System 44 (2014) 1–12

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

System

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/system

Pre-service teachers’ changing beliefs in the teachingpracticum: Three cases in an EFL context

Rui Yuan*, Icy LeeFaculty of Education, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 17 June 2013Received in revised form 5 February 2014Accepted 7 February 2014

Keywords:Teacher educationTeacher beliefsPre-service teachersEFL contextTeaching practicum

* Corresponding author. Present address: Room 659462340.

E-mail addresses: ericyuanrui@hotmail.com, eric

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2014.02.0020346-251X/� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

a b s t r a c t

In second language teacher education, while much attention has been centered on the“content” of teachers’ cognitions, the “process” of language teachers’ cognitive change hasremained relatively unexplored. To fill this gap, this study investigated the process of beliefchange among three pre-service language teachers during the teaching practicum in auniversity in China. The findings of the study show that student teachers’ beliefs experi-enced different processes of change during the practicum, including confirmation, reali-zation, disagreement, elaboration, integration, and modification. The sociocultural factorsthat contributed to these changes are also discussed. The paper concludes that in order tofacilitate the belief change process and promote student teachers’ cognitive development,an open and supportive environment is needed to maximize their practice and learningduring the teaching practicum.

� 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

In initial teacher education, teaching practicum lies at the heart of student teachers’ professional training and learning(Gebhard, 2009; Tang, 2004). It is a journey towards more complex forms of thinking about teaching with the purpose ofpreparing student teachers to better cope with classroom realities in the future (Fang, 1996; Grudnoff, 2011). By carrying outclassroom tasks and teaching under the supervision of mentoring teachers, student teachers can enhance their teachingknowledge and skills and interrogate and reflect on their deeply held values and beliefs, which can contribute to theircognitive learning and development (Cheng, Cheng, & Tang, 2010; Gebhard, 2009).

In L2 teacher education research, while much attention has been centered on the “content” of teachers’ cognitions, the“process” of language teachers’ cognitive change has remained relatively unexplored (Borg, 2006, 2009). In particular, there isa paucity of research that focuses on the content and process of student teachers’ belief change during the teaching practicum.For student teachers, their professional learning starts from a set of beliefs about learning and teaching they have developedthrough the “apprentice of observation” (Lortie, 1975), given all the years they spend observing and learning in schools. Thesebeliefs form their initial conceptualizations as a teacher and are likely to continue to influence their cognitive learning andteaching practice throughout their career (Cheng et al., 2010). Given the importance of teaching practicum in pre-serviceteacher education (Tang, 2004) as well as the pivotal role of teacher beliefs in student teachers’ cognitive development(Borg, 2006; Johnson, 1999), a study on student teachers’ belief change during their teaching practice is important, which can

06, Chen Kou Bun Building, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, NT, Hong Kong. Tel.: þ852

yuanrui@gmail.com (R. Yuan), icylee@cuhk.edu.hk (I. Lee).

R. Yuan, I. Lee / System 44 (2014) 1–122

add to our limited knowledge of pre-service teachers’ professional learning in second language teacher education (Wright,2010). Informed by sociocultural perspectives and Cabaroglu and Roberts’ (2000) framework on teacher belief change, andusing data from interviews, student teachers’written reflections, classroom observation and stimulated recall interviews, thisstudy examines three pre-service EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers’ beliefs during the teaching practicum in China.It not only demonstrates the complex processes of student teachers’ belief change, but it also sheds light on the varioussociocultural factors that play a part in the processes. Such findings can improve our understanding of pre-service teachers’cognitive learning at the practicum site and generate useful implications about how such learning can be facilitated andsupported in teacher education programs in similar EFL contexts.

2. Literature review

Teacher beliefs, defined as teachers’ “implicit assumptions about students, learning, classroom, and the subjectmatter to betaught” (Kagan, 1992, p. 66), are generally considered to have a powerful impact on teachers’ reasoning and practice (Borg,2003; Pajares, 1992; Tang, Lee, & Chun, 2012). The way in which teachers come to conceptualize themselves as teachers anddevelop explanations for their own classroom practices tend to be filtered through their beliefs (Johnson,1999). In pre-serviceteacher education, while some researchers have pointed out the inflexibility of student teachers’ beliefs in teacher educationprograms (e.g., Kagan,1992; Peacock, 2001), a largenumberof studies have claimed that teacher educationdoes impact onpre-service teachers’ beliefs, particularly over the teaching practicum (e.g., Borg, 1999; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000; Tang et al., 2012;Tillema, 2006). Based on the conflicting research results, Borg (2009) argues that much existing literature about the stabil-ity of trainees’ cognitions (i.e., beliefs, knowledge, attitudes) has primarily explored the “content” of these cognitions, whilework examining the “processes” of cognitive development suggests that significant change in teacher trainees’ beliefs do takeplace during teacher education. Further research focusing on the processes of cognitive (belief) change in their situated socio-cultural context is thereforeneeded to add to our understandingof the process of learning to teach amongpre-service teachers.

Thepresent study investigates three EFL pre-service teachers’ change in beliefs during the teaching practicumandhowsuchchange can be explained by sociocultural forces within their context. Teachers’ cognitive learning, according to socioculturalperspectives, emerges outof and is constructedby their participationwithin the socio-cultural settingswithinwhich theywork(Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Johnson, 2006; Kelly, 2006). As human cognition is formed through their social activities andorganized through various culturally constructed artifacts (Lantolf, 2004; Vygotsky, 1987), socio-cultural perspectivesemphasize the dynamic, interactive and agentivenature of teachers’ cognitive developmentwhich is conceptualized asmovingfrom external, socially mediated activity to internal mediation controlled by individual teachers (Hawkins, 2004; Johnson &Golombek, 2003; Thorne, 2005). Thus on the one hand, teachers’ knowledge and beliefs derived from prior experiences canbe mediated by “the normative ways of thinking, talking, and acting” (Johnson, 2009, p. 17) that have been historically andculturally embedded in school communities. For instance, the prescribed curriculum and textbooks as well as the establishedschool policy and culture can play an influential role in teachers’ cognitive learning. On the other hand, sociocultural per-spectives alsohighlight the importance of agency in teachers’ cognitive development,which refers to their abilities to influenceand change their immediate settings through using resources that are culturally, socially, and historically developed (Lasky,2005; Wertsch, Tulviste, & Hagstrom, 1993). By exercising their agency, teachers