
(RW3 ON2: 2, SII, 3/19/99)
Jack told students that they should try to read a little faster than their normal reading speed. If they did that, they would improve.
(RW3 ON2: 2, SII, 3/19/99)
How to read
“People learn to read like they learn to ride a bicycle or play the piano.”
(RW3 ON2: 2, SII, 3/19/99)
Not reading read word by word
“It’s important not to read word by word. I think you don’t read like that in your native language.”
(RW3 ON2: 2, SII, 3/19/99)
‘Read for ideas, not word by word’ “It’s much better to read for ideas like you do in your native language than to read each word individually.”
(RW3 ON2: 3, SII, 3/19/99)
“Sometimes I see people reading and moving their lips. That’s not good because we read faster than we can talk and probably if you are moving your lips it means you are reading word by word.” Double checking
“I think it’s a good idea to finish the first draft of essay and put it away for one or a few days and then read it. Sometimes it helps to distance yourself. Double check is important.”
(RW3 ON14: 1, SII, 4/22/99)
Reading selectively
“I think when you read you don’t need to get all the information.”
(RW3 ON3: 1, SII, 3/22/99)
224 Jack asked students: “What is a paragraph? Who can tell me what a paragraph is?” One student said, “The main idea” and Mustaf said something but I couldn’t hear it. Then Jack repeated what he had said, “A group of sentences about one main idea.” He then asked students if the sentence, “Americans don’t take their shoes off when getting into their homes and Japanese do” was a good idea for a paragraph. Carla said no, and he asked her why. Carla said that the sentence was too short. Jack agreed. He then suggested the sentence “Society in USA and Japan are very different.” He said that that sentence was too broad for only one paragraph. He then gave another example (about food customs in both countries) and said that that would probably be ok for a paragraph. He gave students a handout with some sentences that he had compiled from the list that they had given him the day before. Students should say if those sentences were too specific, general, or ok for a paragraph. (RW3 ON3: 1, 3/22/99) The excerpt illustrates how Jack tried to involve students in the process. He acted according to his belief about the role of the teacher and learner. He elicited questions from students first and relied on their participation to explain the different parts of an essay. That was usually followed either by a handout or by an exercise where students would read or practice more of what they had just discussed. Jack enacted his belief about the process approach by asking students to brainstorm, bring a draft, discuss it with peers, hand it in to him, and then rewrite it. The first time, he asked students to write the different parts of an essay first, giving constant feedback to students about that. He then asked them to put it all together. The second time, he let students work more independently, and he saw their papers only once. He gave students individual feedback. He talked to individual students in class about their papers. I could not listen to the kind of feedback he gave to students, but there were instances when I was able to overhear some of his comments such as, “this doesn’t follow the kind of organization I’m looking for,” “here you talk about negative points, but it doesn’t support your ideas” (RW3 ON12: 2, 4/19/99). Other times he said, “nice organization, ideas are clear, good punctuation, good transition words. Some grammar
225 and ideas I don’t understand very well” (RW3 ON13: 2, 4/20/99). Jack also did some sort of group feedback where he concentrated on other details of writing, as shown here in this observation note excerpt: Jack told students that he liked everybody’s paper. He said that the content and the grammar were very, very good for level 3. He’s happy with that. He noticed some mistakes in some papers that he would like to tell them. He started talking about them. He talked about “the USA” (some students forgot to use THE), difference between cultures/customs (some students misunderstood both), “almost people” (he told them they should say “almost all of the people,” or “most people”). […] (RW3 ON7: 2, 4/07/99) In addition to this type of feedback, Jack also interfered when he saw that students were having difficulties writing a paper. His interference was limited to helping students develop their own ideas. When students had difficulty preparing for their classification paper, he asked students to brainstorm about it individually and while they did that, he went to students’ desks, trying to help them shape their topics (RW3 ON15:1, 4/26/99). Finally, it is important to stress that Reading/Writing class was perhaps one of the classes where the goal of SLI of preparing students for university work was more evident. Students should know aspects of what is considered good writing in American universities and the organizational aspects of writing a formal academic essay. This aim was clear in the content of the class and in how writing was taught – emphasizing models of good writing in the United States. Jack usually stressed what was considered a model of good writing style in the United States: […] Jack gave them an example of a good essay written by a student, a paper with a good organization. Students read it. He then told them that “for Americans this is good writing because it has a very clear organization. It’s very easy to understand.” He talked to them about the introduction and asked them to find the main idea in the introduction. […] There was an introduction with the thesis sentence. Jack asked them how many ideas did the essay have and students said three. He asked them what to call them and Mustaf said “supporting ideas.” He writes on the board the three ideas numbering them and then asks students what
226 ideas are used to support the three supporting ideas. Students answer, and Jack writes their answers on the board. When he finishes, he says, “For Americans, this is good, everything supports each other and everything else supports the main idea” “in formal university writing, this is the formal way.” He then tells them that this is what he wants them to do with those paragraphs and that they should write an introduction to those paragraphs. (RW3 ON5: 2-3, 3/25/99) Besides giving these specific pieces of information on how to write within an American style, Jack also prepared students for writing in an academic setting since some of them were going to take the TOEFL exam to go to university. This preparation involved, for instance, giving students a writing test in class, whose purpose was to check if students had understood the “traditional formal American style organization” and to prepare them for the kind of writing that they would encounter in the TOEFL exam (I 5:5-6, 4/29/99). In conclusion, Jack’s beliefs about writing show three forces: (a) communicative teaching and the process approach where writing is seen as a process; (b) Jack’s own beliefs about writing as expression of ideas and his adaptation of the process approach; and (c) a curriculum that aimed at teaching students about formal aspects of an essay and preparing them for academic writing. As shown in Table 17, his practice reflected a mixture of all these forces.
227 Table 17 Influence of Jack’s Beliefs about Writing on His Actions J’s beliefs about writing
Actions
Communicative teaching
Using humor, giving students advice on types or reading and writing strategies
Writing as expression of ideas
Giving students free-writing topics
Writing as a process
Giving students advice on how to write Explaining formal aspects of essay/preparing them for academic life Using a gradual approach to writing (teaching the different parts through a process) Asking students to read each other’s papers (pair work, peer review)
Carla’s Beliefs Carla was 25 years old and she had just graduated in Business/Administration in Brazil. She used to work with her father in his consulting firm. She came to stay in the US for six months, but illness in the family made her go back to Brazil after the first session. She did not remember much about her previous learning experience in Brazil, and thus, she did not talk much about it or did not give as many details as the other students did. As an adolescent, she had studied English for two years at a prestigious binational English center in Brazil. She then stopped studying English. Only before coming to the US, she took some lessons at another private English school to brush up on her English. Carla had never thought of coming to the US. She then decided to come abroad not so much to study English, but more for the experience of living in another country (I
228 1:1, 3/25/99). Her decision to come to this southern state was related to two aspects. The first aspect referred to the lack of presence of Brazilians. She did not want to be in a state with lots of Brazilians because, according to her, she would end up in the group of Brazilians speaking only Portuguese (I 1: 1-2, 3/25/99). Ironically, the second aspect is very much in contradiction with the first. She came to this southern state because she had Brazilian friends living nearby. She had known them for 18 years and one of girls could share an apartment with her. Her friends had studied in the SLI and said good things about it. Thus, although Carla said that her reason for coming to this city was related to the fact that there were not many Brazilians, having Brazilian friends in this city made her life easier. Carla had a grade of A in all her courses. She first thought that studying at SLI was not so easy. However, later, she confessed that she did not have to study much. She did all her lessons and homework, but she did not study too much for any tests (I 3:10, 5/05/99). Carla was placed in level 3 in all courses (Reading/Writing, Spoken, and Structure). She did not present any resentment for being placed in this level at the beginning. In the third interview, however, she did mention that she expected to be at a higher level. The fact that Jack told her so on the last day of classes made her even more convinced of that. Carla mentioned that she started studying English at a private English school in Brazil just before coming to the US to improve her English so that she could get a higher level and take more advantage of it: Porque eu estava muito tempo sem fazer inglês e a gramática praticamente toda eu tinha esquecido. Então eu queria voltar e fazer algum curso, alguma coisa pra refrescar um pouco a gramática na minha cabeça pra eu aproveitar mais aqui. Eu não queria cair num nível tão baixo aqui sabendo que eu iria de repente, até
229 lembraria as coisas que eu iria ter que aprender. Eu acabei caindo num nível baixo, não foi num dos melhores. Talvez se eu tivesse levado a sério o curso, ou então se eu tivesse contratado algum professor particular pra ir uma ou duas vezes por semana, eu poderia ter caído um nível acima e estaria aproveitando talvez mais. Mas tá bom. (I 2:3-4, 4/16/99) {Because I hadn’t studied English for a long time, I had forgotten almost all the grammar. Thus, I wanted to go back and take a course, something to refresh the grammar in my head so that I could take more advantage of this time here. I didn’t want to be in a low level, knowing that I could remember things that I would have to learn. I ended up in a low level, not one of the best. Maybe if I had taken my course [in Brazil] more seriously, or had hired a private teacher to go once or twice a week, I could have been placed a level above and would benefit from it. But it’s ok.} Carla explained that she had studied English a long time ago and had forgotten “practically most of the grammar.” Thus, she needed to take another course to “refresh the grammar in her head.” This was important because she did not want to get a low level at SLI. Behind this statement seems to lie an assumption that, if one is coming to the target country, it is better to get a higher level because the basics one can learn in Brazil. Carla complained that she got a low level, not one of the best. Carla also blamed herself for not taking it seriously in Brazil or not having hired a private teacher so she could get a better level at SLI and take more advantage of it. Carla’s language learning beliefs included beliefs about differences between learning in Brazil and in the US, beliefs about ways of learning English, beliefs about teacher and learner role, beliefs about the Reading/Writing class, and beliefs about Structure class. The latter will be dealt with later. Differences Between Learning in Brazil and in the US Like Karina and Lauro, Carla also compared the time of learning in the target country (TC) and in the native country (NC), and employed the equivalency rule
230 mentioned earlier. She believed that the learning was harder in the TC because of the amount of information: É mais puxado. É mais puxado porque é tudo em inglês, e é muita informação em muito pouco tempo. Porque no Brasil você tem aula, geralmente duas vezes por semana, uma hora por dia. Se você fizer o intensivo, são três, quatro vezes por semana, uma hora por dia, quer dizer, não é muita coisa mais. E aqui não, é todo dia. Então é mais puxado, é muita informação, é muita coisa. O que a gente aprendeu em um dia, é o que a gente demoraria pra aprender lá em 20 dias. Faz tanto tempo que eu nem lembro mais. Eu lembro que esse último curso que eu fiz, eu fiquei três semanas no ((ela ri)) no simple present. (I 1:10, 3/25/99) {It’s harder. It’s harder because everything is in English and it’s a lot of information in a short time. In Brazil, you usually have classes twice a week, one hour a day. If you take an intensive course, you have four classes a week, one hour each day, so it’s not that much more. Here it’s everyday. So it’s harder, it’s a lot of information, it’s a lot of things. What we learned here in one day is what it would take us to learn there in 20 days. It’s been such a long time that I don’t remember anymore. I remember in this last course I took, I studied the simple present for three weeks ((she laughs)).} Carla argued that a short time in the TC is equal to lots of days, months, or even years of learning English in Brazil. She expressed her frustration with a private English school in Brazil where she said she spent three weeks studying the simple present tense. These kinds of experiences helped students reinforce their beliefs that learning in the TC is better because it is faster. Carla was conscious though that she would not have “perfect” English just spending three months in the TC. She thought that even six months is not enough for perfect English (I 3:3, 5/05/99). Like Karina and Lauro, Carla had difficulties in speaking when she arrived in the US. The causes for her difficulties were related to the differences between learning English in Brazil and in the US. Difficulties in speaking. Carla did not find her classes difficult, but she did mention having problems speaking English both in class and out of class (I 1:4, 3/25/99). She also mentioned having difficulty in writing as well because both abilities were
231 related. When asked if she had also had difficulty speaking in Brazil, Carla said, “In Brazil you don’t speak, do you? You only answer the teacher’s questions” (I 1:4-5, 3/25/99). The conversation partner and teachers’ encouragement helped Carla in speaking. In this next quote, she talked about how teachers’ encouragement motivated her: Eu acho que o fato de eu estar indo bem nas provas e tal, e o Jack sempre dizendo ‘ah, você está escrevendo bem’ e aí a Flora também ‘você está indo legal, não sei o quê’, isso me dá uma animada sim porque tem hora que eu falo ((numa voz mais desesperada)), ‘o que eu estou fazendo aqui, eu não entendo nada’, sabe, entender eu entendo, mas eu não consigo por pra fora, então, às vezes eu quero falar tanta coisa e não consigo. (I 2:5, 4/16/99) {I think that because I’m doing well in the tests, and Jack is always saying, “You are writing well,” and Flora also, “you are going well,” this makes me enthusiastic. There are times when I say, ((in a more desperate voice)) “What am I doing here? I don’t understand anything!” I can understand, but I just can’t speak up. Sometimes I want to say so many things, and I can’t.} Carla seemed to value her teachers’ encouragement. She liked it when teachers complimented and encouraged her. This motivated her to keep trying. However, sometimes she felt that even that was not enough to help her speaking (I 3:2, 5/05/99). Carla acknowledged that some of her difficulties in speaking English could be caused by the fact that she was living with a Brazilian friend. She knew that if she were living at the dorm with Americans, she would probably have to speak more English (I 2:6, 4/16/99). At one point she decided to try to speak only English with her Brazilian roommate, but she found it artificial and not “spontaneous” (I 3:1, 5/05/99). Carla believed that her need “to do everything correctly and fast” did not help her much when speaking English (I 3:2, SII, 5/05/99). Two aspects may have contributed to Carla’s difficulties. One was the L1 and the other was her classmates’ criticism of her English.
232 “Thinking in Portuguese.” Carla believed that part of her difficulties with speaking had to do with the role of L1. She believed she did not speak because she was still “thinking in Portuguese,” that is, making the translation from Portuguese into English in her mind (I 3:6, SII, 5/05/99). She was against translating into Portuguese. It was something that usually happened in classes in Brazil, as she explained: É porque que nem lá no Brasil, você tá numa aula de inglês. Aí você não sabe uma palavra. Aí você fala, ‘ai como é que fala café mesmo, que eu esqueci?’ Aí alguém do seu lado fala, ‘café é coffee’. Então é fácil. Aqui não. Eles vão falar tal e tal…, você acaba aprendendo mais. (I 1:6, 3/25/99) {It’s because in Brazil, you are having an English class. Then you don’t know a word, you ask [in Portuguese] “How do you say coffee? I forgot” Then somebody next to you says “café is coffee.” Thus, it’s easy. But here this doesn’t happen. They will explain in English and you end up learning more.} Carla explained it was easy to slip into the native language in a foreign language environment. When she compared it to the experience in the US, she believed one learned more in an ESL environment because the L1 was not present (theoretically at least, since she was living with a Brazilian). The role of L1 was an important factor in Carla’s evaluation of how much she had learned at SLI. She felt that her English had improved. That was not necessarily related to speaking, but to not thinking in Portuguese when she watched a film or read a text or a book. She felt good being able to watch a film and understand it, “not thinking in Portuguese.” When she read, she also noticed that she “was reading fast because she did not stop to translate.” She said the same thing about writing: […] E eu tenho percebido isso também no escrever. Quando eu tenho que fazer os papers. Muita coisa eu fico com dicionário, e muita coisa eu penso, ‘como é que eu escrevo isso em inglês’. Mas de repente eu deixo soltar tudo que vem na cabeça e só escrevo em inglês e penso em inglês e depois eu corrigo só. (I 2:7-8, 4/16/99) {I have noticed that in writing. When I have to write the papers, many times I have the dictionary by my side. But other times, I think “How do I say, how do I
233 write that in English?” But then I let it go and write everything that comes to my mind, and I write and think in English, and then I only correct it.} Carla thought that she did better in writing when she “let it go” and tried just to write down what came to her mind. She called that “thinking in English.” The same thing happened with reading. She seemed to enjoy the fact that she was not thinking in Portuguese anymore (I 3:5, 5/05/99). Thinking in English was part of making things “automatic” in one’s head and it was seen as a synonym for real learning. In spite of these comments about the L1, Carla recognized that speaking Portuguese had some advantages compared to speaking other languages. For instance, she explained that because the prefixes and suffixes in Portuguese were similar to English, she did not have trouble in an activity with prefixes and suffixes in class. Her Japanese classmate could not believe how she knew all of them (I 3:9, 5/05/99). Influence of classmates. As it happened with Karina and Lauro, classmates influenced Carla’s perception of her English. In the first interview, she seemed to have a more optimistic view of her English and pointed out things that she was doing to improve her English while studying at SLI. […] Eu sinto que eu estou melhorando muito só nos almoços. Eu almoço sempre com o pessoal do curso. Cada dia eu sento com um e tal, estou sempre almoçando, procuro me enturmar um pouquinho mais, embora esse não seja meu objetivo. Eu não vim pra cá pra fazer novos amigos nem pra:::: nem pra sair. Eu vim pra aprender inglês, mas eu estou tendo que me socializar, pra conseguir aprender também. (I 1:7-8, 3/25/99) {I feel like I’m improving a lot only by having lunch with people from the class. I try to sit with somebody different everyday, I’m trying to socialize a little bit more, although that is not my goal. I didn’t come here to make new friends, or to go out. I came here to learn English, but I am having to socialize to be able to learn too.} Carla was trying to socialize and making an effort to talk to people, even if that was not her personality. In her second interview, she mentioned she was still trying to be
234 sociable to improve her English by going to the place where students had lunch, or going to the malls and talking to shop assistants. She knew that she had to be more sociable in order to improve her English. However, her experiences would make her change her mind about that. She abandoned the socializing strategy because of the way some students behaved with her. One classmate and another student at SLI made fun of her way of speaking and thus inhibited her from speaking in front of them. The first time she alluded to this episode was in the Structure class one day. Carla ‘used’ the researcher as a confidant to talk about the classmate that she wanted to target because of what he had told her: While Flora was in another group, Carla turned to me and started speaking English to me [which I thought unusual]. She told me that she was going to start speaking English to her Brazilian roommate. I asked her how long her roommate had been here. She told me, “six years,” and added that she spoke English very well. At this point Juarez was also participating in the conversation. Carla told me that her roommate was upset when some people made fun of her speaking English. She said that she spoke “beaches” [and she tried to pronounce the long /i/], but that this person made fun of her and kind of repeated the word, correcting it. She said “stupid person” and Juarez agreed with her. Juarez said, “It’s ridiculous,” or something to that effect. Juarez told Carla not to pay attention to it. Carla was really mad. I could tell by her expression and tone of voice. Flora starting passing the homework and Juarez and Carla kept on talking. I told Carla to stop a bit. The class ended and Juarez and Carla kept talking about that, and Carla started saying that her American exchange partner knew English, “she knows English and she can correct me because she knows it.” At this point, Ramon as usual, was standing by, just listening to it. I was by the door, waiting for Carla for us to go to Jack’s class. When we went outside, I told Carla that we could speak English with each other if she wanted. Carla told me that the student who did this to her was Ramon. She said that he told her that “one day she will speak like him.” Carla was furious and upset with his attitude. She said, “he thinks he knows everything.” She said that she had started talking about that in class on purpose, so that he could hear her. She compared his attitude with Juarez’s more empathetic attitude. When she wasn’t able to express herself, Juarez would usually tell her, “just take it easy, you will get it, we are here to learn.” (S3, ON12:3, 4/21/99)
235 This excerpt shows Carla’s anger with Ramon’s attitude towards her English. She tried to counterattack by indirectly criticizing his attitude in class with me, so that he could listen to it. She was very upset about that. In the third interview, she talked about another student from Germany who also made fun of her way of speaking. This student had asked Carla if “all Brazilians spoke slowly like she did.” These incidents made Carla avoid contact with other international students, as she put it: […] Só que agora eu nem perco mais tempo falando muito. Querem achar fresca, me achem, porque eu nem perco tempo. Eu falo, ‘hi, hi,’ e….não perco muito tempo. (I 3:6, 5/05/99) {Nowadays I don’t waste my time speaking a lot. If they want to think I’m snobbish, they can because I’m not going to waste my time. I say ‘hi’ only and don’t waste my time.} […] Eu estava começando a ficar inibida pra falar, quer dizer, tudo que você não pode ser aqui. Sabe, você pega a diferença que nem do Juarez, que pega e fala, ‘não fica calma, que a gente tá aprendendo mesmo, vamos que a gente vai se entendendo’, do que um outro que fica ‘todo brasileiro fala devagar assim?’ Eu tô falando devagar porque eu estou tentando falar certo e claro. (I 3:7, 5/05/99) {I have become inhibited to speak, that is, everything that you cannot be here. You know the difference when I work with a guy like with Juarez, for instance, who says “Don’t worry, take it easy, we are learning, keep going that we’ll get it” than with a person who asks me if all Brazilians speak slowly. I speak slowly because I am trying to speak clearly and correctly.} Carla suggested that those events made her feel inhibited, and she stopped socializing with those students. In the Structure class, she tried to sit away from Ramon in order not to be paired with him. She expressed her frustration with some students who did not encourage her to speak. She compared them with her partner in class, Juarez, who understood how difficult it can be to speak and who did not act in a snobbish way. In brief, Carla’s beliefs about the differences between learning in the TC and in the NC included the sorts of difficulties she experienced in the TC. This new context motivated her reflection about the causes for her difficulties. One of the causes was the
236 L1, which Carla saw mostly as an obstacle for her “thinking in English.” The other cause was harmful comments made by classmates and students who made her feel inhibited about speaking and affected her actions in and out of the classroom. Beliefs about How to Learn English Carla had beliefs about the different strategies one used to learn in Brazil and in the US. She thought there were differences in how students learned in both places. She first talked about what she used to do to learn in Brazil. She used to listen to music on the radio and translate what she was listening. According to her, she listened as much as she needed in order to understand everything. She also tried to find the meaning of a word by asking people who knew more English than she did. She used to watch films only in English on TV. In addition, she practiced grammar by doing exercises in a grammar book. She said she had “good basics” in school, but that she learned by herself (I 1:3, 3/25/99). Her ways of learning involved taking advantage of the resources she had in hand. Despite mentioning these ways of learning, Carla thought it was very hard to learn English in Brazil: Primeira coisa você tem que ter vontade e uma disciplina dura ((ela ri)), se você quiser muito. Então acho que é mais ou menos assim, você pegar música e traduzir sozinha e assistir filme todo em inglês. Pegar livro e ler livro e ir pra uma escola que seja mais forte e que tenha professores que sejam realmente bons ou professores particulares que você tenha duas horas por dia, mas não sei, fica caro lá. Fica muito caro. Porque o ideal é ter duas horas por dia no mínimo pra gente aprender mesmo e não pra você se virar. Eu tenho uma amiga minha da faculdade que ela é professora na Cultura. Ela disse que fala fluentemente e tal, mas eu não sei até quando o inglês, porque ela se formou na Cultura e tudo, mas eu não sei até quando só o inglês que se aprende lá é tão fluente como que se aprende fora. (I 1:6-7, 3/25/99) {The first thing is that you have to have will power and hard discipline, if you really want it. You should get a song, translate it, and watch films in English. You should read a book, go to a better school and have better teachers or get private teachers so that you can have at least two hours a day. But this is very expensive. I have a friend who teaches at Cultura [famous British English school]. She said
237 she speaks fluently, but I’m not sure if the English you learn only in Brazil is as fluent as the one you learn abroad.} Carla expressed the belief that in order to learn in Brazil, one should go to a good school and have a very good teacher. Because students did not think they learned much in public schools, the alternative is usually paying a very expensive private English school to learn English. She mentioned that it was necessary to have “strong discipline” and will power to learn in Brazil. Nevertheless, it seemed that she doubted that all of that “hard discipline” would make one as fluent as studying abroad. Surprisingly, the way that Carla talked about learning abroad also involved words resembling “discipline” and survival. She described learning abroad as a process where one is “forced” to learn, almost as a “survival law,” because the teachers and everybody around do not speak one’s language. Carla thought that this was the best way of learning and that it was the way that “made them learn”: […] Também o fato de você sair daqui e você vai almoçar com alguém que não fala a tua língua, entao você vai ter que falar. Tem que se virar. Talvez seja o jeito mais duro, mas eu acho que é o jeito mais correto de aprender. (I 1:5, 3/25/99) {Going out with somebody who doesn’t speak your language makes you speak. You have to find a way. Maybe it’s the hardest way, but I think it’s the most correct way of learning.} Although this was the hardest way, Carla thought it was the correct way of learning. Because teachers did not know students’ languages, they “had to explain, if you don’t understand a word, they have to show it in another way, or doing mimics, or anything,” in short, find creative ways to help students understand. Thus, again, the L1 seem to be one important aspect in Carla’s belief about how to learn English. She did not think it was essential to have a native-speaker teacher to learn English. She did believe
238 that it was essential not to use the students’ L1, so that they would not get “addicted” to translating: Mas… eu acho que o essencial é não…mas lá eu acho que eles estão fazendo isso bastante já no Brasil, de não usar o português de jeito nenhum nas aulas. E eu acho que o importante é isso. O importante é você entrar numa sala de aula, e não ter português de jeito nenhum pra você exatamente pra não viciar em não ficar mudando. Mas não precisa ser nativo. (I 2:3, 4/16/99) {What I think is essential is not to use Portuguese at all. I think this is important. I think they are already doing that in Brazil. It’s important to go into a classroom and not have any Portuguese at all, so that you don’t get addicted to changing [languages]. But it’s not necessary to be a native speaker.} Carla seemed to think that her difficulties with speaking were related to the L1. A non-native teacher, or a teacher who never used the students’ L1, would help them to be able to think in English. It is important to her that Portuguese should not be used; otherwise, students “get addicted” to translating and to going back and forth between both languages. Carla’s belief in the NC as a place where the English taught was not so good influenced her plans on how to keep studying/learning English in Brazil. Her advice was usually related to taking a course at a private English school, and having strong will and determination to keep studying English in Brazil: Eu não vou conseguir super inglês aqui só em seis meses. Então, quando eu voltar, eu pretendo ir pra uma escola mais forte porque agora eu acho que provavelmente eu pego um nível melhor. Eu acho que de repente eu me interesse mais. Então eu vou pra um ALUMNI, pra um BERLITZ, pra alguma escola mais forte do que essas outras. (I 1:3, 4/25/99) {I’m not going to get super English here only in six months. Thus, when I go back to Brazil, I intend to go to a better school because I think I can get a better level. I think I will be more interested [in studying English], thus I will go to ALUMINI [famous and expensive English school in Brazil] or BERLITZ, which are stronger schools than these other [courses].} Carla was aware that she was not going to get “super” English in the United States. Thus, she intended to go to a “strong” private English school when she returned to
239 Brazil, because she believed she would be able to get a better level. Thus, the TC in this case plays a different role from before. It is still the provider of an approval stamp, but also a provider of a passport to better schools in Brazil, sort of a ‘social ladder’ in language learning. Beliefs about Teacher and Learner Roles When I asked Carla about the role of teacher and students, she first asked me if I was talking about Brazil or the US and I asked her if she thought it was different. She said she thought so: Mas eu acho que no Brasil eles não devem falar português de jeito nenhum. E eu acho que quando eles estão explicando alguma coisa, eles não podem traduzir nada para o português porque senão vicia a pessoa, principalmente a criança. Entao eles tem que tentar explicar inglês, fazer mais ou menos o aprendizado que é aqui. Tentar não falar e… não sei, de repente colocar os filmes, acho que existe isso lá. Colocar filme sem legenda, ou coloca um papel na legenda. Acho que o grande segredo é fazer a pessoa pensar em inglês. Acho que é pra não ficar com o vício que eu tenho, que é tentar traduzir tudo pro português antes de falar. (I 1:7, 3/35/99) {I think that in Brazil they should never, ever speak Portuguese. I think that when they explain something they should not translate anything to Portuguese, otherwise the student gets addicted, especially the child. So, they have to explain, do somewhat like it’s here. Try to speak, and show films. I think they have this there. Show films without subtitles [in Portuguese]. The greatest secret is to make the person think in English. This is so they don’t have the vice that I have of translating everything into Portuguese before speaking.} This passage illustrates Carla’s concern with L1. She thought that a teacher should never translate or use L1; otherwise, students would get “addicted to it,” especially the child. Thus, the role of the teacher is to explain things as native-speakers do and “make students think in English.” She confessed having this “vice” of translating everything before speaking. When she talked about the role of the teacher in the TC, Carla just said that they “had to motivate students, have patience and calm” (I 1:7,
240 3/25/99). She elaborated more on the teacher role when I asked her about the good English teacher: É acho que o bom professor de inglês ele deve gostar muito do que ele faz e não só porque tá esperando o salário dele no fim do mês. Eu acho que ele tem que gostar muito…. E… né, tem que estar motivado. Sei lá, é mais ou menos o que eu falei… e acho que ele tem que ser criativo. Aqui eu estou vendo muito, eles tem um monte de jeito de ensinar que não fica tão chato. Lá no Brasil acho que o negócio fica mais maçante. (I 1:8, 3/25/99) {I think a good English teacher should enjoy what he or she does, not only because he is waiting for the salary at the end of the month. I think he or she has to like it a lot….and…. he or she has to be motivated. I don’t know, it’s more or less what I said before….and I think he or she should be creative. I see this here. They have different ways of teaching so that it doesn’t get boring. In Brazil, I think it’s more boring.} Carla compared the teachers in the US with those in Brazil. She believed that the ones in the US were better because they were creative. She believed that teachers should be dedicated and creative. They should enjoy their work. She did not think that teachers in Brazil, at least in her experience, were able to do that. Regarding the student role, Carla repeated some of the common advice given to students: Ah, o aluno tem que, não gostar porque nem todo mundo gosta, mas o aluno tem que se esforçar, tem que tentar se motivar de algum modo, seja pra fazer uma viagem, seja pra conseguir um emprego, ele tem que ter alguma motivação pra fazer inglês, porque senão não sai. Tem que estudar … tem que correr atrás, tem que ir no cinema, tem que fazer compra sozinha, sair perguntando as coisas. Eu acho que tem que conversar com todo mundo na classe, não pode ter vergonha. (I 1:7, 3/25/99) {The student does not have to like it [studying languages] because not everybody does, but he or she has to make an effort, try to motivate [themselves] somehow, either to travel, or find a job, he or she has to have some motivation to study English, otherwise it’s going to be difficult. He or she has to study,… has to go for it, go to the cinema, go shopping alone, ask for things. I think you also have to talk to everybody in class. You cannot be shy.} She did not think that liking studying languages was important. She used a series of “haves-to” to talk about the students’ role. She said that students have to make an
241 effort, go to the cinema, and go for it. She also believed that students had to try to motivate themselves to travel, to find a job, and to study English. She mixed several things, but all of them reflect common advice to learners found in the literature and in conversations among teachers and students, and among students. Beliefs about the Reading/Writing Class Carla enjoyed the Reading/Writing class very much. She also perceived Jack as a great teacher. She thought that Jack’s approach to Reading/Writing – asking them to write just a little at a time was good for her. She believed that reading/writing was something “boring by nature” and it would be “very boring to look at the book all the time.” However, according to Carla, E ele muda isso. Ele muda completamente. É sempre um assunto diferente, uma atividade diferente. E sempre…, de vez em quando… é teste, de vez em quando a gente tem que escrever alguma coisa, de vez em quando você tem que advinhar. Outro dia, ele mostrou uma foto de uma senhora olhando assim pela porta e ele fez a gente ficar falando o que que poderia estar acontecendo com ela. Então é diferente, nunca é a mesma coisa. (I 2:14, 4/16/99) {He [Jack] changes that. He changes it completely. It’s always a different topic, a different activity. Sometimes you have a test to write something, sometimes you have to guess. The other day he showed the picture of a woman looking through the door and asked us to tell what we thought was happening to her. So, it’s different. It’s never the same thing.} Variety seems to be the key for Carla. She admired how Jack was able to do different things in class by using different techniques. Carla did not remember much about her previous experience in Brazil, so it is hard to tell if she was used to this approach of writing or not. She tried to remember about what she used to write. According to her, the writing was something very generic, more like just answering questions (I 3:3, 5/05/99).
242 Carla commented about the differences between writing in English and Portuguese. Although she had difficulty explaining it, according to her, Portuguese used more connecting words and more conjunctions. She said that when she wrote in English, she felt she needed to use more connecting words. It seemed that she wanted to use some connecting words, but she did not know them. Thus, she used the word “that” a lot. However, when she asked her Brazilian roommate, she would tell her that she did not have to use “that.” Carla, like Jack, believed that it was important to look at the context when reading: Pra ler, ela tem que pegar e… e ler ((ambas riem)). Tem que pegar e ler… Aí é que tá….Se a pessoa não entende nada, é complicado né. Uma pessoa que não entende nada, nada, eu acho que é complicado. Agora se a pessoa já entender alguma coisa. É o tal negócio. Tenta pegar o contexto, não se preocupar só com uma palavra, tenta ir lendo direto, ler bastante, e que mais… ((ela ri)), assistir muito, acho que assistir televisão com… o close caption, você também vai lendo, e é rápido porque eles te forçam a ler rápido. E lá você não tem tempo de correr no dicionário. (I 2:15, 4/16/99) {To read you have to read…(( laughter)). You have to read… But if the person does not know any English it’s complicated. Now if you know something, you have to look at context and not worry about only one word. Keep reading. Read a lot, what else…. ((she laughs)), watch a lot of, I think watch TV with closed caption, you read, and it’s fast because it forces you to read faster. You don’t have time to look in the dictionary.} Carla almost suggested that one should read without worrying about words or dictionary, but then she admitted that this might be difficult for a person who does not know any English. She thought one should read for ideas, without stopping at each difficult or unknown word. She also suggested that closed-captioned TV could help students to learn because there is a context and one does not have time to check words in the dictionary. She said that she was able to read “by intuition” and was able to make
243 sense of the text that way. Carla believed that in order to learn how to write students needed to “block” the L1: Acho que você tem que se desligar e escrever, nem que você escreva um monte de besteira, mas escrever, escrever bastante pra colocar as idéias e… Isso eu também tenho que me corrigir. Eu acho que eu tenho que sentar e colocar as idéias todas, e ir pensando. Eu acho que a grande dificuldade de quem está aprendendo inglês, é conseguir bloquear o português. Acho que você tem que pensar em inglês pra as coisas virem. Porque tem muita coisa que não tem tradução. Então, acho que por isso que é tão difícil porque enquanto você fica pensando em português, você fica tentando traduzir, acho que por isso até é muito mais difícil você escrever e falar do que entender o que estão te falando. Porque entender você consegue bloquear eu acho, a tradução, até por ser tão dinâmico, né. Pra escrever não, você pára e pensa em português e pra falar, eu me pego várias vezes eu pensando em português, ‘nossa como é que eu falo isso em inglês?’ E eu não sei se é por aí. (I 2:15-16, 4/16/99) {I think you have to write, even if it’s a lot of nonsense. I think I have to correct myself. I think I have to sit and put down all my ideas. The greatest difficulty for somebody who is learning English is to be able to block the Portuguese. I think you have to think in English for thoughts to come to your mind because you don’t have translation for a lot of things. That is why it is so difficult. While you are thinking in Portuguese, you’re trying to translate. I think that is why it’s much more difficult to write and speak than to understand people speaking. You can block the translation if it’s only for understanding because it’s a dynamic process. But it’s not so easy to do that for writing or speaking. I catch myself several times thinking in Portuguese, “how do I say that in English?” I don’t know if that is the way.} Carla suggested putting ideas into writing without worrying whether they are correct or not. She believed that L1 could be an obstacle for students, so students had to think in English so that their ideas would come easily. She believed that trying to translate would only make it more difficult for them to be understood. She said that Portuguese interfered only in writing and speaking, not reading. She had this problem when she was writing or speaking – she stopped to think in Portuguese. Through the teacher’s feedback to her papers, Carla started getting an image of what the teacher really wanted about the paper. It is interesting to see how she talked about it:
244 O segundo paper, ele elogiou a minha escrita. Ele falou que eu estava escrevendo cada vez melhor, tal, não sei o quê, só que eu não estava seguindo o estilo americano de ser deles. Aí eu refiz e ele escreveu que tava chegando perto, mas que ainda não era. Porque eu escolhi a minha avó. E eu falei porque eu a admirava porque ela era uma pessoa positiva, só que eu quis contar a vida dela e não fazia efeito no paper dele, porque eu tinha que falar que eu admiro a minha avó porque ela passou por uma guerra, porque ela sobreviveu a um câncer e ela sobreviveu a mais não sei o quê. Então eu teria que por isso na introdução e eu não coloquei. Eu coloquei as qualidades dela mas quis falar o que ela passou. E não é o que eles aceitam aqui na escrita formal. Então por isso que eu tive um pouco de dificuldade, depois no final pra mudar tudo ficava meio impossível. (I 3:4, 5/05/99) {The second paper, he complimented my writing. He said that I was writing better each time, but that I was not following the American style of writing. Then I rewrote it and he said that was close, but it was not exactly that. I had chosen [to write] about my grandmother. I said that I admired her because she was a positive person. But I wanted to tell all her life and this didn’t make sense in his paper. I had to say that I admired my grandmother because she survived the war, cancer, etc. Thus, I had to put all of that in the introduction and I didn’t. I put her qualities but didn’t say what she went through. And that’s not what they accept here in formal writing. That is why I had difficulties. Then it was difficult to change everything at the end.}
Na redação de hoje também. Eu falei as minhas férias perfeitas são na Indonésia porque é barato, é o lugar onde meu vô nasceu e eu adoro praia e o mar. E aí eu coloquei, ‘first’, é barato por causa disso, disso, e disso. Second, é por isso, isso, e isso. E finalmente ((ela fala isso rindo)) porque isso, isso, e isso, e fiz a conclusão falando de tudo de novo ((ela ri)). (I 3:4, 5/05/99) {In today’s essay, I talked about my perfect vacation. It’s in Indonesia, because it’s cheap, because it’s where my grandfather was born and because I love the sea. Then I put, first, it’s cheap because of this, this and that. Second, it’s because of this, that and this. And finally ((she is laughing)) because of this, this, and that. And in the conclusion, I repeated everything again ((she laughs)).} These excerpts show how Carla adapted her writing to conform to the rules of writing a formal essay in the US. The way she talked about it gives clues as to what she understood she had to write in her essay. Her laughter and her emphasis on some words (first, second) seem to suggest that Carla joked a bit about this way of organizing an essay, or perhaps she was just trying to describe that she had done it the way it was supposed to be.
245 Carla thought that Jack’s way of introducing writing was very good. According to her, “what he did was nice” because she was “lost” that first week, and she “didn’t know what verbal tense she would use” and, little by little, Jack was saying “look, in your paper, you need to include some connecting words, put this, and that” (I 2:15-16, 4/16/99). Carla liked that. She told me that she would have panicked the first day had he asked her to write a whole essay. Instead, he “was very clever” in saying “write a paragraph, now choose another theme and write another paragraph. Now make an introduction for these two paragraphs and conclude.” She thought that was great. Carla thought it was important to receive the feedback from Jack on her essays. She changed her essay according to that. She also had positive views about talking to colleagues about her paper. However, according to her, “we always end up talking very little about the paper. We end up going to another subject” (I 2:1-11, 4/16/99). When I asked her why she thought that happened, she changed her opinion a little: Não, mas acaba conversando. Acho que você viu aquele dia, eu e aquela menina. A gente tava conversando sobre o que ela tinha escrito no paper e sobre o que eu tinha escrito no paper. Mas assim eu acho que o Jack queria mais era que a gente falasse assim ‘olha, você escreveu assim, mas você tem que escrever assim, desse jeito não tá legal’. E eu acho que ninguém, deve fazer isso ‘olha teu paper não tá legal assim, escreve de outro jeito’. Eu acho que ninguém lá na classe tá fazendo isso. Mas a gente lê o paper e fala ‘nossa, mas porque que acontece isso?, que que é isso que você tá falando?’. Então a gente entra num diálogo. Eu não sei o que o Jack queria mesmo que se fizesse. (I 2:1-11, 4/16/99) {But you end up talking. I think that day you saw that girl and me. We were talking about what she and I had written in our papers. But I think that Jack wanted us to say something like, “you wrote this, but you have to write it in another way, because this way is not good.” I think that nobody did it like that, nobody is going to say “look, your paper is not good that way, write differently.” I think nobody in class is doing that. But we read each other’s papers and we say, “Wow, why did this happen?” “What are you talking about here?” We dialogue. I don’t know if this is what Jack wanted us to do.}
246 Carla seemed to think that they do talk about their papers. They talked about the content and meaning of each other’s paper. She had doubts though if that was exactly what Jack wanted. She seemed to interpret Jack’s intentions. She thought that students tried to understand the meaning and the content of the papers. The excerpt above shows that, like teachers, students are also trying to interpret teachers’ intentions (Kumaravadivelu, 1991). This does not mean that they do not understand what teachers want. Carla seemed to have a very good idea of what Jack wanted. However, she chose to do differently because she did not know “how to correct something that somebody else wrote. There is no way for me to tell them ‘it’s better if you write this way’” (I 2:11, 4/16/99). Thus, it seemed that Carla, besides not knowing how to correct another person’s paper, also interpreted that activity as one chance to speak in English with her partner. In conclusion, Carla’s beliefs show a strong influence of the role of L1, as illustrated in Table 18. The L1 had a role to play in her beliefs about the differences between learning English in Brazil and in the US, about ways of learning, about the role of the teacher and about learning to write. She emphasized that in order to learn she needed to distance herself from the L1 since the L1 prevented her from thinking in English.
247 Table 18 Summary of Carla’s Beliefs about Language Learning Beliefs About
Comments
Differences between learning in the TC (USA) Equivalency rule – Exposure in the TC is more and the NC (Brazil) intensive than in the NC Difficulties in speaking • Thinking in Portuguese • Influence of classmates Ways of learning English
• • • •
Teacher and Learner Roles
Teacher: • Should not use L1 • Should be creative
Through music Studying grammar Going to the target country Avoiding the use of L1
Learner: • Should make an effort to learn • Should look for opportunities to practice the language About the Reading/Writing class
• • • •
Process approach is good Writing in English and Portuguese is different Guessing words in context is important Students should try to block L1 to learn to read/write
Relationship Between Jack’s and Carla’s Beliefs Jack’s and Carla’s beliefs seemed to match. Their views on the role of L1 and their interpretation of the peer review process seemed to be different though. Whereas Jack suggested similarity of reading in L1 and in English, Carla stressed the importance of “blocking” the L1 when reading and writing in English. Although Carla thought that Jack wanted them to correct each other’s papers, she did not think that students were able
248 to do that. Thus, she concentrated on talking about the content and meaning of her partner’s paper. Jack, albeit expecting students to recognize some aspects of a formal academic essay in the peer review, thought that even if students did not do that, they benefited from that activity anyway. In spite of these small differences, overall, their beliefs seemed to match. The similarity of their beliefs seemed to derive from Carla’s perception of Jack as a great teacher. Since the beginning of the session, she enjoyed his classes and his approach to Reading/Writing and talked about Jack in very positive terms: Ele é bem inteligente. Eu adoro a aula dele. Então::: eu acho que o jeito que ele faz, a gente entender o vocabulário, é super-interessante assim. Então ele dá um texto do nada e ele também não está tão preocupado que seja exatamente a palavra certa. Ele quer que a gente entenda o contexto. Então se a gente colocar uma resposta que não é exatamente o que a palavra quer dizer, mas que se encaixe no conceito, pra ele tá valendo. Eu acho que é muito legal porque é assim que a gente aprende. Sabe e ele é muito assim, ele fala ‘eu não quero que vocês parem pra pegar dicionário, leiam tudo, se vocês estiverem entendendo o que está se tratando’, eu acho ótimo. Então essa parte eu gosto muito, de ter que advinhar entre parentes [cognatos]. Eu acho muito legal a parte de leitura, que ele dá, ele sempre traz vários textos, ele sempre motiva muito com textos diferentes. É… ele é…. fantástico né? Essa coisa de… estar sempre mudando, ele nunca te deixa no mesmo grupo, então ele tá sempre te mudando de grupo. Então agora ele tá fazendo a gente mudar os papers. E a gente acaba sempre vendo os papers rapidinho e entra em outros assuntos e conversa bastante e descobre bastante coisa de um e de outro, isso também é muito legal. (I 2:10, 4/16/99) {He is very intelligent. I love his class. I think the way he makes us understand vocabulary is super-interesting. He gives us a text. He is not concerned that we put the exact word. He wants us to understand context. Thus, if we put something that is not exactly what the word means, but fits into the context, it’s fine. I think this is very cool, because that’s how we learn. He says, “I don’t want you to stop to look in the dictionary. Read everything, if you understand the gist, that is fine.” I think this is great. I like this part a lot, of guessing cognates. I think the reading part is also nice. He brings lots of different texts. He is fantastic isn’t he? Also changing partners all the time and discussing our papers with others. We end up looking at the papers quickly and start talking about other topics and find out a lot of things about our partners. I like that.}
249 Carla pointed out several things she liked in Jack’s class. She first admired him because she found him intelligent. She then talked about his class and how he “made” them understand vocabulary because he was not concerned if they put the exact word. He wanted them to understand words in context, and Carla thought this was the way to learn. She seemed to have followed his advice of trying to guess words. She said, “If it makes sense, I let it go.” She also commented that “even in his tests, he doesn’t expect you to put the exact word, but if you use a synonym or something that makes sense, he accepts it” (I 3:10, 5/05/99). Carla also agreed with Jack’s belief that looking at each other’s paper was good for her to have an idea of where she stood among her classmates, to see what other students’ writing was like (I 2:11, 4/16/99). Students’ Influence on Jack’s Beliefs Jack did not think that students in the Reading/Writing class, including Carla, had influenced him in any way (I 5:14, 4/29/99). Despite this fact, he interpreted students’ beliefs and expectations, and his interpretations influenced his practice somewhat. For instance, Jack suspected that students sometimes had trouble seeing the big picture of a text. The excerpt below from a particular lesson, when he had asked students to write a summary of a text, illustrates this point: Jack comes to talk to me and says that students have difficulty seeing the big picture. I then say that it’s because they concentrate too much on the details and he said, “No, I don’t think they see the details either.” He says that maybe because of the language, they don’t see it as easily as he does. He said that maybe he should try to make them see the different parts. I then say that perhaps showing them the different paragraphs in the text and he says, “No, that is too detailed.” He leaves and checks on students again. He then passes near me and says, “I think they’re doing ok.” […] (RW3 ON8: 2, 4/08/99) Jack wanted to find a way that would help students to see the big picture, because at that moment, by what he had seen in their writing he thought that they were not doing
250 what he expected them to. However, he changed his mind after checking on students’ summaries, which shows “reasoning in action” (Johnson, 1999). In fact, the exact reason that Jack asked them to write a summary, besides being part of the curriculum, was that he suspected “some students still read kind of minutely in a word or sentence level.” He believed that “good readers have to kind of look at the big picture” and “sometimes [students] don’t see the big picture or the main point of the article or the author’s supporting ideas. That’s why writing a summary is a good testing technique” (I 5:11, 4/29/99). The second instance of Jack’s interpretations of students’ intentions and beliefs referred to his adaptation of the process approach and to his needs for students’ feedback to guide his action: Jack told me that he thought students were tired of this topic for the essay that they were writing about. His goal was to have them to rewrite it one more time, add a conclusion to it, but he felt that students might be tired of it. I then asked him why he thought so and he told me “I guess because I am tired of it.” I laughed and he said, “Wouldn’t you? I would be tired of it if it were me. That’s all we’ve been doing all this time.” Later, he told me “Maybe I will stick to it.” (RW3 ON6: 2, 4/06/99) Jack interpreted that students might be tired of the subject. This episode relates to Jack’s belief about himself as a teacher who is always trying to see if students are getting bored and if he needs to change his methods. This quotation illustrates not only that teachers usually interpret students’ expectations, but also that they try to act accordingly. The third instance of Jack’s interpretation of students’ beliefs occurred during different times when he was teaching students how to write a formal essay. First, Jack told students some of his beliefs about how to write:
251 Jack then asked students how long they usually take to write their papers or how long they think it should take. Students’ answers varied, some said one hour, others, two hours. Yune said three hours. Jack agreed with her. He told students that they shouldn’t feel they are bad learners just because it takes long. He told students that writing is hard, even for Americans. He said that a good writer finishes the paper, and checks it several times. He says, “I think it’s a good idea to finish the first draft of essay and put it away for one or a few days and then read it. Sometimes you can be more critical by doing it that way. Sometimes it helps to distance yourself. Double check is important.” He gave students the handout with some advice about proofreading. He read it with students, then gave some examples of basic mistakes people commit when they write. (RW3 ON14: 1, 4/22/99) This advice reflected Jack’s views that students should check their writing. This is part of the writing process. He believed that some students still believed that the teacher should check their writing: I do that with all my classes. Just to let them know that they should check their writing. Sometimes students don’t know, they just “ok, I’m done, I can hand it in, the teacher should correct my mistakes,” you know, “the teacher will tell me what my mistakes are,” but uh…that’s not my job, you know, to be their editor. And most of the mistakes, many of the mistakes anyway, are like level 1 mistakes, you know, “he build,” so I get tired of correcting those mistakes. I always try to urge them to see if they make intelligent mistakes rather than this kind of mistakes. (I 5:12-13, 4/29/99) By explicitly saying these things in class, Jack, was in a way, not only making an assumption about students’ beliefs, but also trying to change his students’ beliefs (in fact, is this not what teaching is, in a way?). He seemed to think that students held those beliefs and he wanted to change some of them. This episode suggests that teachers’ interpretations of students’ beliefs influence teachers’ actions either by making them adapt to or counteract some of their students’ beliefs. In summary, Carla’s beliefs about the Reading/Writing class bear some resemblance to Jack’s beliefs. Carla repeated several of Jack’s beliefs such as guessing words in contexts and not reading word for word. Carla gave more importance to the role
252 of L1 as an obstacle to reading and writing than Jack did. Carla seemed to agree with the process approach in class and was glad that Jack used it. However, when doing peer review, Carla said that she was not sure if she was doing what the teacher expected. The analysis does not indicate that Carla’s beliefs or actions influenced Jack in any way. It did suggest that, like other teachers in this study, Jack interpreted students’ actions. He made assertions about the kinds of beliefs he believed students had. This may have influenced Jack’s actions in class, such as giving explicit advice to students about how to read and write. Flora and Carla Flora’s Beliefs and Practice Flora had been teaching at SLI for seven years at the time the study was conducted. The opportunity to be in contact with different cultures was what most attracted her to this field. Flora liked working at the SLI a lot. She described the teachers there as a “close knit” group who shared the same language teaching philosophy. Flora saw herself as a teacher whose greatest asset was her enthusiasm to keep things going in the classroom, as well as her rapport with students. When she described herself, she emphasized flexibility as one of her qualities: I do feel like I am finding, at the same time that I’m reaching that point where I’m fearing burnout, I do feel, especially in the last couple of years, that everything is really coming together, as far as, “yeah, I think I know what to do,” I mean, not that I do the same thing all the time, but I know I can pull things out of a hat faster, I can readjust. I always had that flexibility but I feel like it’s gotten more, “I can do this, no let’s not do this, let’s do that.” (I 1:13, 3/24/99) This quote expresses a pattern that was present in everything Flora said about herself, her beliefs, and her classes. She saw herself and her teaching in a very dynamic way, or to use Dewey’s terms, very organically. She usually connected her previous and
253 present experiences. In this quotation, she recognized that she was in a stage in her teaching, where it was easier for her to be able to deal with things in a way that she could predict what to do. Nevertheless, she also feared burnout, as she explained: I think I’ve just now been teaching long enough where I’m starting to get into that area of, I think it’s been reflected in some of the things I said, of how to do something new. How to make sure everything stays fresh and exciting. My head knows that just because I’m doing something that I’ve done before, they haven’t done it before. But it feels, it starts to feel kind of old, even though, it’s not really, but I worry about that being reflected in how I present something if I’ve done it before. So it’s just that struggle to not fall into that. I’ve heard teachers talk about that before and I’ve never really experienced it. I’m not completely experiencing it yet, but I’m feeling close. I’m just feeling closer to it, feeling that it’s going to come up soon. I don’t want it to happen, so just the push to make it new and fresh. (I 1:13, 3/24/99) Flora explained that because she had been teaching long enough she was concerned about how to make things fresh and exciting every day. She expressed a fear that experience, which brings confidence and assurance, may also bring that feeling of “been there, done that.” She seemed worried that this might reflect in her teaching. Thus, she was constantly struggling to keep the balance and to “make it new and fresh.” Flora seemed to recognize two difficult aspects in teaching. The first one was related to a common teaching dilemma – catering to the needs of individuals or the group. She explained it when she talked about a specific student in the Structure 3 class: Yeah, she’s hard, she’s real stuck on details, and it’s real hard sometimes to answer her questions. And she’s one who I confused, I feel, sometimes I feel like I confuse her with these [details about use of the language] and so it’s hard to act on the beliefs of a whole group of students because you’ve got the ones who don’t really want to hear that, you know. And then you’ve got the ones who are hungrier for it, and have different needs […] (I 3:4-5, 4/28/99) Flora explained a dilemma that happened in her class. Answering other students’ questions and providing more details about the ambiguity of language could “confuse”
254 one student who was not interested or ready to hear those sorts of details. However, neither could she ignore the student’s question. The second aspect that Flora found difficult was the tendency in language teaching to treat students as children just because they do not speak the language. She had seen graduate students doing that and forgetting that they were teaching adults and/or their peers. She believed that treating students as capable and intelligent human beings was part of the teacher role. Flora admitted it was “easier to lose it at lower levels” and that she sometimes had more trouble with it at lower levels, because they are usually 1819 year-olds and that is not “like a peer group.” Flora believed that “often enough there’s a tendency to do that in language teaching” (I 1:14, 3/24/99). One of the most rewarding aspects of teaching for Flora was the culture aspect of it and the knowledge that she helped students in learning: I guess I’m like my students in that I too need reinforcement. When a student says, “I really enjoyed your class, I learned a lot,” that means a lot to me, when someone says that and even when they don’t say that, but when I see their progress, when I see them get things. Sometimes I like to go in the lower levels where you just see that some much more. From day one to the last day, seven weeks later, they’re an entirely different group of people. You feel like you had some role to play in that. They have other teachers and they have other experiences but it’s very rewarding to see that. I had a Spoken 1 last section and it’s very rewarding to see that, to see them come out of their shells and gain more of that confidence that I feel is very important. (I 1:12-13, 3/24/99) Flora compared herself to her students. The same way that students needed teachers to tell them they are doing great, teachers also find it rewarding hearing from students that they learned something because the teacher helped them. Flora sometimes liked teaching lower levels because it was easier to see students’ progress. Flora did not have any preferences for any levels. She said that that was constantly changing. When she began teaching, she preferred Spoken, because coming
255 out of an MA program, where she learned so much about communicative methodology, she thought Spoken class was the best to teach. However, with practice, she had come to enjoy Spoken the least, first, because she found out that she could integrate communicative methodology in her other classes, and second, because she found it difficult to assess students’ speaking skills (I 1:3, 3/24/99). Flora held beliefs about teacher and learner roles, and about grammar and error correction. Beliefs about Teacher and Learner Roles Flora believed the teacher should be a facilitator, “almost like a cheerleader”: I guess I see the teacher as almost like a cheerleader, almost like a facilitator would be the typical word to use. But that’s about it. Guiding, directing, but more or less, the student has to do it. They have to go beyond the classroom. And even though I’ve been in the classroom for seven years I came into the classroom with this belief and I still have it. […] (I 1:5, 3/24/99) In this passage, Flora talked about herself in terms of development. She employed a very American metaphor of the teacher – a cheerleader, somebody who facilitates learning, “but that’s about it.” The teacher should be supportive and help students believe in themselves and do more on their own (I 1:5-6, 3/24/99). Students should take over and go beyond the classroom. Flora was aware that it is much easier for her to talk about the teacher role in these terms being in an ESL environment. She admitted that in an EFL situation, her “expectations [about student role] might be lower.” When I asked Flora about the attributes of a good teacher, she mentioned “concern and support for the students and an ability to be flexible and to adjust to different students’ needs, expectations, and styles of learning.” However, as she herself pointed out, she did not mention knowledge of the subject as one of those attributes. She explained it in terms of her development:
256 […] You noticed that I didn’t mention really knowledge of it. I obviously have knowledge of the language I speak and I have acquired more knowledge in my years of teaching. My MA didn’t focus much on the language, my MA didn’t leave me much more familiar with the English language as something to teach than I was when I began. It just got me a lot of language acquisition, a lot of higher knowledge, but not much more. I was scared to death of grammar when I came out of my Master’s program for example. Because, I didn’t really know it anymore than I just knew how to use it. So I don’t put knowledge anywhere way up there. (I 1:7, 3/24/99) Flora did not think that knowledge of the language was really so important when it comes to being a good teacher. She talked about how she felt anxious about grammar when she started teaching, because she did not think that her MA really made her more familiar with the grammar of the language than she already was. With time, Flora started questioning the importance of this knowledge in her practice. Regarding the learner role, Flora expected them to “take a lot of responsibility.” She did not believe that much happened if learners did not put a lot of effort in what they do (I 1:5, 3/24/99). Thus, for her, the good learner needed to have a very strong sense of self and self-confidence. That was why she thought that older learners (mid- or late twenties or thirties) learned better than younger ones. Flora believed that older learners had a stronger sense of self, were more mature and flexible about trying different things (I 1:8, 3/24/99). What did Flora mean by responsibility? When she talked about that, she gave a concrete example from her Reading/Writing 4 class, where she tried to push them away from asking her the meanings of words all the time. She saw that as too much dependence on her. She expected students to “come up with and have faith in their own ideas,” but students usually expected her to reassure them by telling them the answers to their questions. What is the teacher supposed to do when students act like that? Flora did
257 not think teachers should abandon students and say, “That’s your problem, you figure it out.” Instead, she tried to make them think by asking them questions, helping them to rely more on themselves instead of “being dependent on the teacher as just a provider of answers” (I 1:6, 3/24/99). Thus, Flora believed that the teacher had a role in helping students to have more confidence in themselves and being more responsible. Another good quality of the good learner, according to her, is flexibility. She explained: The student has to be able to adapt to situations that may be different, the environment that may be different in the first place and… and to adapt to that ambiguity. I mean just like what came up in class today, that “just” thing. I’ve noticed that students who have a high tolerance of ambiguity can take that and just go “Oh, yeah, I know what you mean” and then others you can see in their faces, they’re just stricken “How am I going to deal with this, you know?” And it’s ones that look at you with that look of “Oh, yeah, I get it” that I predict are the ones, I mean, a lot of the students in that classroom knew and they are only level three right now. But it’s funny how I can already sense that right there, even the way they dealt with what I talked about today for about 5 or 10 minutes. I may be wrong, but I think I can say, “Ah that’s probably a successful language learner right there. He’s going to jump on through these next three levels, and he’s going to be fine,” and “Oh, I don’t know, he’s got a stricken look on his face and he may not just be able to keep, to as successfully progress.” (I 1:8-9, 3/24/99) Flora believed a good learner had to have this flexibility and ability to adapt to ambiguity. She predicted that this kind of learner would probably do better and be more successful in language learning. This is also related to her belief in ambiguity that will be discussed later, in the section about her beliefs about grammar and error correction. Influence on her practice. Flora’s beliefs about the teacher and learner role find a very supportive environment at SLI, where, according to Flora, and other teachers, “everybody’s, or almost everybody’s approach to teaching, is similar on certain levels” (I 1:5, 3/24/99). This may have contributed to the implementation of Flora’s beliefs about the teacher and learner role in practice.
258 In Flora’s class, students usually worked in pairs and checked answers with each other. She believed that “if you teach someone else something you learn it better” (I 2:9, 4/14/99). In addition to that, her questions to students were attempts to delay her answer to them, as long as she could, thus enacting her belief that students should be active and involved. This approach was apparent when she corrected students’ homework. She would usually ask students to get together and check their answers in pairs or in groups of three. She would then ask different students from each group to write specific answers on the board. When she checked those answers on the board, she usually asked, “Do they sound correct to you?” and would let students “fight” for their answers. Thus, she was enacting not only her belief in students’ autonomy and responsibility, but also her concept of a good class where students are involved. Flora also tried to enact her belief about the learner role by sometimes reminding students that they should at least try to understand things first and figure them out by themselves before asking her. This was illustrated in the class I video-recorded: Flora asks them to get their books out and check the answers to the exercise with a partner. She told which students would be working together. […] Flora writes the numbers on the board with the names of students to write their answers there. She tells them to focus just on the numbers they were assigned to write on the board. After a while she tells them, “Don’t ask me right now, go to the board, write your answers, and then we will all talk about it.” (S3, ON9:2, 4/13/99, CR) In another instance, she tried to make students help each other, perhaps, as an attempt to deconstruct their beliefs in the teacher as the only provider of answer. Flora asks students to do an exercise in the book. She asks them to do this in groups. […] Ahlmad calls Flora and asks her a question. Flora asks, [the other members of the group] “What do they think?” She looks at Ramon and Jo and says, “They haven’t got there yet. See what they think and then ask me.” (S3, ON12:2, 4/21/99)
259 With these actions Flora enacted her beliefs in students’ role as active. In addition, the kinds of questions about grammar that she asked indicated that she expected students to be confident enough to argue about their answers. This is explained in more detail in the next section. Beliefs about Grammar and Error Correction As mentioned earlier, Flora did not think that her MA prepared her with knowledge about the language. This made her anxious about grammar when she began teaching. Flora started teaching believing that accuracy would come naturally and grammar should not be taught explicitly. However, she changed with time and experience, as she explained: […] I came out of graduate school thinking grammar came just very natural, just like it does in your native language, that you don’t really, I mean, you have to say pieces of grammar in your native language, but you don’t, for the most part, it’s there, based on what you hear, you know. It’s the input that you get from your parents. The people who use the native language in a grammatically correct, standard way, their parents use it that way, they didn’t really learn it in school. And I really believe that that was the same with second language, in that you didn’t really need to focus on it that much. It was all about the communication element of it, and that through communication the grammar would come. But I’ve come a long way from that, of realizing that, “no, it doesn’t come, they’re adults.” And maybe it would come given the same time period. If you gave them 10 years to just ease into it, it might come, you know. And I say that from experience with students, from experience with friends, observing people, and that whole fossilization thing. I mean, you can get where you can communicate but communication, successful communication is not equal to being grammatically correct. You can successfully communicate and be completely, I mean, not completely, it just depends on what you want. It depends where you are, who you are talking to, who will accept you when you speak this way and often people will accept you when you speak that way, and therefore, there’s no ((unint)) to improve it. And also, I think even just a little bit of a belief in, I think I did mention that, I think they might, I’ve come to think, that there might be a place for certain kinds of learning in focusing, focusing, focusing, practicing, practicing, practicing, not just letting it come. (I 2:13, 4/14/99)
260 In this long excerpt, Flora explained how she first believed that she should not focus much on grammar because students would acquire it naturally the same way they acquired their first language. She seemed to suggest that that was related to communicative theories that she had learned in her MA. Nevertheless, she came to realize that she was teaching adults, not children. Adults did not have the same time that children did. Influential in her changing of beliefs was her experience with students, with her friends, and her readings about fossilization. She saw that fluency was not necessarily equal to accuracy. Therefore, in the end, she changed to a belief that focused grammar practice had its place in language learning. Flora still seemed to have some doubts about this aspect though. It may be that this was a belief in transition. This is a common dilemma even in the literature, where the pendulum swung from only grammar, to no grammar at all, and now, it seems, it is going towards reaching a balance. Flora had a hard time believing that grammar did not have its place. However, she added that she “wasn’t sure of that” and had “discussed it with colleagues.” She considered both sides of the issues and ended up saying that she was trying to reach a balanced opinion, “coming to a medium, somewhere in the middle” of “no, grammar doesn’t help” to “yes, grammar has its place” (I 2:14, 4/14/99). Flora was aware that some of these beliefs in the literature about grammar and communication did not exactly work in practice. She usually based her arguments on examples from her practice and from her own experiences with students at SLI. She used the example of a German friend, who had lived in the US for six years and was going to take the TOEFL, to illustrate her belief that one can prepare for the TOEFL without sitting and studying. As Flora explained, her friend’s sole purpose was not to pass the
261 TOEFL. In contrast, her students were under this time frame, had to take the TOEFL, and did not have enough money to spend. Flora realized then that practice was necessary. In ideal circumstances, people can take the amount of time they want to learn, but not her real students. Flora started believing she was helping students when she made them do the exercises because they did not have much time to learn. She realized she had to look into her own context and into her students’ contexts. Another influence on Flora’s belief about grammar was her children’s experiences. She told me that “a lot of what I get about teaching comes from watching my children develop and learn.” She talked about her children learning math and how nowadays, they try to understand the concept instead of memorizing math rules. She wondered sometimes if the “multiplication tables are ever going to come to her children” if they “don’t sit down and memorize them.” She compared it to learning grammar in language learning. She was not sure whether students would get the grammar concepts if they did not sit down and did not do a “certain number of exercises and a certain amount of repetition” (I 2:13-14, 4/14/99) In spite of her “great belief” in meaning and context, Flora thought that the practice and repetition of grammar had a place and would help students. This belief in both meaning and grammar was enacted in her classes through her reminding students of meaning, and in her asking students to read their complete answers of their homework (not just the verbal tenses). She hoped that “as [students] read their grammatically correct sentences, somehow that goes into them and have some meaning” (I 2:13-14, 4/14/99). Flora seemed to have been trying to make sense of this dichotomy between meaning/grammar or fluency/accuracy. Because she questioned her children’s
262 experiences with math she transferred that to language learning and changed her belief. She had reached a balance. Repetition may be necessary and students would have to do some of it, if they wanted to get some concepts. However, she also thought it was important to understand the meaning. Her “core belief” was that “it’s really about communication and that students need to understand how language is used by native speakers so that they can integrate themselves more easily into it” (I 3:2, 2/28/99). Flora’s beliefs about error correction showed the development that she underwent influenced by her reflection of her experience with her students, and with her children, and about theories in applied linguistics that she learned in her MA. According to her, […] I used to not do it [error correction] much at all. I came out of a background, like a grad student background of minimal, if any, error correction. Of course, that was again, coming more from just a broad idea of English, not like skill specific. And in Structure class, for example, and in any classes, I have started doing it more and more. I’ve gotten it from students that they want it, I’ve gotten the complaints of, I’ll tell them that you should speak English with your friends and they say, “Oh yeah, I do that, but they never correct me, so nothing ever gets better.” So, then I think about everything I know about fossilization and stuff and I think, “Oh, gosh, yeah, if they are just allowed to always make this mistake, how is it ever going to fix itself?” I have started making more correction, especially in grammar, on whatever it is that we are talking about. I usually try, I don’t know if I do it or not, maybe you can tell me sometime, I’m usually trying to focus on whatever it is we’re doing at the time, not go off into correcting something else, that isn’t maybe what we were doing. (I 1:9, 3/24/99) This quotation illustrates the influence of Flora’s MA in her teaching at the beginning. Students’ expectations had a role to play in changing not only what she did in class, but also how she started thinking about error correction. Students’ expectations reminded her of the role of fossilization. She recognized, through reasoning about her students’ experience, that fossilization is something that students were afraid of. Another influence in her belief about error correction was her children’s development. She said that she was able to do it because of her children:
263 […] I find that I’m better able to do it because of my children. I correct my children all the time. My children are right at that age when they’re making, especially when they’re doing the present perfect, that, those corrections that I’m making are just coming out of me, without even consciously thinking of it, because I do those all the time, at home, with my native-speaking children. Those irregular past participles cause native children to make those mistakes all the time, you know, “I *buyed it,” you know ((she laughs)), “I *fighted with my sister” […] (I 1:9, 3/24/99) […] I became more comfortable doing it, period. My students complained that their friends don’t correct their English and I say, ‘oh, well, that’s really hard’. Well, it seems insulting, it seems like an invasion, it seems like maybe you are trying to humiliate the person. They would never dream of correcting their friends very much. I think because I do it to my children and I don’t have any of those fears of I’m humiliating them or I’m this or that, it’s just something I do because I want them to be able to speak the language well. I think there’s a relationship because I then transferred that into “gosh, I want my students to speak English well too.” But they are never going to get some of these things if someone doesn’t point it out to them, that it’s wrong. (I 1:10, 3/24/99) In these two passages, Flora illustrated how both her students and her students’ friends’ ideas about mistakes, and her own experience with her children had made her rethink her position towards error correction. She used to think that no error correction was necessary since it would perhaps “humiliate” students and make them uncomfortable. However, she corrected her children and she did not feel she was humiliating them. Instead, she felt she was helping them and thought it would be at least ethical to do the same with her students. Thus, as a result of this combination of what students told her and her correcting her children at home (I 1:10, 3/24/99), nowadays, Flora does not think she makes anyone uncomfortable by correcting their mistakes. She said that because she does it at home and she does it naturally, she was able to do it in the classroom as well (I 1:11, 3/24/99). Influence on her practice. Flora’s beliefs about the use of grammar and the ambiguity of language seemed to have informed her practice. Flora asked many questions
264 of students during class when she corrected exercises and when she introduced a new grammar topic. She tried to involve students in the exercise correction and make them think, sometimes trying to “trick” them. As she explained in the interview: Flora: I want them to answer, I want to really understand what they can, or can’t. And I always wish I would trick them more, meaning, get them to think, like ask a question that the answer is no. I tend to ask them questions where the answer is yes. Although I don’t know, I’m not sure, I want to ask them more questions where I’m wrong. Trick them, like say “I can use this here, can’t I?” and then to say,… “No,” … yeah, it’s unnatural, because I don’t really think I can and I think I do it every once in a while but I don’t do it as much as I would like to. Ana: And your purpose in doing that would be to challenge them. Flora: Just to challenge. Make sure they are really thinking about it, and make sure they’re paying attention, and that they know that just because I ask them a question doesn’t always mean that the answer is “yes, teacher, yes teacher.”(I3:8, 4/28/99, SR) This exchange illustrates Flora’s desire to be able to use “trick questions,” that is, questions that would challenge students into thinking or engaging them in a discussion. She expressed her frustration in not being able to “trick them” as much. She expected to challenge them into thinking that they also know the answer, not only the teacher. One example of a trick question is illustrated in the following excerpt from my observation notes: In their poster, each group had to describe or explain each tense by focusing on the following aspects: meaning, key words, statement form (subject + verb +…), statement examples, question form). Flora asked Carla’s group to go to the front and explain their poster, which they did. Juarez talked first and explained about the simple present. After students explained, she would sometimes ask them questions. For instance, after the past, she asked them “Are you sure that today is a key word for the present simple?” and Juarez said “No.” Flora explained to them why not. […] Another group explained about the present and past progressive. Flora asked them questions about the example that they had used for the past progressive “she was drinking juice yesterday.” Flora asked them “She was drinking juice all day? When?” She explained to them a little bit more in detail the meaning of past progressive. The next group talked about the future. (S3, ON1:2, 3/19/99)
265 This excerpt shows Flora’s attempts to challenge students and encourage them to support their answers. It was a way that she used to check their knowledge of grammar. Other kinds of questions that Flora asked were metacognitive, that is, questions that required students’ knowledge of grammar. Flora also asked students personal questions related to their lives. Whereas the metacognitive questions had the role of trying to elicit students’ knowledge about grammar and its rules, the personal questions were used to engage students in using the language. Table 19 shows a summary of some of the metacognitive questions. With these types of questions, Flora tried not only to engage students in discussing grammar, but also to check their knowledge. These questions illustrated her belief that students should have some knowledge of grammar and its rules. Table 19 Examples of Flora’s Metacognitive Questions Example
Source
“Do you use present perfect with specific time?”
(S3, ON3:1, 3/23/99)
Flora asked students which action happened first.
(S3, ON7:1, 4/08/99)
“Do you know which tense I was using?” Flora asked them if it was past or present.
(S3, ON2:1-2, 3/22/99)
Flora asked students for the form of the present perfect.
(S3, ON2:2, 3/22/99)
“How do you make questions? What word comes before, what kind of questions was I asking?”
(S3, ON3:2, 3/23/99)
“What other tenses do we have like that [simple present]?” Flora asked them about the verbs that could not be progressive.
(S3, ON4:2, 3/25/99)
“He has sat there for 30 min. Is the action still occurring?”
(S3, ON4:3, 3/25/99)
Flora asks students to give examples of modals.
(S3, ON15:1, 4/28/99)
“If I say ‘Sarah is supposed to come,’ is it the same as ‘Sarah should come?’ ”
(S3, ON17:1-2, 5/03/99)
266 Flora explained that her belief in the meaning and ambiguity of language influenced her stressing native-speakers’ knowledge of spoken language and the importance of meaning in her grammar explanations. I discuss each of these below. Flora was constantly repeating, at least in the first classes of the section, how Americans might say something. When I asked her why she did that, she told me it was part of her belief in the ambiguity of language and her belief that if students knew how native-speakers used the language, they would be able to interact with them better. One example of this is illustrated in the following excerpt: Flora said, “He has been sitting there for 30 min. Is the action still occurring?” Students didn’t know how to answer it. […] Flora then asked students “Which one sounds more natural to you?” [present perfect or present perfect progressive in that sentence]. Juarez says, “First one” [with present perfect progressive]. Flora says, “Yes, I think most Americans would say that.” […] (S3, ON4:3, 3/25/99) The excerpt shows that in her explanation of the difference between present perfect and present perfect progressive, Flora emphasized native-speakers’ knowledge. This happened in several other instances in class, as shown in the excerpts below: Flora said, in this situation, you wouldn’t use “I’m going to.” Ramon asked her “is it wrong?” Flora explained that “will” was also used for prediction, but also “going to” (when you have a prior plan). She said, “I say you worry too much because Americans use ‘be going to’ 99% of the time. The difference between ‘will’ and ‘be going to’ almost becomes a philosophical question – did I plan or not? If you ask native speakers, they’re not thinking about it at all, and I’m a native speaker. If you ask your roommate, they won’t know how to explain.” (S3, ON10:2, 4/15/99) […] Flora said, “Philosophically it’s very difficult to separate the two. If you want to sound right, use ‘be going to.’ Americans don’t use ‘will’ a lot. I think it’s complicated because it’s related to your meaning.” (S3, ON1:2-3, 3/19/99) The examples above illustrate Flora’s attempt to help learners see the ambiguity of language. She seemed to emphasize that students should pay attention to that and she
267 tried to make things more complex than just giving students grammar rules. Other times, Flora explicitly told students that she was concerned about usage of the language: Another sentence and this time it had the verb “feeling” in the present perfect progressive. Ramon asked if “feeling” could be progressive. Flora doesn’t say anything. Cássio says it is a stative verb. Flora asks students to look at their lists in their books. “Feel” was there in the list of stative verbs. She tells them that “idiomatically is ok to use the verb feeling that way” and asked them if they had heard it before and they say “Yes.” She gives examples such as “how are you feeling today?” and so forth. She says that she uses it all the time. She then says, “It is an ambiguous verb.” She talks again about the TOEFL and what they should use. She said, “I approach the grammar in what’s the correct way to use the language.” (S3, ON6:2, 4/07/99) Flora tried to solve this misunderstanding in class about the verb ‘feel,’ which according to the book was a stative verb and could not be used in the progressive tense. Nevertheless, some students seemed to have heard it before and did not understand it. Flora drew on her knowledge as a speaker of the language to say that she uses it all the time. However, she had students’ purposes in mind when she told them that they should pay attention to what the book was saying when taking the TOEFL. On some occasions when Flora was explaining grammar, besides emphasizing native speakers’ knowledge, she also focused on the meaning of statements. It was common to hear her answering students’ questions about what tense to use, by saying, “it depends on the meaning” (S3, ON6:3, 4/07/99). Other times some of the exercises required students to understand the meaning, and Flora reminded students, “You have to think about the meaning. They’ll not make sense unless you think about the meaning” (S3, ON8:1-2, 4/12/99). In other instances, when checking students’ answers in groups, she would tell them “Sometimes you ask me if it’s correct, but I don’t know what it means. I have to know if that is what you mean” (S3, ON11:1, 4/20/99). When explaining a new grammar topic she said, “Remember when we talked about the tenses, I kept
268 telling you about meanings. It is the same thing with the modals” (S3, ON15:1, SII, 4/28/99). There were times when Flora also pointed out to students how confusing some language aspects were, especially the present perfect, which according to what she told students in class, was “one of the most confusing times in English” (S3, ON2:1-2, 3/22/99). She thought it was a “complicated tense,” because “it had several meanings, several uses” (S3, ON2:2, 3/22/99). Perhaps because of her belief in the ambiguity of language, Flora thought she should give students some clues that would help them to deal with this difficult aspect: Well I think, it’s a belief in learning a language isn’t always easy and some of it is, to a degree, memorization. So it’s almost like a strategy and a memory device that you can categorize, that you can stick these words into a …box, maybe you have to memorize the words, but at least then you have a little device to help you know what tense to use. But that is confusing because sometimes they aren’t always key words and that starts to get a little vague sometimes. (I 3:3, 4/28/99) Her reason for giving clues to students was related to her belief in the ambiguity of language. Students may need something to hold on to. It was also related to her belief in the role that memorization and grammar may play in language learning, as discussed before. Thus, it was common for Flora to give other clues to students, such as the ones below: […] Flora said that “the difference between present perfect and present perfect progressive is only a matter of using the verb in the present progressive” that is, “if you can’t use the verb in the progressive then it’s present perfect.” […] She said, “We never use ‘being’ as progressive.” (S3, ON4:3, 3/25/99) […] Flora said, “If you want to sound right, use ‘going to.’ ” […] (S3, ON1:2-3, 3/19/99) These examples show that at the same time that Flora reminded students of the ambiguity of language, she also felt she had to give them something that they could rely
269 on. This perhaps reflects her belief that both meaning and rules are part of language. It may also represent Flora’s interpretation of students’ expectations as well. In most cases above, the degree of detail provided was influenced by students’ questions about some of those aspects. Thus, she might have understood students’ questions as asking for some specific clue or rule about the language and she thought she should provide it to help them. In short, Flora believed in teachers as facilitators and learners as active and responsible. Her beliefs about the role of grammar showed her development from a beginning teacher who was afraid of grammar to a teacher who now believed that grammar had its place. Through the years, she had come to see that grammar should be part of the class. She had become more comfortable with it, and better able to handle students’ questions. Nevertheless, she continued stressing that meaning was also important. As shown in Table 20, Flora seemed to act upon her beliefs in class. By fostering a collaborative atmosphere, she encouraged students to build their confidence as learners to be more active in their learning. She also asked them many questions trying to make them participate more and “fight” for their answers, thus enacting her belief that the teacher is not the only provider of answers in the classroom. Her beliefs about grammar informed her practice in her way of explaining grammar – asking students lots of questions, but also pointing out to students the complicating and confusing aspects of the language, so that they become more comfortable with it. This was related to her goal of building their self-confidence to handle ambiguity. However, she also gave them clues
270 about the language, so that they knew that not everything was ambiguous. It was a way of her supporting them in this hard task of learning a language. Table 20 Influence of Flora’s Beliefs on Her Actions F’s beliefs Teacher and Learner roles Teacher as a facilitator Active and responsible students
Beliefs about grammar Explicit teaching of grammar rules vs.
Actions Encouraging collaborative atmosphere (group work) Encouraging learners to be independent Asking questions to students, helping them to think and to be more self-confident
Giving clues to students about the language Doing grammar exercises
Meaning/context/using grammar
Pointing out confusing aspects of the language Talking about meaning in class, emphasizing native-speaker’s knowledge
Error correction
Correcting students’ mistakes so they do not become fossilized
Carla’s Beliefs about the Structure Class Carla did not express many beliefs about the Structure class and this made it difficult to relate to Flora’s beliefs. As mentioned before, learning English for Carla did not have the ‘survival’ aspect that it had for Karina and Lauro. Carla thought that a 50-minute class was a very short time, especially for Spoken and Structure. Since she had paid for the course, and had left her country, family, friends, she wanted to get the most out of it. She said that sometimes “[they] were getting into the rhythm [of the class] and it was over.” However, she was also concerned that if they had more time, it would probably be harder (I 2:5, 4/16/99).
271 Carla liked Flora’s class, especially the fact that Flora gave them “clues” or key words about the verbal tenses. She also thought that context was important and pointed out that Flora talked about that. When I asked Carla about how to learn grammar, she had difficulty answering my question: Talvez tenha algum outro jeito mais… original mas eu acho que um jeito pra guardar mesmo é difícil. Acho que quanto mais exercício… e junto com exercício talvez escrever alguma coisa, como ela faz. Mas aí eu acho que pra estudar pra uma prova, você não tem como corrigir o que você escreveu pra ver se tá certo. (I 2:17, 4/16/99) {Maybe there is a more original way, but I think a way to memorize it is difficult. I think that the more exercises…and along with exercises just write something as she does. But to study for a test you don’t have a way of checking what you wrote to see if it is correct.} Carla did not really know how to answer my question so it is hard to interpret whether what she said was really what she was feeling or whether she said that just to answer my question. In any case, she showed this concern with “memorizing” knowledge, which contrasted with the way Flora talked about grammar. She liked it when Flora asked them questions in class. Carla seemed to be concerned about how she was going to study for the test and whether or not her answers were correct. She missed having more exercises in that class, especially to study for the test. In fact, because of that, she went to the lab, to look for books to study, and then asked Flora if that was a good thing to do. Carla had mixed feelings about checking her homework answers with classmates. At first she said, “I don’t know if it’s something that helps me.” She explained: Ah, eu não sei::::: você checa, mas você também não sabe se a pessoa tá certa ou se não tá então….. fica os dois, aí a gente acaba chamando ela. Acho que de repente seria mais rápido … você já checar direto com ela. Mas ao mesmo tempo é bom porque às vezes você tem certeza que o que você respondeu está certo, e a outra pessoa respondeu diferente. Aí você tem que parar e explicar pra outra pessoa. Porque eu sempre, geralmente eu faço dupla com o Juarez né? E ele tem
272 bastante dúvida e geralmente tenho que explicar alguma coisa. Isso eu aprendi com o meu irmão, né, que quando você explica as coisas, é mais fácil pra você aprender. (I 2:9, 4/16/99) {I don’t know::: you check, but you don’t know if the person is right or not, so both of us end up calling her. Maybe it would be faster to check your answers straight with her. But at the same time it is good [to check with classmates] because sometimes you know your answer is correct, and the other person answered differently. Then you have to explain it to that person. I always do pair work with Juarez. He has many doubts and then I have to explain them to him. I learned this with my brother, that when you explain things to others, you learn it better.} At first Carla said that she did not think it was very useful to check answers with classmates because students did not always know the answers and they ended up asking Flora. However, Carla also commented about the benefit of this activity, the same benefit that Flora talked about – that students learn more when they teach others. Carla seemed to feel more confident because she knew Flora was checking everybody’s homework. Thus, in case there was anything wrong, Flora would usually tell students what it was, and Carla thought that was important (I 3:1, 5/05/99). In fact, Carla was one of those who would usually call Flora into her group to check her answers with her, which may indicate her need for Flora’s feedback. The following excerpts from the Structure class illustrate this: Carla asks Flora a question. She has already answered it; she just checks it with Flora. (S3, ON12:2, 4/21/99) Carla asks Flora a question again. Flora tries to make her understand the question. Flora asks Carla lots of questions to try to get Carla to answer it. Carla does. […] (S3, ON12:2, 4/21/99) These excerpts show how Carla had this need to make sure her answers were right. This may have been related to a belief in the teacher as provider of answers. But it could also represent a reality in class, that students discuss their answers with each other, but want to make sure teachers tell them whether their answers are right or not. Another
273 explanation is that Carla could be afraid of being criticized by a classmate since, most of the times, students were required to write their answers on the board or read them aloud individually. In conclusion, Carla’s beliefs about the Structure class seem to indicate her need for teacher feedback, which was apparent in the questions she asked Flora in class. She also liked when Flora gave students some clues or key words about some of the topics they were studying. Carla wanted more exercises to study for the test. Relationship Between Flora’s and Carla’s Beliefs As just described above, it was difficult to infer Carla’s beliefs about the Structure class. The data analysis does not suggest a strong relationship of conflict or similarity between their beliefs. There seemed to be a slight difference between their views on the teacher role. However, this difference did not seem to present any consequences for Carla or Flora. Carla never complained about the Structure class. Neither did she praise it as she praised the Reading/Writing class. Flora was one of the teachers who indicated more clearly that students’ actions could influence her. When I asked her if she thought that students had influenced her, she told me that this was hard to answer because she saw it “as an ongoing process” and that she was “always changing on some level” (I 3:6, 4/28/99). However, she did point out later that one specific student in that class may have influenced her because of the types of questions he asked in class: Ramon is constantly challenging me with his…somewhat…, innate is not the right word, but the knowledge he has of the way the language is used. So, he believes that it’s ok, because he’s seen it used that way. I think I’ve always mentioned how language is used, but I’m not sure if I’m not doing that even more in this class, and a lot of it it’s because of him. And Susie too. Susie also has this kind of, not that she doesn’t bring it up as much as Ramon does, but she often has
274 the light of recognition when I talk about spoken English because she’s been here for two years and she’s heard a lot of English, her daughter is in school, she deals with people a lot. And so, in some ways, their belief that, framing it in terms of beliefs, they believe they know that there’s a language out there that it’s a little bit different from the textbook language and they question that. And they question it a lot. So I think it has pushed me to even bring stuff like that maybe more than I have because I’m careful to introduce something I know, or I think, that particularly one of them is going to be aware of this exception before I tell them about it, and so, that shapes it. But it’s so hard in a class that big, and there are those that, those who look confused, and then there are those that want that, or that I feel that they want that, I feel that they want to understand the spoken, the mistakes they might hear, which is more normal. (I 3:3, 4/28/99) Flora mentioned one male student in class, Ramon, who was very outspoken and who had a good knowledge of the language, and Susie, a female student, who wanted to have more details about the usage of the language. Ramon was constantly answering and asking questions. Flora thought that Ramon’s questions influenced her in terms of challenging her in providing more information about the usage of the language in class. According to her, she was explaining more about the usage of the language because she believed that Ramon and Susie had more knowledge. Ramon’s questions and Susie’s “light of recognition” when Flora talked about these things signaled to Flora their interest in those aspects. On the other hand, there were other students in class, whom Flora felt she confused by giving these details about the language. Flora believed that “it was hard to act on the belief of a whole group of students because you’ve got the ones who don’t really want to hear that and have different needs and purposes” (I 3:4-5, 4/28/99). In some cases, Flora did give preference to the rest of the group, instead of paying attention to just one student, as she mentioned in this episode in the stimulated recall, where I asked her about a particular student:
275 I think she wants to somehow use the simple present because of the everyday, and I just kind of wanted to, it’s gotten to where, she’s a very enthusiastic, she actually ends up doing pretty well in her tests when it doesn’t involve listening, but I learned to kind of …sometimes I even intentionally misunderstand her question, like I’m just going on, because I can’t. The rest of the students need to know about the “have given and have been giving.” The rest of the students are not thinking simple present at all. She’s the only one thinking simple present, so I have to go on. I think that’s what she’s getting stuck on and I kind of chose to… go… which probably frustrated her on some level and she seemed pretty easy going about it. (I 3:8, 4/28/99, SR) As already discussed, Flora mentioned the dilemma that all teachers faced – catering to group vs. individual needs. If she were to give attention to this student, she would have to ignore the other students who were not interested in it. If she did not give attention, she might frustrate this individual student. She opted at that time to intentionally misunderstand the student so she could go on with her class. This episode illustrates one instance of how students influenced Flora’s actions. Flora did not think Carla influenced her in any way. She perceived Carla as “laid back and easy going about the whole thing”; that is, she thought Carla was comfortable with details about the language. Flora thought that Carla caught on very quickly and was really a good student. She also perceived Carla’s purposes as not related to passing the TOEFL, but improving her English (I 3:5, 4/28/99). It was striking to note, by talking to Flora, her constant references to students’ beliefs, or rather, to her interpretations of students’ beliefs and expectations. I discuss this aspect next. Flora’s Interpretations of Students’ Beliefs and Actions There were many instances where Flora interpreted students’ beliefs and expectations. The first instance referred to one episode that happened in class, the “just episode.” In one class when she was correcting the homework, a student had used the
276 word “just” with the present perfect. Students seemed to have doubts about this use of “just,” as Flora asked them if that sentence was correct. Flora told students that “just” could be used with both present perfect and past tense. In the first interview, she commented about this episode: […] You saw me, you caught me with an awkward question yesterday. That “just” question? /yeah/ You know, and that is an example of it, those things happen to me all the time and they used to bother me more and I’ve gotten more. I’m not saying I’m a great teacher but I think that’s one good thing is to be able to handle things like that? I realized later, I really did make a mistake, that you are supposed, technic-, according to rules, you are supposed to use the present prefect with “just.” My answer … was ..., well I explained to them today. Actually I came in and said…, you know, uh… “I found that the rule is, ‘just’ equals the present perfect, but yet, in spoken English the simple past is acceptable and that was why I answered your question the way I did.” I even said, I don’t know if they understood me or not, I said “I was answering your question as a speaker of English more than as a teacher of English.” (I 1:7, 3/24/99) Flora explained how students’ questions about grammar used to bother her more and how she had gotten better at handling them. She seemed worried that she committed a mistake. She wanted to make sure she talked to students about that and showed them that they still have to think about the usage of the language, as she explains in the next quotation: […] I know a lot of learners want the rules and I give to them. That’s what I did today. I wrote on the board, I wrote “ ‘already,’ ‘just’ and ‘yet,’ put those in your list of these words equal the present perfect,” you know, “go ahead and put them in your list of,” that’s what I need to do. “But know that you are going to hear it used, you are never going to be wrong if you use the present perfect, but you are to hear it the other way all the time.” (I 1:8, 3/24/99) This quotation shows Flora’s interpretations of students’ expectations. Flora interpreted that learners wanted rules. This expectation seemed to influence her actions. If students wanted the rules, then she would try to consider them in her practice. Although she did write the rules on the board, she also reminded students of the ambiguity of
277 language. In an indirect way, the student question about “just” triggered her reflections on this, and her comments with me may indicate that explaining grammar rules versus talking about meaning may still be a dilemma in her belief system. It was not always that Flora seemed to know the kinds of beliefs students had. At other times, she searched for students’ points of view. This happened when she was talking about her concept of a good class: Sometimes I wonder if that’s what a student feels is a good class, just because they had fun. Do they perceive that it was a good class? Do they think “oh, we laughed and talked way too much in that class today.” And I know that that’s been happening with my Reading/Writing class lately. We cover a lot of interesting topics in that class and we end up in class discussions and they seem to enjoy it, they’re the ones who keep these discussions going sometimes longer than I intend them to go. But sometimes I wonder, “Ok, they seem to have liked that conversation, stimulated by that conversation, and everybody was talking, and trying to express their opinions and interested in each other, and really going, you know.” But I think, do they think this is good though? This is a reading class! I mean, do they think this is a good thing, that in their reading class, they had a 20minute discussion about the roles of women in society? Even though that is related, the discussion exists because of something we were reading. It’s not out of the blue. So sometimes I wonder. And sometimes, then they don’t know it’s time to go. So, it’s been fun and it’s been good, and it’s been interesting, but I don’t know. And I can’t quite, it doesn’t happen in Structure classes much. Structure class is more structured. We don’t end up very often off on some tangent /yeah/ because it’s just more based on grammar. We don’t often end up on something else. But that happens in Reading/Writing, I find. (I 2:8-9, 4/14/99) Flora expressed her fear that students may have different beliefs from her about the Reading/Writing class. She seemed to be concerned with that because it could affect her class. She mentioned an episode from her Reading/Writing class where she believed students did not think that the discussion they had was appropriate for that type of class. She talked in terms of a dilemma, a puzzling question of not really knowing for sure what students wanted in a class. It is not clear why she believed students expected that. She used different voices: her students’ voices and her voice to talk to the researcher. Her
278 expressions, “even though it is related” and “it’s not out of the blue” seemed to suggest that she was trying to justify her actions because she herself did not know what students considered to be part of a Reading/Writing class. The second instance of Flora’s interpretation of students’ beliefs refers to teacher knowledge of the subject and the teacher’s role. When Flora talked about the ‘just episode’ she mentioned that students’ questions used to bother her. […] I thought that the students expected me to know everything so therefore I expected them to not respect me or not view me as a good teacher if I didn’t. I don’t know if I ever really believed that I should know everything. but I thought they believed I should know everything. I still think most students think that teachers should know the answers, but I think I’ve just gotten more comfortable with “well, I don’t always know the answers” and again, maybe more related to that bigger idea of language is a very ambiguous thing. I’ve become a greater believer in that those who are more tolerant of that ambiguity do so much better. And so for me to pretend there is no ambiguity doesn’t necessarily serve them well in the long run. If I pretend there’s no ambiguity I’m not preparing them for that ambiguity that is everywhere as they try to learn, as they go higher and higher and it becomes even more ambiguous, as their vocabulary gets larger and they realized the subtle differences between two words, and it’s there, and they have to accept it, that it means this here, but it means that there, and it depends on how you say it in certain situations and that all those ambiguities are everywhere. So I think in some ways I’ve just come to convince myself that since that ambiguity is there, I might as well not hide from it. I might as well let them know it’s there. (I 2:4-5, 4/14/99) This quote shows the complexity of Flora’s beliefs. Her belief in the ambiguity of language, her interpretation of students’ beliefs, and the development of her beliefs are transparent in this quotation. Although she still believed that students did expect teachers to have all the answers, she adapted to their beliefs by drawing on another one of her beliefs – the role of ambiguity in language. Thus, it is all right not to have all the answers because language is ambiguous. She believed that, in a way, it is her task as a teacher, to tell students that nothing is for sure. This is also related to her belief that students will be more successful if they can tolerate ambiguity. Thus, by talking about ambiguity, Flora
279 expected to show students, using herself as an example, that it was okay to live with this ambiguity. As she put it, she hoped students would think, […] “Well gosh, if Flora doesn’t even understand that, or if Flora makes that mistake sometimes, therefore it must really be ok or it must really be difficult to understand, and therefore I don’t feel like a bad learner if I am not getting it.” (I 2:5, 4/14/99) Flora seemed to expect to convince students and change their belief on the role of teachers as providers of all the answers. We hear her reasoning process through her students’ voices: “She even doesn’t understand that,” “If Flora doesn’t understand that, it must be ok, it must be difficult to understand.” Flora expected that by thinking that way, students would not feel bad when they did not understand something. By trying to build learners’ confidence in ambiguity, she shows the interrelatedness between her belief about ambiguity and about learner roles. Flora and I talked about the origin of students’ belief that teachers should have all the answers. Flora was not sure there was only one source, and she did not know exactly where it came from. She did not think she had that belief when she was a student. She had never heard students complaining saying that she was not a good teacher because she did not know grammar. She did remember that in one class, some students “rolled their eyes, when the answer was not known.” She said that she had “had feedback like ‘she’s supposed to know this.’” (I 2:7, 4/14/99). However, she did admit that, It may be colored by the perception of understanding the difference in education methodologies, in how people teach, and in my understanding of it in many of the cultures that my students come from, particularly Asian cultures, that is very still, in language terms, it’s very grammar-translation, audiolingual sort of methodology in general for any kind of subject, it’s still that kind of rote memorization, learn, learn, learn, learn, say this answer, memorize this. And American education isn’t so much like that. So, I don’t know if it comes from my expectations or from my perception … of their expectations, particularly Asian students. (I 2:6-7, 4/14/99)
280
Thus, to Flora it seemed that teachers’ knowledge or ideas about other cultures could contribute to teachers’ beliefs about students’ beliefs about the role of teachers as provider of answers. Flora thought that this student belief was more common in certain cultures than others. However, she admitted that teachers’ perceptions or expectations about students’ expectations were the most influential factor. The third instance of Flora’s interpretation of students’ beliefs was when she told me that students usually asked her how they should learn English. She usually gave them the generic kind of advice of “getting out there and use it, meet Americans, read the newspaper, watch TV,” “don’t spend all your time with your native-language group.” Whenever she said that, she felt as if students did not believe her. As she put it, “they always look at me like ‘That sounds too easy. That can’t be how I would improve my English’ ” (I 1:4, 3/24/99). She did not say that students said that, but she felt that was not what students wanted to hear. Flora gave an example from her own experience with a student who had asked her for some advice on how to read. Flora told her not to translate. Flora assumed that the student should know about that, since SLI teachers had the same philosophy of teaching. Flora said that she felt like she was a broken record because she assumed that the girl knew those things. She felt that this learner was looking for something else, and that there was a certain “resistance to that idea of learner responsibility” because the student did not “want to believe that that’s the key” and according to Flora, that is the key (I 2:4, 4/14/99). This episode illustrates the game of trying to find out what students’ really believe. It shows, even if in a general way, a conflict of views between teachers’ and students’ beliefs. Flora came to call this “students’ passive resistance” to responsibility.
281 When I asked her if this resistance had happened in any of her classes, she mentioned students’ constantly asking her questions even before trying to solve it by themselves in groups. She explained: […] I noticed that they did that to me just a couple of days ago. They were going to put their sentences on the board, and within a minute or two, someone had said, “Flora,” and I said, “No, you do it, you do it, put it up there and we’ll figure it out later.” It’s not really a strong resistance, but just kind of a passive resistance. They kind of, I think, know by now, what I’m doing, but they’re still persisting in just asking me before, well (a) before they even really discuss it with their group, and (b) they’re not being confident enough to take a risk and “well, this is the answer.” (I 2:1, 4/14/99) This “passive resistance” meant that although students did not confront her, they refused to do things by themselves, and called her all the time. This type of reaction went against Flora’s beliefs about the good learner who is this self-confident being. Flora’s reactions to this aspect depended on many factors. In some classes she would remain firm and just tell students they should do it. She wondered sometimes that this might be just a habit of calling the teacher. Other times, it had to do with the level of difficulty of the activity that students were required to work on. In that case, she would help more and intervene because she did not want students to be frustrated (I 2:1-2, 4/14/99). As she commented, sometimes she did have to “go in and take a little more responsibility or else they will never going to get to the activity” (I 2:3, 4/14/99). This is important because it shows students’ needs and difficulties as an important factor in teacher’s implementing their beliefs in class. In conclusion, Flora seemed to be constantly trying to interpret her students’ beliefs and expectations about language learning. She thought that students expected the teacher (a) to know the rules of grammar, (b) to know everything, (c) to be responsible for their learning, and (d) to correct students. These interpretations influenced, in some
282 cases, how Flora decided to act in class – sometimes complying a bit with their expectations (as in the case of rules, because it was also part of her beliefs), other times, trying to deconstruct their beliefs and showing there are alternative beliefs. This shows that indirectly, students did influence her practice. Conclusion This chapter presented the results of the study. The beliefs of each teacher and student were described and the relationship between them explained. The results seem to suggest a relationship of mismatch, similarity, and neutrality between different teachers and students. A mismatch seemed to have occurred between Karina and Emily’s beliefs about teacher and learner roles and about the Structure class and its pace and ways of teaching grammar. A mismatch also occurred between Lauro and Jack’s beliefs. Lauro expressed different beliefs from Jack regarding the role of teacher, the content of Spoken English classes, and error correction. A relationship of similarity seemed to have occurred between Carla and Jack’s beliefs about reading and writing in English. Carla repeated the same kind of advice that Jack gave in class. She also appeared to have attempted to follow those advices when writing her papers in English. Finally, a relationship of neutrality seemed to have happened between Carla and Flora’s beliefs. In other words, it seemed that Carla’s beliefs were not in direct opposition to Flora’s beliefs, but neither did Carla mention anything that showed similarity of her beliefs with Flora’s. I interpret and discuss these findings in Chapter V.
283
CHAPTER V DISCUSSIONS, IMPLICATIONS, AND FINAL CONSIDERATIONS “…the only way to change people is to create the conditions for them to change themselves” (Clarke, 1999, p. 169). Introduction In this Chapter, I discuss the major findings presented in Chapter IV and analyze their significance by returning to each research question that has guided the study and by connecting it to the theoretical framework and literature review presented in Chapter II. I also present the implications for theory and practice in applied linguistics and for future research on the interaction between teachers’ and students’ beliefs. Discussion of Findings The overarching question of this study asked, what is the relationship between teachers’ and students’ language learning beliefs (LLB)? In order to answer this question it is necessary first to answer the five specific research questions posed in Chapter I and III. These research questions cannot be answered without reference to the theoretical framework. Students’ and teachers’ LLB represent their reasoning in experience. They are related to their immediate context, the language classroom, and to their multiple identities as teachers, learners, husbands, wives, and members of a certain culture of learning and teaching languages. The interrelationships and interconnections show the ecological and organic relationship between students’ and teachers’ LLB.
284 First Research Question What kinds of language learning beliefs do ESL teachers have? Do their beliefs inform their practice? The results indicated that the three teachers held beliefs about the roles of teachers and learners, about teaching and learning English, about their subject matter, and about the classes they were teaching. Those beliefs seemed to stem from the communicative language teaching approach whose principles guided the SLI curriculum, as pointed out in Chapter IV. Teachers’ LLB were similar to each other. In general, they stressed the need to help students to take more of an active role and to provide opportunities for them to practice the language. Their beliefs about teacher and learner roles were congruent with the communicative approach principles where teachers are seen as facilitators. Each teacher’s LLB were interrelated with each other. In other words, their belief about teacher and learner roles, for instance, interacted with their beliefs about the class and about teaching and learning English. This finding confirms the descriptions of belief systems as a network of interrelated beliefs, as suggested by Woods (1996) and Pajares (1992). The interconnectedness of various beliefs within one’s belief system also exemplifies Dewey’s concept of experience and the principle of interaction that referred to the transactions between individuals and their environment. Each teacher gave more emphasis to one or more of these LLB. For instance, Emily seemed very concerned with providing students with a comfortable atmosphere and promoting a cooperative relationship among them. Jack, in his Spoken class, believed he should give students plenty of opportunities to practice the language and refrain from interrupting them when they were talking. In the Reading/Writing class, he wanted to
285 make sure students mastered formal aspects of writing an essay and were able to read a text focusing on the meaning. Flora seemed to be strongly concerned with helping her students to remember to think about meaning when learning grammar. In general, the teachers enacted their beliefs in practice. They all provided a relaxed and non-threatening atmosphere to classes. They used pair work and group work, and gave students opportunities to ask and answer questions, to practice the language, and to help each other. These actions suggested that these teachers agreed with some of the principles of the communicative approach. Although Flora and Emily taught according to their beliefs, they acknowledged that students’ expectations might have influenced them in their teaching. In other words, they may have compromised their own beliefs to do what they believed students expected from their classes. This aspect will be addressed in more detail in the fourth research question. Second Research Question What kinds of language learning beliefs do students have? Are they similar or different from the beliefs the teachers express (explicitly or implicitly through their practice)? Each student held LLB that were interconnected with their previous language learning experiences in Brazil and with their experiences studying in the US. Karina had beliefs about her English, about teacher and learner roles, about her Structure class, and her level. Likewise, Lauro held beliefs about his English, about teacher and learner roles, beliefs about how to learn English, and beliefs about his level in the Spoken class. Carla
286 held beliefs about her difficulties in speaking, the role of L1, beliefs about how to learn English, and beliefs about her classes. Like teachers’ LLB, students’ LLB also showed an interrelated structure. Their belief about teacher and learner roles, for instance, interacted with their beliefs about the class and about their levels. This finding contrasts with previous studies reviewed in Chapter II that portrayed students’ LLB as abstract and isolated statements. The results of this study suggest that students’ LLB formed an interconnected structure and were rooted in their language learning experiences. Their LLB were the results of the connections they made between their past and present experiences, thus exemplifying the principle of continuity and interaction as defined by Dewey (1938). All three students held beliefs about the differences between learning English in Brazil and in the US, an aspect that none of the teachers mentioned. Students presented an extremely positive view of learning in the target country, in spite of their initial speaking difficulties and complaints. They held a negative view of learning English in Brazil. The basic difference between the target country and the native country that they stressed referred to the number of classes and exposure to English. Because of that, Karina and Lauro perceived their learning in Brazil as a “fantasy island” that did not help them do well in the target country, and made them speak a kind of “bookish” or basic English that is not used by native speakers. Students’ beliefs about differences of learning in both countries are evidence of the principles of continuity and interaction in Dewey’s concept of experience. Students attributed meaning to their present experiences at SLI and in the US by connecting those experiences with their past experiences in Brazil. At the same time, they also tried to
287 predict how those present experiences would modify their future language learning experiences in Brazil. Their comparisons between these different moments in their learning experience highlight the interactions with the environment that they engaged, as suggested by Dewey (1938). Students’ beliefs about the teacher and learner roles were also similar to each other. All three students emphasized that teachers should be active and know about students’ difficulties, offer help if necessary, and motivate students to speak and learn. Lauro and Karina expected teachers to exert more control towards the behavior of other students in the class and to give them feedback that was more personal. Learners should do their part as well, but as in Block’s (1992, 1997) results, students seemed to think that their role was active only up to a certain point. They did stress that learners should work hard and be serious in their endeavors. However, their conception of the good learner emphasized more students’ role of obeying the teacher and performing their duties, and their struggle in learning languages, which resemble the distinction made between “learner” and “student” suggested by Benson (1995) and Holliday (1994). Because language is such a sensitive indicator between individuals and their groups and because it is such “an integral part of ourselves” and permeates our ways of thinking and viewing the world (Kramsch, 1998, p. 77), L1 represented a strong force in students’ LLB. They highlighted the ambiguous role of L1, expressing their struggle with letting go of L1, while retaining it at the same time. The L1 represented part of their identities as Brazilians and as learners of English in Brazil. This history was carried into this new environment, and with interactions and experiences transformed into a different belief that recognized the paradoxical role of the L1. They were aware that it represented
288 a problem for them in acquiriring another language, but they also saw that it was forever linked to them. They had an ambiguous relationship with L1, perhaps one of love and hate. Teachers’ mention of the role of L1, on the other hand, was very rare. Answering the second part of this research question, the results indicated a conflict between teachers’ and students’ beliefs about teacher and learner roles. Contrary to teachers, students seemed to view the teacher role as other than facilitator. This finding is similar to other studies about teachers’ and students’ beliefs about teacher and learner roles, such as Block (1990, 1992). Teachers seemed to want students to be more active, whereas students wanted teachers to be more active. This relationship of conflict was more evident between Lauro and Jack, and between Karina and Emily. Carla did not seem to have conflicting beliefs with her teachers. The results suggested a relationship of similarity between Carla and Jack’s beliefs, and a neutral relationship between Carla and Flora’s beliefs. I will discuss her case when I answer the third research question. In the sections below, I address the different beliefs of Karina and Emily, Lauro and Jack, and the reasons and consequences of these two conflicts. Conflict about Grammar Teaching Karina had different beliefs than Emily about the role of the teacher, concept of a grammar class, and pace of the class. Karina’s frustration with her level seemed to have influenced this conflict. Karina expected the grammar class to have a faster pace, more grammar exercises, fewer games, and more explanation of rules. Emily however, was operating according to a set of LLB that focused on giving students time to answer and participate in class. Karina did not see much use for games, unless they helped her in the tests or in learning the grammar rules. She believed some of the games were poor
289 substitutes for formal grammar explanation. She also thought that time was wasted waiting for students to volunteer answers. Emily used the games to create a relaxed atmosphere and to give students a chance to use the grammar in a more fun and authentic environment. Both were operating according to different sets of beliefs. The reasons for this difference involved factors such as issues of identity, co-presence, and time to learn. Karina was an advanced student of English in Brazil. Whether or not that categorization was right, the fact is that SLI gave her a new “identity” and “membership” of a beginning or basic learner in grammar, which she had considered until then to be her strongest skill. She was frustrated because she did not get any detailed feedback about her placement test. In addition, her comparisons with her classmates’ levels and with her husband’s classes, who was placed in a level higher, caused problems for her identity and influenced her perception and beliefs about the Structure class. I interpret her beliefs as her struggle to negotiate her identity as a “serious” and more advanced learner. If SLI gave her this identity of a basic learner, her actions and her beliefs suggested her resistance. Another factor that increased her problems and may have made her expect more from the class and from the teacher was her short time at SLI. In brief, five factors contributed to the conflict between Karina’s and Emily’s beliefs: (a) Karina’s short time at SLI, (b) her need to establish her identity as a good, advanced learner, (c) the influence of classmates and her husband, (d) Emily’s emphasis on games and on a relaxing atmosphere, and (e) Karina’s frustration and disagreement with her placement in Structure 2. All of these factors influenced Karina’s beliefs about Emily’s class and about teacher and learner roles.
290 Conflict about Teacher Role and Content of Class Lauro was against a laissez faire type of education and expected the teacher to have much more of a central role than what the communicative approach dictates. He expected the teacher to demand students’ attention and not let them have much fun. He questioned the credibility of the teacher and of SLI when he saw that some students did not do their homework. He did not see the speaking practice in classes as beneficial, partly because he interpreted students’ speaking at the same time and having a good time as a sign of teachers’ lack of authority. In his opinion, the teacher should provide a more orderly class. Jack, on the other hand, although aware of discipline problems, wanted to make sure students had time to practice the language. It did not matter if they were all speaking at the same time, as long as they were practicing the language. Another source of conflict referred to Lauro’s belief about the content of Spoken English 3 classes. Lauro thought that the Spoken class should focus more on pronunciation and listening, not vocabulary or conversation management. Jack was operating according to the needs of most students and to the curriculum that stressed conversation management skills and vocabulary. Lauro perceived his difficulties with English as related to pronunciation and speaking. He expected Jack to correct his mistakes and his pronunciation all the time, whereas Jack, although having heard that from Lauro, thought that students did not exactly want that. Jack provided covert correction where he saw it was needed. Lauro’s beliefs about how to learn English resembles the principles of the audiolingual method with its emphasis on the role of L1, repetition, habit formation, and emphasis on error correction (Larsen-Freeman, 1986).
291 Jack’s approach to error correction however, seemed to be based on one of the principles of the communicative approach. The reasons for the conflict between Lauro and Jack were related to issues of time, identity, and co-presence. Lauro stayed at SLI only four weeks. His concept of time was different from other students. He did not have much time to waste and, perhaps because of that, expected the teacher to have more of a controlling role. In fact, Lauro wanted the teacher to tell him if his English was good or not. This aspect is related to his struggle to establish his worth as a learner, as Breen (1985) suggested. Having been placed in a level that he did not agree with, and having classmates who he thought did not speak good English, he felt a strong need for teacher feedback. His worth as a learner was co-constructed with other learners and with the teacher. Lauro’s insistence on pronunciation could be related to his need to disassociate himself from the classmates that he did not consider good speakers. Thus, six factors contributed to the conflict between Lauro’s and Jack’s beliefs: (a) Lauro’s short time at SLI, (b) his need to have his identity and his English validated by the teacher, (c) the influence of classmates in his perception of his English, (d) the curriculum for the class focusing on vocabulary, (e) Lauro’s frustration and disagreement with his placement in Spoken 3, and (f) Jack’s emphasis on a relaxing atmosphere and adoption of a non-judgmental teacher role. In summary, Karina’s and Lauro’s beliefs about teacher roles suggested that they worked according to different agendas from their teachers. They seemed to have interpreted teachers’ attempt to provide more practice time and games as abdication of their duties as teachers. They thought they were not getting what they paid for. Learners’ beliefs about their own roles made more reference to social aspects of the learner role,
292 such as respecting the teacher. Teachers’ beliefs seemed to stem from the communicative approach with emphasis on covert error correction, non-hierarchical supportive environment, and suspension of teachers’ judgmental role (Rampton, 1999, citing Brumfit, 1988). Teachers emphasized a relaxing atmosphere, whereas students were not particularly concerned with that. They expected teachers to address specific topics and not waste time. Finally, although teachers recognized the difficulty of language learning, students were much more vivid in their accounts about the difficulties, obstacles, and the hardship involved in learning a language. They experienced linguistic confusion and threats to identity loss. Consequences of These Two Conflicts Although this was not one of the research questions, it is important to explain the consequences of this conflict. The consequences found in this study confirm suggestions made by G. Ellis (1996), Lupescu and Day (1996), McCargar (1993), and Schulz (1996). 1. Misunderstanding and miscommunication: Karina interpreted Emily’s games and attempts to create a collaborative atmosphere as a waste of time. Karina talked about games that were productive in terms of learning the rules of grammar, whereas Emily talked about games in terms of using the language. Jack misunderstood Lauro’s requests for error correction. Lauro also misinterpreted Jack’s structuring of the class as relaxed, with a friendly atmosphere and lots of practice as too much laissez faire. 2. Breakdown of language production: It is not possible to say that these conflicts caused students’ breakdown of language production, but it is worth exploring some aspects. Both Karina and Lauro complained of speaking difficulties. They
293 suggested that this confusion could have been caused by the lack of feedback about their placement in those levels. Another reason could be the comparisons they made between their proficiency level and their classmates’, and in Lauro’s case, the lack of teacher feedback about his English. 3. Frustration and unhappiness: Karina felt very frustrated at the beginning and complained that the Structure class was not addressing her needs. She constantly expressed how other classes seemed to do so much more than hers. She wanted more grammar and a faster pace in class. Her frustrations were influenced by her disagreement with her placement level and with the lack of feedback about it. Lauro also seemed to be very frustrated and unhappy with the Spoken class. 4. Questioning of teachers’ credibility: Although Karina and Lauro recognized the teachers’ efforts and their qualities, they questioned their credibility when they stated that they learned more grammar and pronunciation in other classes. They also questioned the credibility of SLI for not giving them detailed feedback about their placement test and for putting students of lower proficiency in the same level as they were. They realized, however, that they were at SLI for a short time and this made them more critical than other students. Lauro also recognized that his criticisms were strong because he was a school psychologist. 5. Passive resistance: Karina and Lauro seemed to demonstrate a passive resistance that involved two aspects. First, Karina and Lauro described the classes in a negative manner and questioned the credibility of SLI and some teachers. Both of them did not think that they learned much in those classes. Second, Karina and Lauro reinforced the beliefs they brought with them. The conflict made them have
294 a more active role and pursue their own agendas outside class. In other words, if the teacher did not explain the grammar in class, they studied it at home. Emily’s approach was not enough to convince Karina that games could help her practice grammar. Likewise, Jack’s emphasis on vocabulary pushed Lauro away. No explicit conflict happened in classroom interaction. Neither did this conflict seem to be reflected in students’ learning, as shown in their good grades. Two possible reasons for this fact come to mind. First, in Karina’s case, in spite of the conflict of her beliefs with Emily’s, Emily still had a grammar test that Karina could relate to and on which she could share her grammar knowledge. Emily also did some formal explaining of rules, not only games. They had grammar exercises in class, they had the opportunity to ask questions, and Karina took advantage of those opportunities. Second, in Lauro’s case, although Jack did not do as much listening and pronunciation as Lauro expected him to, Lauro’s expectations were somewhat fulfilled by another teacher who did what he expected. Lauro thought this other teacher helped him more with pronunciation than Jack did. Teachers and learners failed to learn from each other. Third Research Question How do teachers’ language learning beliefs and their classroom practice and discourse influence students’ language learning beliefs? The literature about teachers’ and students’ LLB usually refers to the similarity or difference between teachers’ and students’ belief statements to mean teachers’ influence. Thus, if students and teachers agree on the same LLB statements it is said that the teacher influenced students’ beliefs. I began this research with the same assumption. However, the data in this study indicated that the answer is more complex than that. Three kinds of
295 influence seem to have happened: a positive influence, a negative influence, and a neutral influence. Positive Influence A positive influence happens when students hold similar beliefs to the teachers’ and no feelings of frustration, unhappiness, or miscommunication were observed. This is what seemed to have happened with Carla and Jack. In general, they seemed to hold the same beliefs about writing. She believed that in order to learn to write, students had to guess words in context, not worry about just one word in the text, and read each other’s writing drafts. These were exactly the types of advice that Jack gave in class, which can be one of the reasons why Carla talked about this. I did not observe her writing her essays at home; thus, I am relying only on what she told me in the interviews. It is also not possible to say that Carla changed her beliefs since she did not seem to have had much experience in writing long essays in Brazil. She expressed difficulty sometimes in talking about her previous learning experience because she had not studied English for a long time. This made it difficult to infer her initial beliefs about writing. Four factors seemed to have contributed to this similarity between Carla’s and Jack’s beliefs. The first factor referred to Carla’s level of satisfaction with her classes in general and, more specifically, with the Reading/Writing class. Carla admired Jack as a teacher and was happy with the class and with her group of classmates. It was not clear whether her awareness of Jack as an experienced teacher played a role in that. In any case, this factor confirms Kern’s (1995) suggestions that the degree of fitness between teachers’ and students’ beliefs may be influenced by teachers’ personalities and teaching styles and their level of experience.
296 The second factor alluded to making the purposes of the class explicit to students which, according to Schulz (1996), can help minimize a conflict of expectations between teachers and students. As already mentioned, Jack was explicit about the purposes of activities and gave students advice on how to read and write, which may have called Carla’s attention to those aspects. It is important to point out, though, that Carla could have just repeated Jack’s advice back to me, without necessarily believing in them. Other students could have been interviewed in order to state that this was a strong factor in a teacher’s influence on students’ beliefs. In contrast to Karina and Lauro, Carla was not placed in a level she did not agree with. This was the third factor that appeared to have contributed to her satisfaction with classes in general. She was placed in the same level in all courses and did not seem to have a problem with her identity. Her identity of a good student seemed to be defined not only by her grades, but also by the teachers’ compliments to her. She mentioned several times in the interviews how good that feedback was for her progress. Fourth and finally, English did not seem to be a priority in Carla’s life or have the “survival” character that Lauro and Karina mentioned. Carla’s opinions about language learning did not appear to be as strong and as reflective as Lauro’s and Karina’s. Carla also spent more time at SLI, which may have made her perceptions about her classes and her experiences at SLI different from Lauro’s and Karina’s. Negative Influence A negative influence happens when students and teachers have different beliefs. However, this conflict is likely to trigger students’ actions, either in terms of autonomously engaging in actions they believed the teacher should be doing, or by
297 presenting a passive resistance, complaining to others about the teachers’ class. Either way shows that the teachers’ beliefs enacted through his or her practice influenced the students, not in adopting the teachers’ beliefs, but in making students’ initial beliefs stronger than before. As shown in Chapter IV, this is what seemed to have happened with Karina and Lauro. Because Karina expected more explanation of grammar rules, a faster pace, and heavier grammar classes, she tried to do more grammar exercises at home. She also asked more grammar questions in class or volunteered answers because she knew some students took a long time to answer. In her opinion, the teacher usually waited too much and this slowed the class. Lauro, on the other hand, expected listening and pronunciation to be part of the lesson. However, that did not mean he tried to do that at home. In his case, what seemed to have happened was a passive resistance or a reinforcement of his beliefs about repetition and about the teacher role. Lauro was very critical with me about this class. Because Jack did not correct his mistakes the way he expected, Lauro had a much more positive view of the Reading/Writing teacher who provided that type of correction. Neutral Influence A neutral influence, as the name suggests, indicates that the teacher did not influence the student either positively or negatively. This seemed to be what happened between Carla’s and Flora’s beliefs. Carla never expressed strong feelings about the Structure 3 class. She seemed to like it, but she did not talk about it as she talked about the Reading/Writing class. She also did not complain about anything regarding Flora’s practice.
298 There are four reasons for this neutral influence. First, grammar may not necessarily be one of the topics Carla liked as compared to writing. Second, Flora let students work by themselves but made sure that she provided feedback to students regarding their answers to the exercises. Carla seemed to expect that kind of feedback. Third, the problem that Carla had with her classmate might have made her more cautious. It could be that she tried to keep a low profile in this class, trying to avoid being criticized by classmates. Fourth and finally, Carla was more introverted than Karina, Lauro, and Flora. Her learning style and personality seemed to be more in tune with Jack’s. In short, these three types of influence indicate how students and teachers interacted and adapted to their environment. The results, contrary to what has been stated by studies on teachers’ and students’ LLB, show that this relationship is more complex and cannot adequately be understood without reference to teachers’ and students’ actions and interpretations in context. It cannot be understood without reference to students’ and teachers’ identities, to the social nature of classroom, and to their organic experience. Fourth Research Question How do students’ language learning beliefs and actions affect the teachers’ beliefs and practice? This is a difficult question to answer for two reasons. First, teachers may not know what students’ LLB are. Thus, it is difficult for them to know how it affects them. They can only guess or interpret some of the students’ actions. This is what happened in this study. Second, perhaps the participant student in this study was not exactly the one that mostly influenced the teacher. The data indicated that none of the teachers was strongly influenced by the specific participant student. Jack did not think that Lauro or
299 Carla influenced him. Emily did not think Karina influenced her much, and Flora did not think that Carla influenced her either. Nevertheless, both Emily and Flora cited students who they thought influenced them. Emily thought that Nelson influenced her more. Flora thought that Ramon influenced her more. Emily and Flora acknowledged that students’ beliefs in general could have influenced their actions. In essence, Emily, Flora, and Jack had interpretations or beliefs about their students’ beliefs, and these interpretations seemed to have influenced how they taught. Teachers’ Interpretations of Students’ Beliefs The three teachers in this study, in different ways seemed to interpret their students’ beliefs. They had beliefs about students’ beliefs. This aspect confirm Freeman’s (1996) assertion that Teachers are constantly involved in interpreting their worlds; they interpret their subject matter, their classroom context, and the people in it. These interpretations are central to their thinking and actions. Classroom and students are not just settings for implementing ideas; they are framework of interpretation that teachers use for knowing: knowing when and how to act and read, what information to present or explain, and how and when to respond. (p. 98) Both Emily and Flora believed students expected the teacher to explain grammar rules and to have all the answers. Flora expressed concern in knowing what students considered a good reading class. Jack believed that students thought that vocabulary was responsible for their difficulties in understanding other people. Jack also interpreted students’ plea for overt correction as covert correction. In regards to writing, Jack believed students expected teachers to edit their papers and correct their mistakes in writing. He also thought students could get tired of writing about the same topics in the process approach.
300 These interpretations show how teachers interacted with students and how this interaction was important for their teaching. All teachers expressed their need for receiving feedback from students. As Flora suggested, it is possible to say that, like students, teachers need students’ feedback so that they know how to proceed. Teachers’ interpretations are a sign of the principles of interaction and continuity in experience as Dewey (1938) explained, and of the interactive characteristic of the classroom as Breen (1985) suggested. Three factors seemed to be the source of teachers’ interpretations of students’ beliefs. First, teachers’ own experiences as students helped them guess students’ beliefs. Because they were students once, they know that their students may believe the same thing. Thus, Emily believed that students wanted grammar rules because as a student she also used to expect a more explicit explanation of grammar rules. Second, teachers’ perceptions of students’ actions in class and their interpretations of students’ comments to them influenced what they believed students believed. This was evident when Flora gave examples of her own classes and what she perceived to be students’ expectations. Third and finally, teachers’ readings of the theories in the field and their comparison to students’ beliefs and actions in class influenced their interpretations. Teachers’ interpretations of students’ LLB influenced teachers’ actions, as illustrated in Table 21. Emily thought she did more grammar explanation than she wanted to because she believed students expected formal grammar explanation. Likewise, Flora admitted that she probably provided more details about the usage of the language because she thought students wanted that and because some of them asked questions about that aspect. However, Flora also tried to show students an alternative. Her behavior suggests
301 that teachers’ actions sometimes are directed towards deconstructing some of the beliefs teachers think students have. Table 21 Teachers’ Interpretations of Students’ Beliefs and Their Influence on Practice Teacher Emily
Interpretations of students’ beliefs •
Students want formal explanation of grammar rules. Students expect the teacher to be the only person with answers,
•
• •
Students expect Spoken class to be fun. Students believe vocabulary is the reason for their problems in understanding English.
• •
Resisted making his classes “fun” and “gamey.” Focused on vocabulary in Spoken class.
•
Students did not want teachers to correct them all the time. Students wanted teachers to correct their mistakes in their essays.
•
Did covert correction in class.
•
•
Students may get tired of writing about the same topics.
•
Explicitly told students in class to check their essays before handing them in. Adapted the process approach and diminished number of times students wrote about each topic.
•
Students want teachers to explain the rules. Students expect the teacher to know everything.
•
•
Jack
•
Flora
Influence on practice
•
•
•
Did more grammar explanation than she wanted. Encouraged and promoted collaboration among students, used pair and group work.
Gave rules to students, but also told them about importance of meaning. Asked trick questions to challenge students to think; was honest about her mistakes, tried to show learners language is ambiguous and complex.
302 Although Jack did not explicitly mention that students influenced him, like Emily and Flora he interpreted students’ beliefs and those interpretations seemed to have influenced his practice. For instance, because he believed students wanted vocabulary, he focused more on vocabulary. Of course, it has to be noted that this was also part of the curriculum for the Spoken class. He also did covert correction in Spoken class because he thought students did not really want the teacher to correct them all the time. Again, it is important to note that covert correction is also one of the principles of the communicative approach that Jack seemed to have followed. Finally, Jack adapted the process approach because he thought students (and he as well) might get tired of writing and reading about the same topic. He also explicitly told students they should check their essays before handing them to him to counteract what he thought students’ believed – that the teacher should correct their mistakes. All teachers, in different degrees, interacted with these interpretations by either trying to counteract students’ beliefs or by compromising their beliefs to attend to students’ beliefs. This finding confirms insights found in Borg (1998), Johnson (1994), and Graden (1996). In short, students’ LLB and actions seemed to affect teachers’ LLB and practice. This influence was enacted through teachers’ interpretations of students’ LLB. Kumaravadivelu (1991) talked about students’ interpretations of teacher intentions. This study indicated teachers’ interpretations of students’ intentions. Teachers’ interpretations of students’ beliefs shaped their classroom practice, which in turn shaped students’ perceptions and beliefs about the class. Teachers’ beliefs about students’ beliefs and expectations exerted an important role in what and how they taught. As examples of Dewey’s principle of interaction these findings show the interrelationship of LLB to a
303 myriad of factors that influenced teachers’ actions in class, such as teachers’ previous experiences, their learning experiences as students, the type of students in class, and students’ actions in class. Teachers’ interpretations of students’ beliefs also support the concept of copresence. Teachers’ interpretations of students’ beliefs affected teachers. Teachers’ actions, in turn, affected students’ actions and beliefs. Although Allwright (1998) and Breen (1985) mentioned the role of ‘subjectivities’ in the classroom culture, none of them discussed the reciprocal and organic relationship resultant of the influence teachers’ and students’ beliefs have on each other. Fifth Research Question How do students’ and teachers’ language learning beliefs evolve, if at all, across a given period of time? The period for this investigation was short. Each course lasted only eight weeks. In addition, some students stayed just four weeks. This made it difficult to see how students and teachers’ LLB developed over time. Teachers usually said, “I probably have changed, but it is difficult to point out how in such a short time.” The data did not suggest any significant development in Emily’s or Jack’s LLB, which does not imply that their beliefs have not developed. Flora did talk about her beliefs in terms of development, although they were not necessarily related to the period when the study was conducted, but throughout her years of teaching there. She had started her teaching believing grammar would come naturally. However, reflecting about her context and her teaching made her change to a belief in balancing both grammar and meaning in her practice. She also started her career thinking
304 that she should not correct students’ mistakes. However, time and her experience as a mother and a teacher showed her that students were right in wanting some correction. This experience and her readings about fossilization made her change her belief about the role of error correction. In regards to the development of students’ LLB, I compared their assertions at the beginning and at the end of the study. The following developments of beliefs seemed to have occurred. Karina’s Development of Beliefs Karina went from thinking that her English was good to thinking that her English was not good. She came to the US believing that she could easily apply what she learned in Brazil in the new learning environment, but then found out it was not so easy to do that. The difficulties she had speaking the language in an ESL environment made her doubt her knowledge of English and shaped her perception of Brazil as a fantasy island. She doubted she could learn in Brazil again. Lauro’s Development of Beliefs In spite of his criticisms of some aspects of learning at SLI, like Karina, Lauro went back to Brazil with a much more positive view of learning English in the target country. He was convinced that the amount of exposure to English in a target country was superior to the native country. Lauro also changed his conceptions about his own English and his abilities. He mentioned that he would go back to Brazil with a different conception of how good he was in different abilities. He came to SLI thinking that his spoken English was good, but was placed in a lower level of Spoken, and a higher level for Reading/Writing and Structure, which were abilities he did not think he was good at.
305 This fact seemed to have affected his identity as a learner, and consequently, his beliefs about himself and his English. Lauro did not change one of his beliefs though – that pronunciation and listening were important and should have been the focus of Spoken classes. Carla’s Development of Beliefs In the beginning, Carla was willing to talk to her friends, although she was a shy person. However, after some students made fun of her English, she did not do that anymore. Like Karina and Lauro, she also reinforced the beliefs that the target country was better to learn English. Overview of Findings The specific research questions addressed above are important to answer the overarching question of this study about the relationship between teachers’ and students’ LLB. As discussed, this relationship is complex and cannot be answered without consideration of experience and context. The results of this study suggested that the paradoxical nature of beliefs, identity, co-presence, experience and the social nature of the classroom are important factors in understanding the relationship between students’ and teachers’ LLB. Beliefs as Paradoxical As discussed in Chapter II, beliefs are paradoxical – they help us understand and adapt to the world, provide meaning and structure, and reduce dissonance and confusion (Dewey, 1933, 1938; Pajares, 1992). Students’ and teachers’ LLB ascribed value and importance to events. Their LLB helped them adapt to new situations. For instance, Karina’s and Lauro’s rationalizations about their classes and their levels could be seen as
306 their ways of trying to reduce the confusion they felt in not understanding their placement, in trying to make sense of their classes, and in understanding how their proficiency level compared to their classmates and other students at SLI. Following Dewey’s concept of experience, students and teachers interpreted reality by using their interactive minds to solve their problems. Their LLB served as guides for their actions, but their actions, in turn, helped shape their LLB. Identity Identity is socially constructed in interaction with others. As Dewey argued, our identities are shaped by our perceptions of other people and by their perceptions of us. Identity is interrelated with learning and with beliefs, since beliefs help individuals to identify with another group and form groups and social systems. Tang (1997) explained it well when she stated, “the identity of an individual is not fixed but is developed and accentuated by being compared with others” (p. 577). Teachers clearly constructed their identities with learners and with their colleagues. Their perceptions of themselves were mirrored in their interactions with their students. Further, they belonged to a group of teachers teaching at a specific institution. They seemed to identify with the philosophy of the SLI and seemed happy with membership in that group. For students, however, the story was different, since it involved the adaptation and adjustment to a new environment that required them to search a new identity for themselves. I discuss students’ struggles in the paragraphs below. As stated in the theoretical framework, individual and institutional categorizations given to us may lead to embarrassment and conflict. This happened for Karina and Lauro
307 who came to SLI seeing themselves as somewhat competent learners. They came with high expectations about the target country and about the levels they would be placed in. They had studied English for several years in Brazil. Their placement in two classes in a lower level than they expected created a conflict between their self-image as language learners and the categorization that was attributed to them through their level. This conflict influenced their actions and their beliefs about the classes. Their ways of behaving and their beliefs were a way of resisting membership in that level. Karina did not identify with the relaxed environment that Emily tried to provide in class. She felt she was being treated as “too basic.” In addition, Karina’s perceptions of Lauro’s classes as “more serious” and more advanced influenced her beliefs about her level and her Structure class. Thus, her self-image was constructed by her perceptions of other people’s actions and by her perception of herself as mirrored in other people’s actions. Lauro struggled to have his identity recognized in the Spoken class. He thought that the teacher had a strong role to play in that. His identity as a language learner was co-constructed in the classroom, in the company of others. His perception of his classmates’ proficiency level and their comments about his English were some of the factors that influenced Lauro’s perception of the class and his beliefs about the teacher role. Unlike Karina and Lauro, Carla did not seem to have experienced problems with her levels or with her teacher. Nevertheless, her self-image as an English learner suffered because of the discrimination from one of her classmates in the Structure class and from another student at SLI who made fun of her way of speaking.
308 Lauro’s identities as a professor and as a language learner in an international setting with younger students were also in conflict. According to Kramsch (1998), “individuals assume several collective identities that are likely not only to change over time in dialogue with others, but are liable to be in conflict with one another” (p. 67). Lauro saw the classroom from the angles of a student and a professor. His comments about students, such as “they didn’t do their lessons,” “they are playing,” “they don’t care,” seemed typical of a teacher, not a student. Perhaps because of that, Lauro was so critical of the teacher role. Lauro was constantly trying to figure out who he was as a learner. It was not enough to have the placement level. His worth as learner had to come within the interaction in the classroom, by his classmates’ contributions to class and by the teacher’s feedback about his English. This aspect may explain Lauro’s complaints and his need for error correction and feedback. Likewise for Karina, her worth as a learner would come from a differently structured class, one that would not waste time with names and would not play many games. It is important to point out though that Karina did enjoy some games, as long as they were productive, that is, they served to help her understand grammar rules. Every time students spoke they were organizing a sense of who they were and how they related to others in context (Norton, 1997). These interactions sent messages to them about the kinds of learners they were and how good their English was. This was most evident in Karina’s and Lauro’s interactions in class. They seemed to judge their level of proficiency within their interaction with others, by comparing themselves to their classmates’ levels, and by relating it to their interaction with native speakers and
309 teachers. They relied on this comparison with classmates from the same level to evaluate their own knowledge of the language. This comparison made them question SLI’s criterion for the placement test. Another important factor for students’ identities was their knowledge of what they could do, not only in terms of using the language, but also in terms of material conditions, of how much money and time they had (Norton, 1997). Karina and Lauro seemed to often emphasize how difficult it was to come to the US and how much money they were spending. This seemed an important part of their identities as learners and defined the possibilities they had or created for themselves in this new environment, which were different from students who had more money and time to learn. Experience and the Social Nature of the Classroom The aspects discussed above are interrelated with the Deweyan concept of experience, with the social nature of the classroom, and with the concept of co-presence. Students’ and teachers’ beliefs were grounded in their experiences and interactions with each other and in their personal needs and desires. These, in turn influenced the experiences they had. Following the principle of continuity, the results suggested that teachers and students made connections to their previous teaching and learning experiences. Students constantly connected their present experiences with their learning in Brazil and tried to predict how the experience at SLI would change their future learning in Brazil. Likewise, teachers also made sense of each course they taught by constantly making links with previous classes and courses. Their interpretations of students’ beliefs also reflect the principle of continuity because they represent the connection teachers made between their
310 previous beliefs as students and as student teachers and their present beliefs as ESL teachers. What they learned from their interactions with students was critical to their understanding of their identities as teachers at SLI. Students’ and teachers’ beliefs represented their hypothesis about their environment and their interactions with and within it. Following the principle of interaction, teachers and students interacted and influenced each other in different ways, as explained before. Teachers interpreted students’ beliefs and acted based on those interpretations. Students interpreted teachers’ beliefs and actions and acted according to those interpretations and beliefs. Teachers and students shaped and were shaped by this interactive relationship. Similar to results in other studies (Woods, 1996), this study has also shown the interrelationship of LLB. This interconnectedness and interaction exemplify the organic and ecological characteristic of experience. There is no ecology without interdependence and without the presence of others. As discussed earlier, this ecology explains the concept of co-presence suggested by Allwright (1998) and expands it to mean reciprocal influence of both teachers and learners, instead of only the constraints imposed by other people’s presence. Dewey’s philosophy helped place LLB within teachers’ and students’ experiences, as their ways of interacting, adjusting, and readjusting to the environment. In this interaction, they interpreted each other’s actions and beliefs and helped shape the new experiences they had and were in turn shaped by those experiences. These findings contrast with previous studies on LLB that decontextualize students’ LLB.
311 Implications for Theory What do the results mean to the development of theory about the relationship between teachers’ and students’ LLB? The first implication refers to considering the role of context more seriously in studies about teachers’ and students’ LLB. The findings of this study indicated that students’ and teachers’ LLB and actions shape context and are shaped by it. As explained in Chapter II, the majority of studies have decontextualized LLB and portrayed them only as abstract and mental entities. Dewey’s philosophy helps us question this decontextualization and situate teachers’ and students’ LLB embedded in their actions and experiences, as suggested in the results of this study. The second implication refers to the concept of co-presence (Allwright, 1998) as important to investigate further in LLB studies. As we search for how students’ and teachers’ LLB form and develop, the concept of co-presence may prove useful in understanding how teachers and students use LLB to negotiate their roles in the classroom in the presence of others. Earlier studies such as Kumaravadivelu (1991) only considered students’ interpretations of teachers’ intentions. The results of this study indicated that students and teachers interpreted each other’s actions and beliefs. Their interpretations represented a strong force that shaped their actions in the classroom. Related to that aspect, a third implication of this study refers to how classmates influence students’ identities and their beliefs about their English, about the teacher, and about the interaction in class. The incident between Carla and her classmate suggested that students judge each other’s English and form their beliefs about an ideal way of speaking English that may affect their actions and efforts in learning English. The influence of classmates in students’ LLB is an aspect that to date has not been
312 investigated. It seems crucial that future studies should investigate this further in order to understand better the influence that classmates have in students’ LLB. Teachers also need to understand how classmates can influence each other’s actions and participation in class. A fourth implication for theory is the relationship between identities and LLB. When I began this investigation, I did not think of identity as one of the issues to be related to LLB. However, the data clearly suggested a strong relationship between students’ LLB and their identities. The results indicated that students’ LLB helped them co-construct new identities for themselves as competent learners in an ESL environment. Their LLB represented their unique ways of struggling to belong and, at the same time, of rejecting the categorizations imposed on them. The fifth implication refers to how we understand influence. Previous studies have only considered influence as related to the similarity of belief statements between students and teachers. The findings in this study have indicated a more complex and organic relationship between students’ and teachers’ LLB that requires looking at their LLB and actions as embedded in their experiences. In experience, teachers and students influence each other beyond the similarity or conflict of their explicit beliefs. The results indicated that even within a conflict between their LLB, teachers influenced students’ LLB and actions because, as purposeful agents, students and teachers struggle to have their perspectives and beliefs recognized. Thus, they may engage in actions to change each other’s beliefs or validate their own beliefs. A final implication of this study refers to the types of LLB students and teachers held. Students and teachers presented several beliefs that are not present in current LLB
313 studies, such as the ambiguous role of L1 in their experience and their detailed account of the difference between learning English in the target country and in the native country. The findings also suggested the interrelationship of some of the teachers’ and students’ LLB to other factors such as students’ frustrations and struggle to establish their identities, the influence of classmates on students’ identities, and teachers’ interpretations of students’ LLB. The types of LLB found in this study and their interrelationship with the factors cited above should be considered in the design of future LLB studies. Implications for Practice The findings of this study bring some implications to practice. The implications refer to ways of preventing or dealing with potential conflicts between teachers’ and students’ LLB, students’ beliefs about the target country, the kind of actions that language institutes in the US and English-teaching institutions in Brazil can take to help students adjust to the new environment, and implications for language teaching education programs. The results indicated a relationship of conflict between teachers’ and students’ LLB. What can be done to lessen the chances for this conflict? Some researchers (Block, 1997; Schulz, 1996) have suggested that teachers should make the purposes of activities more explicit. Findings of this study seem to support this claim. In his Reading/Writing class, Jack made the purposes of activities clear and gave advice to students on how to read and write. His advice seemed to have been adopted by Carla. However, it is important to point out that other factors, such as Carla’s purposes to learn English, her identity, her level, and her admiration for Jack as a teacher seemed to play a role in this influence. Nevertheless, teachers could try to be more explicit to students about the roles
314 they want students to play, clearly explaining their purposes and rationale behind each activity and class. As suggested by Thorp (1991), teachers need to work with students’ different expectations. It may be necessary to “bargain” with students by sometimes doing more of what they expect in the beginning in a gradual process that will guide them and expose them to alternative practices in an interactive process where both learn from each other. Thus, it is crucial that teachers, first, consistently gather student feedback about classroom processes before, during, and at the end of the course. Secondly, they should reflect about their own LLB and compare it to their students’ LLB. Teachers can use interviews, learner logs, and explanations of activities’ purposes before and after completing activities (see Block, 1997). Another suggestion to reduce potential conflicts involves a more explicit approach where teachers 1. Write down their own beliefs about language learning at the beginning of the semester and answer these questions: “What do I think students expect from this class? What do I expect from this class? What do I expect of me as a teacher in this class? What do I expect from students? Are my expectations realistic? What are they based on?” 2. Ask students to answer these questions: “What do I expect from this class? What do I expect from the teacher? What do I expect from me as a student? What do I think the teacher expects from me? Are my expectations realistic?”
315 3. Compare the two lists and report the results to students. Students could also analyze their own lists and compare with the teachers’ lists. Teachers and students discuss and try to negotiate their beliefs and expectations. We need to experiment with ways in which students voice their feedback about our classes and the activities in class. Teachers do need students’ input and if students can voice them, instead of teachers trying to guess what they think, miscommunication or conflicts can be avoided. Students’ beliefs about the target country confirm previous findings about Brazilian students’ LLB (Barcelos, 1995) and studies about a study-abroad context (Coleman, 1998). Some of the beliefs students manifested have not been explored in depth before, as mentioned earlier. Thus, students held a negative view of learning English in Brazil and somewhat unrealistic expectations about the target country. Some students have invested a lot of effort and money to come to the US. They come to the target country with high expectations and this may have contributed to their frustration. This belief has implications for teachers in Brazil and for administrators and teachers at language institutes in the US. Brazilian teachers need to show their students how they can take more advantage of the resources in an EFL and an ESL environment, and prepare them to have expectations that are more realistic about the target country. They also need to help learners reflect and discuss how other L2 users use the language. In this study, Karina manifested the belief that speaking fast is synonymous with fluency. Lauro did not find it useful to listen and speak to other international students. Teachers in Brazil should bring more L2 users as models to class, showing videos of L2 users instead of only native speakers (Cook, 1999; Murphey, 1998), and give students more
316 opportunities to speak English in class. Teachers in the US could systematically investigate the kinds of expectations and LLB students bring with them. They need to find ways of including the discussion of some of these LLB in their classes. They may need to discuss this type of belief with students and point out the sorts of problems that they may face in the target country. SLI could also incorporate systematic investigations of students’ beliefs and expectations about the classes. Finally, SLI could try to find appropriate ways to provide a more detailed feedback to students about their placement tests. The lack of feedback was harmful to Karina and Lauro. They felt frustrated and doubted the credibility of SLI and this seemed to have influenced the kinds of beliefs they held about the classes. It is not an easy solution, but it may be better than having students frustrated with the process and with the institution, and feeling insecure about their English. As McCargar (1993) suggested, if language institutions do not respect students’ expectations, students may seek other programs that will meet their needs. Thus, language institutions need to find ways to survey students’ needs, expectations, and beliefs about their classes in a systematic way. Teachers and learners have to be aware of their own expectations about each other. Language institutions also need to give students more one-on-one feedback on their English. Further, if language institutions systematically assess students’ beliefs, they may address some of those beliefs that can sometimes harm students’ experiences abroad, such as students making fun of each other’s English. This could perhaps become a topic in one of the conversation or reading classes where students talk about it and try to find solutions for this problem.
317 In regards to language teaching education programs, it is necessary that they adopt a more ecological perspective of teaching and try to prepare teachers for “responsive teaching” (Bowers & Flinders, 1990) that is culturally appropriate for different contexts (Holliday, 1994). Most importantly, language teacher educators need (a) to help student-teachers understand the impact of their actions and beliefs on students’ beliefs and actions, as well as students’ beliefs and actions impact on their beliefs and practice, (b) to provide student-teachers with opportunities to examine common language teaching dilemmas, and (c) to help student-teachers to be aware of and negotiate students’ beliefs and expectations with their own expectations, beliefs, and purposes. Implications for Future Research The following questions and suggestions for subsequent research arose from the findings: 1. Research on teachers’ and learners’ LLB could investigate how forces of the macro-context contribute to teachers’ and learners’ LLB and motivation in studying English. Can the general positive attitude in Brazilian society towards studying abroad make students feel more confident about their English, as suggested in Karina’s comment? How does this belief affect learners in their attempts and efforts to learn English in their native countries? 2. Lauro was an experienced university professor, a psychologist, and an older learner. How do age and years of language learning experience interfere with LLB and with students’ ability to talk about it? Are older students better able to reflect and talk about it than younger students? How are beliefs related to motivation and learning styles?
318 3. All three teachers in different degrees mentioned dilemmas they had in their practice. Although they did not call them dilemmas, their discourse indicated that they had dilemmas about catering to individual or students’ needs, teaching based on their beliefs or their interpretations of students’ beliefs, and teaching according to a norm based on a method and their own teaching styles. More studies are needed in language teaching that investigate the relationship between teacher beliefs and dilemmas (see Barcelos, 1999). In addition, it is important to investigate whether learners also have dilemmas about learning and how they deal with them. In this study, Carla’s conflict about socializing with other students and running the risk of being criticized by them suggests the sorts of problems that learners may find in acting according to their beliefs. These types of learner dilemmas could be investigated in further studies. So far, the literature has only mentioned teacher dilemmas and has not investigated learner dilemmas. 4. All three students held beliefs that predicted a stronger role for teachers than the beliefs expressed by the teachers. Is it possible that students expect teachers to have a more central role in an EFL environment than they do in an ESL environment? Or is it a common belief that is part of the students’ culture of learning languages? 5. Researchers involved in conversations with learners sometimes listen to some LLB that they consider false. Should researchers question students’ LLB or not? Why? Why not? Is it ethical to challenge them? Is it ethical not to challenge them? Do we assume our beliefs are better? What is our responsibility towards learners and teachers when reporting about their beliefs? How do we talk about
319 their beliefs? How do we portray them? How can we conciliate our own beliefs and our participants’ beliefs? Can we or should we put our own beliefs aside? 6. This study has suggested that a mismatch happened between two teachers and two students. Teachers did not seem aware of such mismatch. Further studies could focus on case studies of teachers and students who are aware of a mismatch and explore how teachers negotiate this mismatch. Future studies could also try to find out about other kinds of interpretations that teachers have about students’ beliefs and whether and how they interfere with their practice and contribute to a belief mismatch. Final Considerations The categories that illustrate teachers’ and learners’ LLB and interpretations are neither comprehensive nor prescriptive of what teachers and learners believe. Beliefs are context-specific. They are interrelated and interconnected with our actions as in an ecological system. Teachers’ and learners’ LLB should not be considered erroneous a priori. They represent students’ and teachers’ responses to the complex task of learning and teaching in different contexts. Contrary to what is usually assumed in most studies, students are very active in the sense that they may resist the teacher’s agenda and fight to have their views and identities recognized. The mismatch between teachers’ and students’ LLB may be a chance both have to learn from each other, if they are able to identify the mismatch (Kumaravadivelu, 1991). Awareness and understanding is a first step to change. I hope that this study has contributed to making teachers more aware of the sorts of conflict that can happen in their classrooms.
320
REFERENCES Abelson, R. P. (1979). Differences between belief and knowledge systems. Cognitive Science, 3, 355-366. Abraham, R. G. & Vann, R. J. (1987). Strategies of two language learners: A case study. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 85102). London: Prentice Hall. Allen, L. (1996). The evolution of a learner’s beliefs about language learning. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, XIII, 67-80. Almeida Filho, J.C.P. (1993). Dimensões comunicativas no ensino de línguas. [Communicative Dimensions in Language Teaching] Campinas, São Paulo: Pontes. Allwright, D. (1984). Why don’t learners learn what teacher teach? – The interaction hypothesis. In D. M. Singleton & D. G. Little (Eds.), Language learning in formal and informal contexts (pp. 3-18). Dublin: IRAAL. Allwright, D. (1996). Social and pedagogic pressures in the language classroom: The role of socialization. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom. (pp. 209-228). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allwright, D. (1998). Contextual factors in classroom language learning: an overview. In K. MalmKjær & J. Williams (Eds.), Context in language learning and language understanding (pp. 115-134). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Antón, M. M. (1996). Using ethnographic techniques in classroom observation: A study of success in a foreign language class. Foreign Language Annals, 29(4), 551-561. Barcelos, A. M. F. (1995). A cultura de aprender língua estrangeira (inglês) de alunos de Letras [The culture of learning a foreign language (English) of Language students]. Unpublished master’s thesis, UNICAMP, São Paulo, Brazil. Barcelos, A. M. F. (May, 1999). The Interaction between students’ beliefs and teacher’s beliefs and dilemmas. Paper presented at the International Language Teacher Education Conference ‘Research and Practice in Language Teacher Education: Voices from the field’, Minneapolis, MN. Barkhuizen, G. P. (1998). Discovering learners’ perceptions of ESL classroom teaching/learning activities in a South African Context. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 85-108.
321
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. London: Fontana. Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. V., Goldberger, N. R. & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women’s ways of knowing. New York: Basic Books. Benson, P. (1995). A critical view of learner training. Learning Learning, 2(2), 26. Benson, P. & Lor, W. (1999). Conceptions of language and language learning. System, 27(4), 459-472. Benson, P. & Voller, P. (Eds.). (1997). Autonomy and independence in language learning. London: Longman. Block, D. (1990). Student and teacher metaphor for language learning. In R. Ribe (Ed.), Towards a new decade (ELT): Novenes Jornades Pedagogiques per a l’ensenyament de l’Anglès (pp. 30-42). Barcelona: ICE. Block, D. (1992). Metaphors we teach and learn by. Prospect, 7(3), 42-55. Block, D. (1996). A window on the classroom: Classroom events viewed from different angles. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the language classroom (pp. 168-194). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Block, D. (1997). Learning by listening to language learners. System, 25(3), 347360. Block, D. (1998). Exploring interpretations of questionnaire items. System, 26(3), 403-425. Boisvert, R. D. (1998). John Dewey: Rethinking our time. New York: State University of New York Press. Borg, S. (1998). Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 9-38. Bowers, C.A. & Flinders, D. J. (1990). Responsive teaching: An ecological approach to classroom patterns of language, culture, and thought. New York: Teachers College Press. Breen, M. P. (1985). The social context for language learning – a neglected situation? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 7, 135-158.
322 Breen, M. P. (1996). Constructions of the learner in second language acquisition research. In J. E. Alatis, C. A. Straehle, M. Ronkin, & B. Gallenberger (Eds.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1996 (pp. 84-115). Washington, D.C: Georgetown University Press. Breen, M. P. (1998). Navigating the discourse: On what is learned in the language classroom. In W. A. Renandya & G. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Learners and Language Learning (pp. 115-144). Singapore: Seameo Regional Language Centre. Brown, R. (1990). The place of beliefs and the concept formation in a language teacher training theory. System, 18(1), 85-96. Campbell, J. (1995). Understanding John Dewey: Nature and cooperative intelligence. Chicago: Open Court. Campbell, C. M., Shaw, V. M., Plageman, M.E., & Allen, T. A. (1993). Exploring student beliefs about language learning. In W. N. Hatfield (Ed.), Visions and realities in foreign language teaching: Where we are, where we are going (pp. 29-39). Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook. Clark, C. & Peterson, P. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-297). New York: Macmillan. Clarke, M. (1999). Communication and context: An ecological perspective of language teaching. In D. J. Mendelsohn (Ed.), Expanding our vision: Insights for language teachers (pp. 155-172). Toronto: Oxford University Press. Coleman, H. (1996). Society and the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coleman, J. (1998). Evolving intercultural perceptions among university language learners in Europe. In M. Byran & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective (pp. 45-75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook, V. (1999). Going beyond the native speaker in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 33(2), 185-209. Cortazzi, M. (1990). Cultural and educational expectations in the language classroom. In B. Harrison (Ed.), Culture and the language classroom (pp. 55-65). Hong Kong: Modern English Publication/The British Council. Cortazzi, M., & Jin, L. (1996). Cultures of learning: Language classrooms in China. In H. Coleman (Ed.), Society and the language classroom (pp. 169-203). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
323 Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System, 23(2), 195-205. Cotterall, S. (1999). Key variables in language learning: What do learners believe about them? System, 27(4), 493-513. Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Crookes, G. (1997). SLA and language pedagogy: A socioeducational perspective. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 19, 92-116. Davis, K. A. (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in Applied Linguistics research. TESOL Quarterly, 29(3), 427-453. Delgado, A. I. S. (1998). An examination of the teaching and learning of writing in an EFL context: Brazil. Unpublished master's thesis, The University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and Education. New York: Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1983). The middle works (1899-1924). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and Education. New York: Macmillan. Duff, P. A. & Uchida, Y. (1997). The negotiation of teachers’ sociocultural identities and practices in postsecondary EFL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 451486. Edge, J. & Richards, K. (1998). May I see your warrant, please?: Justifying outcomes in qualitative research. Applied Linguistics, 19(3), 334-356. Eisner, E. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan. Elbaum, B. E., Berg, C. A., & Dodd, D. H. (1993). Previous learning experiences, strategy beliefs, and task definition in self-regulated foreign language learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 318-336. Eldridge, M. (1998). Transforming experience: John Dewey’s cultural instrumentalism. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
324 Ellis, G. (1996). How culturally appropriate is the communicative approach? ELT Journal, 50(3), 213-218. Ellis, R. (1997). SLA research and language teaching. London: Oxford University Press. Ellis, R. (August, 1999). A metaphorical analysis of learner beliefs. Paper presented at the 12th World Congress of Applied Linguistics (AILA 99), Tokyo, Japan. Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan. Erickson, E. (1991). Advantages and disadvantages of qualitative research design on foreign language research. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Foreign language acquisition research and the classroom (pp. 338-353). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Fang, Z. (1996). What counts as good writing? A case study of relationships between teacher beliefs and pupil conceptions. Reading Horizons, 36(3), 249-258. Fang, Z. (1996a). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38, 47-65. Feimam-Nemser, S. & Floden, R. E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 505-526). New York: Macmillan. Feiman-Nemser, S. & Remillard, J. (1996). Perspectives on learning to teach. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teachers educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 63-91). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fetterman, D. M. (1998). Ethnography: Step by step. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Firth, A. & Wagner, J. (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamental concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 81(3), 285-300. Freeman, D. (1991). “Mistaken constructs”: Re-examining the nature and assumptions of language teacher education. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1991 (pp. 25-39). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Freeman, D. (1996). Redefining the relationship between research and what teachers know. In K. M. Bailey & D. Nunan (Eds.), Voices from the classroom (pp. 88115). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
325 Freeman, D. (1996a). The “unstudied problem”: Research on teacher learning in language teaching. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 351-378). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freeman, D. & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397-417. Furhan, A. (1988). Lay theories: Everyday understanding of problems in the social sciences. New York: Pergamon. Gardner, R. C. (1988). The socio-educational model of second-language learning: Assumptions, finding, and issues. Language Learning, 38(1), 101-126. Garrison, J. (1995). Deweyan Pragmatism and the epistemology of contemporary social constructivism. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 716-740. Garrison, J. (1998). John Dewey’s philosophy of education. In L. A. Hickman (Ed.), Reading Dewey: Interpretations for a postmodern generation (pp. 1-22). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Gimenez, T. (1994). Learners becoming teachers: An exploratory study of beliefs held by prospective and practising EFL teachers in Brazil. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lancaster University, Lancaster, England. Goodwin, C. & Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In A. Duranti & C. Godwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 1-42). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Graden, E. C. (1996). How language teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction are mediated by their beliefs about students. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 387-395. Hickman, L. A. (1998). Dewey’s theory of inquiry. In L. A. Hickman (Ed.), Reading Dewey: Interpretations for a postmodern generation (pp. 166-186). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Holec, H. (1987). The learner as manager: managing learning or managing to learn? In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 145156). London: Prentice Hall. Holliday, A. (1994). Appropriate methodology and social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Holliday, A. (1996). Developing a sociological imagination: Expanding ethnography in international English language education. Applied Linguistics, 17(2), 234-255.
326 Holliday, A. (1999). Small cultures. Applied Linguistics, 20(2), 237-264. Horwitz, E. K. (1985). Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals, 18(4), 333-340. Horwitz, E. K. (1987). Surveying students’ beliefs about language learning. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 110-129). London: Prentice Hall International. Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72(3), 283-294. Horwitz, E. K. (1990). Attending to the affective domain in the foreign language classroom. In S. S. Magnan (Ed.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner (pp. 1533). Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Horwitz, E. K. (1996). Meeting the cognitive and emotional needs of new foreign language teachers. In Z. Moore (Ed.), Foreign language teachers education: Multiple perspectives (pp. 289-299). New York: University Press of America. Horwitz, E. K. (1999). Cultural and situational influences on foreign language learners’ beliefs about language learning: A review of BALLI studies. System, 27(4), 557-576. Hymes, D. (1996). Ethnography, linguistics, narrative equality: Towards an understanding of voice. London: Taylor & Francis. Izard, M. & Smith, P. (Eds.) (1982). Between belief and transgression: Structuralist essays in religion, history, and myth. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. James, W. (1991). Pragmatism. New York: Prometheus. Jarvis, P., Holdford, J., & Griffin, C. (1998). The theory and practice of learning. London: Kogan Page. Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. (1993). Cultural orientation and academic language use. In D. Graddol, L. Thompson, & M. Byran (Eds.), Language and culture (pp. 84-97). Clevedon: BAAL and Multilingual Matters. Jin, L. & Cortazzi, M. (1998). The culture the learner brings: A bridge or a barrier? In M. Byram & M. Fleming (Eds.), Language learning in intercultural perspective: Approaches through drama and ethnography (pp. 98-118). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
327 Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(1), 83-108. Johnson, K. E. (1994). The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of preservice English as a second language teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 10(4), 439-452. Johnson, K. E. (1995). Understanding communication in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johnson, K. E. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Kalaja, P. (1995). Student beliefs (or metacognitive knowledge) about SLA reconsidered. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(2), 191-204. Kern, R. G. (1995). Students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 71-92. Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kumaravadivelu, B. (1991). Language-learning tasks: Teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal, 45(2), 98-107. Kuntz, P. (1996). Students of ‘easy’ languages: Their beliefs about language learning. [ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397658] Kuntz, P. (1996a). Beliefs about language learning: The Horwitz Model. [ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED397649] Kuntz, P. (1997). Students and their teachers of Arabic: Beliefs about language learning. [ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED407854] Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach?: Perspectives on problems in practice. Harvard Educational Review, 55, 178-194. Lantolf, J. & Appel, G. (Eds.) (1994). Vygotskian approaches to second language research. Norwood, N.J:Ablex.
328 Larsen-Freeman, D. (1986). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Larsen-Freeman, D. (1998). Expanding the roles of learners and teachers in learner-centered instruction. In W. A. Renandya & G. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Learners and language learning (pp. 207-226). Singapore: Seameo Regional Language Centre. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lave, J. (1993). The practice of learning. In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives on activity and context (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Luppescu, S. & Day, R. R. (1990). Examining attitude in teachers and students: the need to validate questionnaire data. Second Language Research, 6(2), 125-134. Lutz, R. (1990). Classroom shock: The role of expectations in an instructional setting. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1990 (pp. 144-156). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Mangano, N., & Allen, J. (1986). Teachers’ beliefs about language arts and their effects on students beliefs and instruction. In J. Niles & R. Lalik (Eds.), Solving Problems in Literacy: Learners, teachers and researchers (pp. 136-142). Thirty-fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. McAlpine, L., Eriks-Brophy, A., & Crago, M. (1996). Teaching beliefs in Mohawk classrooms: Issues of language and culture. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 27(3), 390-413. McCargar, D. (1993). Teacher and student role expectations: Cross-cultural differences and implications. The Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 192-207. McDonough, S. H. (1995). Strategy and skill in learning a foreign language. New York: E. Arnold/St. Martin. McDonough, J. & McDonough, S. H. (1997). Research methods for English language teachers. London: Arnold.
329 Mantle-Bromley, C. (1995). Positive attitudes and realistic beliefs: Links to proficiency. The Modern Language Journal, 79(3), 372-386. Mead, G. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Meloy, J. M. (1994). Writing the qualitative dissertation: Understanding by doing. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum. Miller, L. & Ginsberg, R. B. (1995). Folklinguistic theories of language learning. In B. F. Freed (Ed.), Second language acquisition in a study abroad context (pp. 293315). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Miles, M. B. & Huberman, M. A. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Mori, Y. (1997). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs: What do language learners believe about their learning? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. [ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED406657] Munby, H. (1984). A qualitative approach to the study of a teacher’s beliefs. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 21(1), 27-38. Murayama, I. (1995). The status of strategies in learning: A brief history of changes in researcher’s views. Learning Learning, 2(3), 7-12. Murphey, T. (1996) Experiencing and mapping in teacher education. In G. T. Sachs, M. Brock, & R. Lo (Eds.), Directions in second language teacher education (pp. 202-219). Hong Kong: City University of Hong Kong. Murphey, T. (1998). Language hungry! An introduction to language learning fun and self-esteem. Tokyo: MacMillan. Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum studies, 19(4), 317-328. Norton, B. (1997). Language, identity, and the ownership of English. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 409-429. Nunan, D. (1989). Hidden agendas: The role of the learner in programme implementation. In R. K. Johnson (Ed.), The second language curriculum (pp. 176-186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nunan, D. (1992). Research methods in language learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.
330 Nunan, D. (1993). From learning-centeredness to learner-centeredness. Applied Language Learning, 4(1 & 2), 1-18. Nunan, D. (1995). Closing the gap between learning and instruction. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 133-158. Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Pajares, F. M. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332. Paley, V. (1986). On listening to what children say. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 122-131. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. (2nd ed.) Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Peirce, B. N. (1995). Social identity, investment, and language learning. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 9-31. Peirce, C. S. (1877). The fixation of belief. In P. P. Weiner. (Ed.) (1958). Charles S. Peirce: Selected writings (pp. 91-112). New York: Dover. Peirce, C. S. (1878). How to make our ideas clear. In P. P. Weiner. (Ed.) (1958). Charles S. Peirce: Selected writings (pp. 113-136). New York: Dover. Pennycook, A. (1994). English as an international language. Singapore: Longman. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W. & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167-199. Pitman, M. A. & Maxwell, J. A. (1992). Qualitative approaches to evaluation: Models and methods. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle (Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 729-770). New York: Academic Press. Potter, J. & M. Wetherell. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage. Prabhu, N. S. (1990). There is no best method – Why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-177. Preston, D. (1991). Language teaching and learning: Folk linguistic perspectives. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Language and Linguistics 1991 (pp. 583-603). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
331
Rampton, B. (1999). Dichotomies, difference, and ritual in second language learning and teaching. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 316-340. Rees-Miller, J. (1993). A critical appraisal of learner training: Theoretical bases and teaching implications. TESOL Quarterly, 27(4), 679-689. Richards, J. C. (1994). The sources of teachers’ instructional decisions. In J. E. Alatis (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1994 (pp. 385-402). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Richards, J. C. & Lockhart, C. (1994). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richards, J. C., Platt, J., & Platt, H. (1992). Dictionary of teaching and applied linguistics. London: Longman. Richards, J. C. (1998). Beyond training. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education (2nd ed.) (pp. 102-119). New York: Macmillan. Riley, P. (1989). Learners’ representations of language and language learning. Mélanges Pédagogiques C.R.A.P.E.L, 2, 65-72. Riley, P. (1994). Aspects of learner discourse: Why listening to learners is so important. In E. Esch (Ed.), Self-access and the adult language learner (pp. 7-18). London: Centre for information on language teaching. Riley, P. (1996). ‘The blind man and the bubble’: Researching self-access. In R. Pemberton, E. S. L. Li, W. W. F. Or, & H. D. Pierson (Eds.), Taking control: Autonomy in language learning (pp. 251-264). Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Riley, P. (1997). The guru and the conjurer: aspects of counselling for self-access. In Benson, P. & P. Voller (Eds.), Autonomy and independence in language learning (pp. 114-131). New York: Longman. Riley, P. (1999). On the social construction of ‘the learner.’ In S. Cotterall and D. Crabbe (Eds.), Learner autonomy in language learning: defining the field and effecting change (pp. 29-39). Berlin: Peter Lang. Roberts, C. (1997). Transcribing talk: Issues of representation. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 167-172.
332 Rokeach, M. (1968). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Rubin, J. (1975). What the good language learners can teach us. TESOL Quarterly, 9, 41-51. Rubin, J. (1987). Learner strategies: Theoretical assumptions, research history and typology. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 15-29). London: Prentice Hall. Rubin, J. & Thompson, I. (1982). How to be a more successful language learner. Boston: Heinle & Heinle. Sakui, K. & Gaies, S. J. (1999). Investigating Japanese Learners’ beliefs about language learning. System, 27(4), 473-492. Schommer, M. (1995). Epistemological belief questionnaire for middle school children. Unpublished manuscript. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books. Schulz, R. A. (1996). Focus on form in foreign language classroom: Students’ and teachers’ views on error correction and the role of grammar. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 343-364. Schwandt, T. A. (1997). Qualitative Inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Seidman, I. (1998). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences. New York: Teachers College Press. Smith, D. B. (1996). Teacher decision making in the adult ESL classroom. In D. Freeman & J.C. Richards (Eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 197-216). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Spindler, G. & Spindler, L. (1987). Teaching and learning how to do the ethnography of education. In George & Louise Spindler (Eds.), Interpretive ethnography of education: At home and abroad (pp. 17-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Su, D. (1995). A study of English learning strategies and styles of Chinese university students in relation to their cultural beliefs about learning English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA. Swales, S. (1994). From metaphor to meta-language. English Teaching Forum, 32(3), 8-11.
333 Tabachnick, B. R. & Zeichner, K. (1986). Teacher beliefs and classroom behaviors: Some teacher responses to inconsistencies. In M. Ben-Peretz, R. Bromme, & R. Halkes (Eds.), Advances of research on teacher thinking (pp. 84-96). Berwyn PA and Lisse, W. Germany: Swets North America/Swets and Zeitlinger. Tang, C. (1997). On the power and status of nonnative ESL teachers. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3), 577-580. The American Heritage Dictionary (3rd ed.). (1992). New York: Houghton Mufflin Company. Thorp, D. (1991). Confused encounters: Differing expectations in the EAP classroom. ELT Journal, 45(2), 108-118. Tumposky, N. (1991). Student beliefs about language learning: A cross-cultural study. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 8, 50-65. van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner. New York: Longman. van Lier, L. (1990). Ethnography: Bandaid, Bandwagon, or Contraband? In C. Brumfit & R. Mitchell (Eds.), Research in the language classroom (pp. 33-53). (ELT Documents 133). London: Modern English Publication/British Council. van Lier, L. (1997). Approaches to observation in classroom research: Observation from an ecological perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 783-787. van Lier, L. (1998). Constraints and resources in classroom talk: Issues of equality and symmetry. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Learning Foreign and second languages: Perspectives in research and scholarship (pp. 157-182). New York: Modern Language Association. Victori, M. (1992). Investigating the metacognitive knowledge of ESL students. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York: The Free Press. Wenden, A. (1986). Helping language learners think about learning. ELT Journal, 40(1), 3-12.
334 Wenden, A. (1986a). What do second-language learners know about their language learning? A second look at retrospective accounts. Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 186-205. Wenden, A. (1987). How to be a successful language learner: Insights and prescriptions from L2 learners. In A. Wenden & J. Rubin (Eds.), Learner strategies in language learning (pp. 103-117). London: Prentice Hall. Wenden, A. (1991). Learner strategies for learner autonomy. London: Prentice Hall. Wenden, A. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied Linguistics, 19(4), 515 - 537. Wittrock, M. C. (1986). Students’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 297-314). New York: Macmillan. Wolcott, H. F. (1987). On ethnographic intent. In George & Louise Spindler (Eds.), Interpretive ethnography of education: At home and abroad (pp. 37-57). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Wolcott, H. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Wolcott, H. F. (1995). Making a study “more ethnographic.” In J. Van Maanen (Ed.), Representation in ethnography (pp. 79-111). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decisionmaking, and classroom practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Woods, D. (1997). Decision-making in language learning: A lens for examining learner strategies. [On-line] Available at http://langue.hyper.chubu.ac.jp/jalt/pub/tlt/97/oct/woods.html Yang, N.D. (1992). Second language learners’ beliefs about language learning and their use of learning strategies: A study of college students of English in Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas, Austin.
334
APPENDIX A LIST OF LEVELS AT SLI PROGRAM There are 5 sessions per year, each lasting approximately 8 weeks. These sessions begin in August, October, January, March, and June. Each level except Level 6 has classes which meet 4 to 6 hours a day or 22 to 27 hours a week. LEVEL 1 (22-24 hours/week) Structure Reading/writing Spoken English Conversation Partner Optional Classes
5 hrs/wk 10 hrs/wk 5 hrs/wk 2 hrs/wk 2 hrs/wk
LEVEL 2 (22-27 hours/week) Structure Reading Spoken English Conversation Partner Optional Classes
5 hrs/wk 10 hrs/wk 5 hrs/wk 2 hrs/wk 2-5 hrs/wk
LEVEL 3 (22-27 hours/week) Structure Reading/writing Spoken English Conversation Partner Optional Classes
5 hrs/wk 10 hrs/wk 5 hrs/wk 2 hrs/wk 2-5 hrs/wk
LEVEL 4 (22-27 hours/week) Structure Reading/writing Spoken English Conversation Partner Optional Classes
5 hrs/wk 10 hrs/wk 5 hrs/wk 2 hrs/wk 2-5 hrs/wk
LEVEL 5 (22-27 hours/week) Structure Reading/writing Spoken English Conversation Partner Optional Classes
5 hrs/wk 10 hrs/wk 5 hrs/wk 2 hrs/wk 2-5 hrs/wk
LEVEL 6 (12-17 hours/week) Advanced English for Academic Study Conversation Partner Optional Classes
10 hrs/wk 2 hrs/wk 2-5 hrs/wk
335 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF STRUCTURES TAUGHT IN STRUCTURE 2
STRUCTURE 2: Curriculum (Revised Summer 1993) Exercises and activities which correspond to the grammatical structures being taught are listed at the end of each section. Classroom, teachers must inform their students of these. A key for the abbreviations of the sources of the exercises and activities is located at the end of the Structure 2 curriculum. 1. VERB TENSES (form, meaning, negation, & questions) a) Past Progressive (& review of verbs not normally used with -ING) b) Future (WILL & BE GOING TO) - use of present tense in future and IF clauses c) Present Perfect & Present Perfect Progressive - related time words (SINCE, FOR, etc,) d) Positioning of Mid-Sentence Adverbs
In Lab for a (above): SS: Book 9, Chapter 9; Book 3, Chapter 2 JC- Page 7 In Lab for b (above): SS: Book 1, Chapter 14; Book 2, Chapters 1, 4; Book 3,Chapter 3 JC: Pages 17, 27, 55 SB: Pages 24, 30, 46, 72 GM: Al, A31 A4 In Lab for c (above): SS: Book 3, Chapters 4, 5,1 6, 7 JC: Pages 51, 59 SB: Pages 34, 44 GM: B6 In Lab for d (above): GM: B6 2. MODALS - ability (CAN, COULD) - possibility (CAN, COULD, MAY, MIGHT) - permission (MAY, CAN, COULD) - requests (CAN, COULD, WILL, WOULD) - advice (SHOULD, OUGHT TO, HAD BETTER) - necessity (MUST, HAVE TO, HAVE GOT TO) - Prohibition & lack of necessity (MUST NOT, DON'T HAVE TO) - imperative
336
SS: Book 1, Chapter I 3; Book 2, Chapters 3, 41, 5, 7.1 1 0, 11 JC: Pages 11, 47, 61, 69, 75 SB: Pages 32, 560,64 GM: B2
3. ASKING QUESTIONS - YES/NO Questions - information questions - tag questions
SS: Book l every chapter; Book2, Chapters l-ll; Book3, Chapters l, 2, 4, 5, 6; Book 4, Chapter 9 (tag questions) JC: Pages 17, 23, 32, 42, 55, 63, 79 GM: A4, Bl, B3
4. AUXILIARY VERBS (AND ... TOO/SO/EITHER/NEITHER)
SS: - Book 3, Chapter 10
LAB MATERIALS KEY SS = SIDE BY SIDE JC -- JAZZ CHANTS SB = CAROLYN GRAHAM SONGBOOK GM = GRAMMAR MASTERY SERIES (computer work),
337 APPENDIX C SUMMARY OF STRUCTURES TAUGHT IN STRUCTURE 3
STRUCTURE 3: Curriculum (Revised Summer 1993) Exercises and activities which correspond to the grammatical structures being taught are listed at the end of each section. Classroom teachers must inform their students of these. A key for the abbreviations of the sources of the exercises and activities is located at the end of the Structure 3 curriculum. 1. VERB TENSES a) b) c) d) e)
use of present tense and present progressive to show future past perfect and past perfect progressive future progressive future perfect future perfect progressive
For b (above): SS: Book 3, Chapter 8 GM: Cl For c (above): SS: Book 2, Chapter 12; Book 3, Chapter 3
2. MODALS - present/past probability (MUST/MAY/MIGHT HAVE) - future/past expectation (SHOULD/SHOULD HAVE) - past possibility (COULD HAVE) - used to - would rather
SS: Book 2, Chapter 4; Book 4, Chapter 4 GM: B2, C2
3. COMPARISONS -comparative and superlative forms of adjectives and adverbs
338
SS: Book 1, Chapters 5, 8, 12; Book 2, Chapters 5, 6, 8, 11; Book 4, Chapter 2 JC: Pages 21, 51, 61 GM: S5
4. TWO-WORD VERBS (separable & inseparable)
SS-. Book 3, Chapter 9 GM. A5
LAB MATERIALS KEY SS = SIDE BY SIDE JC JAZZ CHANTS SS = CAROLYN GRAHAM SONGBOOK GM = GRAMMAR MASTERY SERIES (computer work)
339
APPENDIX D DESCRIPTION OF SPOKEN ENGLISH 3
SPOKEN ENGLISH 3 COURSE DESCRIPTION The goals of Spoken English 3 are designed to create a conversation-rich environment where students gain even more confidence in a variety of situations. Students in this level should be able to: 1. Use the conversation management skills listed in the curriculum for this level along with eye contact, body language, and other non-verbal communication signals. 2. Function comfortably within different size groups, such as pair, small groups, and large groups. 3. Participate successfully in activities in which they are required to express their opinions and ideas and then support them. 4. Give a 3 to 4 minute impromptu/informal speech which includes an introduction and a conclusion. 5. Practice class discussions which introductions and conclusions.
include
study/discussion
questions,
oral
6. Develop academic listening/notetaking skills such as those needed for listening to lectures. Conversation & Discussion Management Skills The following are the conversation management skills which should be presented in Spoken English 3: listening cues (review) making and responding to polite requests starting a conversation, initiating a topic apologizing, making excuses asking for and giving advice changing the subject, preventing a change of subject expressing and supporting an opinion agreeing and disagreeing
340 APPENDIX E SAMPLES OF HANDOUTS OF SPOKEN ENGLISH 3
APOLOGIZING Role-play the following situations. Use apologies as necessary. 1. Apologize to your teacher for being late for the third time this week. 2. Apologize to your spouse for losing your temper yesterday. 3. Your best friend invited you to a party at her house, but you won’t be able to, go. Apologize and explain why. 4. You make a humorous comment about your friend's shirt or haircut, but your friend doesn’t think it’s funny. 5. You see someone who looks like a friend of yours. You begin talking to the person, but then you notice that it isn’t who you thought it was. 6. You accidentally spill your Coke on someone as you are trying to get to your seat at the gymnastics meet. 7. Your friend asked you to pick up a few groceries for him at Wal-Mart but you forgot… Expressions to Practice
Please forgive me. I apologize. I'm (really) sorry, I didn’t mean to… Sorry. Sorry about that. It’s OK. You don’t have anything to apologize for. Don’t worry about it. It’s not your fault. No problem. Forget about it.
341
PRECLOSINGS -Thanks for your help. - Nice talking to you. - I know you’re busy.... - Nice to see you again. - Well, it’s getting late.... - I'm afraid I have to get going.... - Good to see you. - Let’s get together sometimes OK? - Well, I’ve got to (‘gotta’) go / run / get going
Giving Advice: EXERCISE Practice asking for and giving advice by getting help for the following problems. Use different expressions to give advice. (For some problems you can give more than one piece of advice.) A: How’s it going? B: Not too good. I’ve got a terrible headache. A: That's too bad I’m sorry to hear that / That's a bummer. Why don’t you take a couple aspirin and go home and lie down? B: I think I will, thanks. (Thanks a lot.) (Thanks a million.) (I appreciate it.) (Thank you very much.) A: No problem. (My pleasure.) (Certainly.) (Of course.) (Sure.) (No problem.) (No sweat.) informal 1. My roommate snores all night. 2. I’m lonely and bored in California. 3. I’m having trouble with English. 4. I have the hiccups. 5. I locked my keys in my car. 6. American food makes me sick. 7. I can’t stop smoking. 8. I like this girl (or guy) but I can’t figure out how to meet her (or him). 9. I’m terribly homesick. 10. I have an enormous hangover this morning. 11. My foot is asleep. 12. I’m feeling under the weather today. I think I’m getting a cold.
342
How To Improve Your Spoken English If you only speak English in your Spoken English class, you probably won’t improve as quickly as you want. You have to practice outside of class too. The following is a list of suggestions for you to improve your spoken English outside of class. (Remember that spoken English consists of not only speaking but also listening.)
Listen to the Radio: Try WUAL 91.5 FM (National Public Radio). You’ll probably find that the announcers on WUAL speak a little more slowly and clearly than announcers on other radio stations. You can get local, national, and international news and stories on “Morning Edition,” Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and on weekends from 8:00 to 9:00 a.m. In the afternoons, listen to “All Things Considered” from 4:00 to 6.00. A public radio station, WUAL has no commercials. Watch TV: You can get local news Monday through Friday at 5:00, 6:00, and 1 0:00 p.m. and national and international news at 5:30 p.m. (Check the newspaper for channels.) Of course, CNN has news all day. If your TV has cable, you’ll probably enjoy finding other shows you like to watch. Watch a Movie: [Our town] has two main movie theaters: [Cine 1] in [Mall 1] (on Morning Blvd.) and “Fox 12” in [Mall 2]. (Check the [local newspaper] for times.) You can also see movies most evenings of the week in the Student Center Theater, which is cheaper than the other theaters. Movies in the Student Center are free in the summer. Go to the Lab and Resource Center: Watch a movie. Practice English with a CDROM. Surf the Net. Talk with a tutor. Practice your pronunciation. And much more. Find Out What's Happening Around Town: You can find out about what's happening in our local area by looking on page 2 of the “Life” section of the local newspaper every Sunday, You could go to a concert, attend (or audition for!) a play, listen to a lecture, or check out an art show. There is also a listing of “Community Events” of when various organizations and groups in the area have their weekly meetings. You may find a group you’d like to join.
343 Make American Friends: To make friends, it might be up to you to make the first move. Try ‘breaking the ice’ by asking if someone has change, by asking directions, opinions, or for some small help. Introduce yourself to your neighbors. Ask them if they want to go to a movie, or get a cup of coffee, or play tennis, golf, basketball, go biking, etc. Prepare a typical meal from your country and invite a few friends and neighbors. Join a student organization. There are over 250 on campus. There are clubs for people who like soccer, karate, chess, physics, history, and just about everything else! You can pick up a list of organizations at the office of the CCSO (Coordinating Council of Student Organizations) on the 3rd floor of the Student Center. (You can even start your own club. They'll tell you how in the CCSO office.) Go to the Recreation Center. Work out, join an aerobics class, find a racquetball partner, get into a game of basketball or volleyball. Go to the church of your choice. Also, several churches in the area offer free English classes once a week. (See p. 2 of the “Life” section of the Sunday local newspaper for days and times.) Join the SLI’s Conversation Partner Program. Join the Language Exchange Program. By the way, you might find it easier to talk to Americans if you are informed about what is going on around you. This way you can talk about current events, sports, news, new movies, and so on. Read the local newspapers regularly.
Other Suggestions
Take your classes seriously and do your best. Try to speak English as much as possible every day. Try not to speak your native language. Agree with your friends to speak only English sometimes. Use every opportunity to speak English. For example, when you go shopping, ask questions even if you already know the answers. Go shopping at different types of stores - furniture stores, garden shops, hardware stores, etc. The salespeople at these types of stores are generally friendly and willing to talk to you. It is not necessary to buy anything.
344
APPENDIX F OBJECTIVES FOR READING/WRITING 3 Level 3 Integrated Reading/Writing Curriculum
Level 3 Reading/Writing continues the transformation of the student from a relatively passive receiver of information (e.g., instructor-centered vocabulary explanation) into an active participant in the process of interpreting written discourse in English. As in the previous levels, therefore, emphasis is placed on the development of strategies that will enable the student to read various kinds of materials effectively and efficiently. Rapid reading skills (skimming and scanning), making inferences, and guessing the meaning of vocabulary from context clues are all very important in this level. Students should also learn to guess the meaning of words through the analysis of stems and -affixes. Dictionary skills should become more sophisticated. While Level 3 shares many objectives with the previous levels, major differences are text length, complexity, and content. Students will respond to texts orally and in writing in much the same manner as before; however, their performance should reflect their growing proficiency in the use of the language. In Level 3 Reading/Writing teachers will continue to provide a wide variety of writing tasks, many of which may be in response to texts read in and out of class. Students will have the opportunity to practice and assimilate what was introduced in level 2 as they begin writing texts with improved development, fluency, and clarity. Students will develop tighter control over standard paragraph organization. Typical student texts will be simply organized and a central idea will be clear although there may be problems with focus as the students continue to work with paragraphing, especially when developing multiparagraph texts. They will demonstrate more flexibility in showing relationships between sentences and ideas by using a variety of signal words, and they will produce a greater range of expression. While control of grammar may still be shaky, control should be such that meaning will be intelligible and unambiguous. Similarly, there should be few confusing errors in basic punctuation, and spelling mistakes will rarely hinder meaning. In Level 3 students will 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
read/respond to moderately complex, multiparagraph texts scan for specific information in a passage of 1-6 paragraphs skim for the main idea of a paragraph, story, or article of moderate complexity make inferences guess the meaning of vocabulary from the context
345 6. review dictionary skills, with special focus on using the context to help determine which meaning of a multiple-meaning dictionary entry is correct 7. memorize the meanings of targeted stems and affixes 8. read fiction, poetry, etc for enjoyment 9. understand and participate in the writing process with classmates and teachers 10. demonstrate a clear understanding of paragraph organization 11. learn to logically develop ideas in a multiparagraph composition 12. learn to use a variety of brainstorming techniques (clustering, listing, free writing, etc.) 13. review end-of-sentence punctuation and commas 14. identify and practice using basic signal (transition) words: sentence connectors, coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, prepositions, etc. 15. identify and practice writing basic rhetorical forms 16. write increasingly developed, multiparagraphed texts of 2 or more pages in length 17. discuss the meaning of plagiarism 18. practice paraphrasing passages of various length 19. write short summaries 20. write short answers to essay-type questions 21. write short critical reviews of books, articles, films, music, etc. 22. learn word processing skills 23. be introduced to the use of e-mail
IMPORTANT:
Teachers MUST cover affixes/stems Units A,B,C. See Affixes/Stems File in Reading Writing 3 files.
Recommended Textbooks 1. More Reasons for Reading by Dobbs and Dobbs 2. Past, Present, and Future by Gregg and Russell 3. Reading Together by Krahnke
346
APPENDIX G TEACHER INTERVIEW GUIDES Sample Questions for First Interview 1. I would like to start asking you about your educational background and about your career as a teacher of ESL. Where did you go to college? 2. Could you tell me how you decide to become an ESL teacher? 3. How long have you been teaching English? Here? What classes do you teach here? 4.
How did you start teaching English at SLI?
5. How do you like teaching? 6. Could you tell me some of the most rewarding/difficult aspects of teaching for you? 7. How would you describe yourself as a teacher? 8. How is that philosophy related to your practice? In your opinion, what are some of the things you do or try to do in class that reflects this philosophy? 9. Now I would like to ask you some questions more related to ESL teaching (and learning). First, what do you think is the role of an ESL teacher? 10. How do you see the role of the learner? What do you expect from them? 11. How would you describe a good English teacher and a good learner? 12. As an ESL teacher, what do you think are some of the most difficult aspects of learning English as a second language? 13. How do you think people learn languages?
347 Sample Questions for Second Interview
First Part: checking interpretation of parts of previous interview with the teacher Usually in the second interview, I would ask teachers about specific practices in their class, for instance: I noticed you use lots of realia, pictures. Could you please tell me the reasons behind that? How do you decide how fast to go with one topic? You are teaching a [structure] class. How do you think grammar should be taught? How do you think students learn grammar? Checking some students’ beliefs on the teachers: How do you feel about the amount of time for this class (50 min)? What is a good class to you? How do you deal with error correction in class? How do you think this class is going? Are you happy with it?
Sample Questions for Second Interview First I am going to ask you some questions about more specific aspects of this class and then more general questions about your beliefs in language teaching and how they have changed. 1. Transcript of the second interview. Anything that you’d like to say about it, any unfinished thoughts or ideas? 2. Do you think that students speak a different type of English than what is spoken here in the US? How different? 3. I noticed that you usually ask students first before explaining something. You also do that during homework correction. You wait for them to ask any questions they have, but you also use other ways. Could you please comment on that in terms of the reasons why you do it? 4. Have any students’ beliefs or actions affected you in any way?
348 5. How do you think [this specific participant student] has affected you in your teaching while she was here? 6. Have you noticed any difference in class as whole by the fact that [this specific participant student] is not here anymore? 7. How do you think that students’ actions or beliefs affect (or influence) teachers’ actions and/or beliefs? 8. How do you think you have changed as a result of having this particular group of students or as a result of having had K in your class? (if you have changed). 9. Have you noticed any change in yourself or in your teaching (your beliefs about teaching) since this session began?
349 APPENDIX H STUDENT INTERVIEW GUIDES* Sample Questions for First Interview 1. How did you decide to study English here (in the USA and SLI)? 2. Could you please tell me about your previous English learning experiences? 3. Where did you study English in Brazil (public or private school, private English course)? 4. Why have you chosen to study English? Do you like studying English? Why? 5. How long have you been studying English for? 6. How did you like your English learning experience in Brazil? 7. Could you tell me a little bit more about the experience of learning English? What are some aspects you find most difficult? The easiest? 8. Each person has a method and a way of learning a foreign language. Could you tell some of the things you do to learn English? 9. Suppose I am a student who wants to learn English in Brazil. What advice would you give me? 10. In your opinion, what are some of the characteristics of a good English teacher? 11. Let’s talk about the teacher and how he/she influences students. Do you recall any teacher in Brazil that have influenced you, in terms of things you do to learn English? 12. Let’s talk about your first impressions of your experience here in the US: Can you tell me a little bit about your first impressions of when you got here? Anything that you expected? How are you enjoying your classes? The SLI? Is there anything that struck or surprised you? Anything else?
*
All student interviews were conducted in Portuguese.
350 Sample Questions for Second Interview First Part: Checking parts of previous interview with students Ex. You mentioned in our last interview that you feel some students are not as serious in their learning. How do you think this interferes with your learning? Do you still feel that your course is too basic for you? Questions more related to their current experiences: 1. What is your general impression about your classes? 2. About this specific class. Do you still feel the same about it or has anything changed? 3. Is there any activity that was done in class that you liked/didn’t like? Why? Why not? 4. Was there any activity that you thought was interesting or useful? 5. Are you having any difficulties in this class or in other classes? 6. How do you think teachers should correct mistakes? How do you like to be corrected? 7. Do you think you have improved your English so far? 8. If a person asks you, “How do I learn English?,” what would you tell her/him?
Sample Questions for Third Interview First Part: Checking parts of previous interview with students Ex: You mentioned that your English had not improved here. Do you still feel the same way? Why do you think that happened? Other Questions: 1. How were these two last weeks of classes? Has anything changed? 2. Is there any activity during this period that you have enjoyed in class? Any other activity that you haven’t enjoyed? Could you talk about it please? 3. Do you like speaking to your classmates in class? Do you think it is important? 4. What do you think of the book you use for this class? Do you like it?
351 Questions more related to evaluation of experience at SLI 5. Do you think this class was useful to you? Have you changed your way of learning because of this class? Has it influenced you in any way? Has any other class influenced you in how to learn English? 6. Have your opinions about how to learn English changed because you came to study here? How so? What contributed to this change? 7. Has any teacher helped you to improve your English in this short period you were here? Any teacher that you think alike and you agree with what he/she does in class? 8. How do you evaluate this experience here? 9. Suppose I am a new student who just came to study at SLI and I asked you about what I should do to really learn English here. What would you tell me?
352 APPENDIX I
IRB DOCUMENTS
Request for Approval of Research Involving Human Subjects
Principal Investigator Ana Maria F. Barcelos, doctoral student, The University of Alabama Telephone: 366-8491 Email:
[email protected] Title of Research Project The relationship between teachers’ and students’ language learning beliefs. Purpose The purpose of this study is to describe the relationship between teachers’ and students’ beliefs about learning English as a second or foreign language. Research Questions 1. What kinds of beliefs about language and learning English as a second or foreign language do teachers have? Do their beliefs inform their practice? 2. What kinds of beliefs about language and learning English as second or foreign language do students have? Are they similar or different from the beliefs the teachers express (explicitly or implicitly through their practice)? 3. How do teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practice and discourse influence students’ beliefs about how to learn English as a second or foreign language? 4. How do student beliefs and actions affect the teachers’ beliefs and actions? 5. How do students’ and teachers’ beliefs about language and learning English as a second or foreign language evolve, if at all, across a given period of time? Procedures 1. Permission to conduct this study will be obtained from the Director of the SLI. 2. Participants (at least four Brazilian students, two other international students, and two American teachers) will be selected from the students enrolled in courses at SLI. 3. Participants will be fully informed about the purpose and nature of the study. Written consent will be obtained from the participants. 4. At least three formal interviews of 60-75 minutes each will be conducted with each teacher and with students separately at the beginning, middle, and end of each session
353 (total of six interviews during the semester). The interviews will be tape-recorded and will be conducted on campus or another mutually agreeable location. Students will be interviewed individually. Students will be asked about their beliefs about English language learning, preferred activities, and other general questions related to their language learning experience. Teachers will be asked about their beliefs about teaching and learning English as a second language, as well as other questions about their experience in teaching English as a second language. 5. The researcher intends to observe at least three classes a week during sessions 1 and 2 of spring 1999. The researcher will write observation notes about the students’ behaviors and interactions in class with their peers and their teachers. If the teachers agree, three classes in each session will be audiotaped and one class will be videotaped. The researcher will meet separately with teachers and students to view the tape and ask their comments about it. 6. The teachers and the students will be given the transcriptions of their interviews to check for inaccuracies.
Informed Consent All participants will be asked to sign a copy of the attached Informed Consent Statement that outlines the eight basic elements of informed consent. Risks and Benefit Participation in this study will be voluntary. Participants’ wishes about the confidentiality and anonymity of their data will be respected. No one will be identified by name, and none of the data gathered in this study will have any bearing on the participant’s course grade or teaching. There are no physical risks, nor is it likely that participants will be subjected to liability. For students as well as teachers, it is usually a pleasant, meaningful and beneficial process to talk about their own learning and teaching experiences. Students will probably benefit from this experience, as they will be reflecting about their beliefs about learning a language. Teachers will also have an opportunity to think about their beliefs and how they are related to their teaching approach and to their students’ beliefs.
354
January 1999
Dear Students:
As part of my doctoral work, I am conducting a study about the students currently enrolled at [SLI]. My project will study the relationship between your beliefs and your teacher’s beliefs about learning English as a second language. On the part of the students who agree to participate, this study will involve participating in three interviews of 60-75 minutes each, to be administered at the beginning, middle, and end of each session during the spring semester, 1999. The estimated time commitment with interviews will be approximately eight hours in the spring semester. The data collected from the interviews will be analyzed and interpreted as appropriate through qualitative analysis. In these interviews I will ask you about your experience in learning English and your opinions about it. You will get a copy or summary of each transcribed interview to check for accuracy. I will also observe some of the classes you will be taking at the SLI. You will also be asked to watch a videotape of one of your classes and comment on it. Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary and may be withdrawn at any time. Your wishes about confidentiality of the data will be respected throughout this data collection period and in all written reports or summaries of findings. Nothing you share can be used to reflect either positively or negatively on your grades at SLI. Thank you in advance for your help and cooperation in this endeavor. If you agree to participate, please sign the attached consent form.
Sincerely,
Ana Maria F. Barcelos Doctoral Student The University of Alabama (205) 366-8491
355
January 1999
Dear Teachers:
As part of my doctoral work, I am conducting a study about Brazilian students currently enrolled at SLI. My project will study the relationship between their beliefs and your beliefs about learning English as a second language. On the part of the teachers who agree to participate, this study will involve participating in three interviews of 60-75 minutes each, to be administered at the beginning, middle, and end of each session during the spring semester, 1999. The estimated time commitment with interviews will be approximately eight hours in the spring semester. The data collected from the interviews will be analyzed and interpreted as appropriate through qualitative analysis. You will get a copy of each transcribed interview to check for accuracy. In these interviews, I will ask you about your teaching experience and about your language teaching beliefs. I also would like to observe some of your classes three times a week. With your permission, I would like to audiotape at least three classes – one in the beginning, in the middle, and at the end of each session, and videotape one class in each session to be viewed and commented on later by you with me. The purpose of the class observations is to focus on student’s interactions with you in class, not to judge your teaching. Your participation in this study is strictly voluntary and may be withdrawn at any time. Your wishes about the confidentiality of the data and anonymity will be respected throughout this data collection period and in all written reports or summaries of findings. Nothing you share can be used to reflect either positively or negatively on your job at SLI. Thank you in advance for your help and cooperation in this endeavor. If you agree to participate, please sign the attached consent form. Sincerely,
Ana Maria F. Barcelos Doctoral Student The University of Alabama (205) 366-8491
356
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
I understand that the purpose of this study/project is to describe the beliefs students have about learning English as a second language and their relationship to their teachers’ beliefs about learning and teaching English as a second language. I confirm that my participation is entirely voluntary. No coercion of any kind has been used to obtain my cooperation. I understand that I may withdraw my consent and end my participation any time during this project. I have been informed of the procedures that will be used in the project and understand what will be required of me as a subject. I understand that all of my responses, written or oral, will remain completely anonymous. My real name will not be used, unless I prefer otherwise. I also understand that portions of the interviews and classes could be used in the final report of the researcher’s dissertation, or reports and articles about the study. I understand that I will get the transcripts of all my interviews to check their accuracy. I understand that a summary of the results of the project will be made available to me at the completion of the study if I so request. I wish to give my voluntary cooperation as a participant. I acknowledge that I have received a copy of the informed consent form. If you have any questions regarding this project, please contact Ana M. F. Barcelos, (205) 366-8491,
[email protected].
Name: Signature: Telephone: Address: Date:
_________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________
357
APPENDIX J OBSERVATION NOTE Jack asked students to get in their groups to talk about their papers. They did. I waited to see who I would sit next to, when Carla came to Yune’s desk and they sat right in front of me in a way that I could hear everything and I didn’t have to move from where I was or ask them if I could listen to them. Carla said, “I haven’t finished it.” Yune said, “I wrote 2 parts.” They traded papers and began reading each other’s papers. Jack said, “You might have some suggestions to each others about conjunctions and so forth.” Yune told Carla “I didn’t understand the first sentence.” I looked at the sentence. It was: “The people are very important in my life because they always show me what can be good or no.” Yune asked, “the people?” Carla answered, “Yes, the people.” [I don’t think Yune understood it but she didn’t ask anything else and began reading again]. Carla had written that her grandmother had cancer and Yune then asks Carla: “really?.” Carla confirmed it and Yune said “Oh.” Yune asked Carla more details about it, how serious it was and so forth. At times it seemed it was hard for them to understand each other, or what they really meant, but they continued their conversation anyway. Carla read one sentence that Yune had written and then asked Yune, “Every year?” Yune explained to her. It seemed that Yune was talking about a kind of ritual that they usually did to honor her ancestors. Carla asked “It’s not a funeral?” Yune explained it was for her ancestors. Yune explained what it’s like. Then Carla talked about the day for the souls that we have in Brazil, what we do, etc. Yune explained that many people have different religions and not everybody does that. Yune tried to say something and check the pronunciation with me. I understood she was saying “atheist.” I helped them. Carla didn’t think that that was what she was saying. I checked with Yune. I tell Carla. Yune said she believed in God, she was not atheist, but she didn’t have a religion. There is silence now; they have run out of what to talk. Carla said “Your paper is very good.” Carla asked again about what Yune had written about in her paper. She asked Yune if that was religion and Yune said it was not. Now Carla asked Yune if she believed in life after death. Yune said, “I couldn’t know” [I don’t know if she was referring to the fact that she wouldn’t be able to know if there is life after death, or if she doesn’t know the answer the question]. Yune asked if Carla believes in God, Carla said yes. Yune asked Carla what religion she was and Carla said she didn’t know. Yune asked Carla about religion in Brazil, Carla explained. Sometimes Carla or Yune looked at me to help them with words or to check some words they were saying. Yune asked Carla about superstitions in Brazil. Yune explained that there are a lot of superstitions in Korea but they are immoral. Yune and Carla continued talking about superstitions. They asked me another question. Carla sometimes looks at my notes. They are silent now. Jack told students “Are you about finished?” Mc says no, and Jack gives them a few more minutes. Yune told Carla she went to the mall and bought a lot of clothes for her daughter. Yune said that her daughter was obese. I understood her, but Carla didn’t. Carla asked her a question and Yune looked at me to kind of check the word, I helped her. I tell Carla what is obese in Portuguese, although I am sure she knew it, but maybe she was surprised at why Yune didn’t use the word “fat.” Yune said, “My pronunciation is so bad.” (RW3 ON11: 1-2, SII, 4/15/99)
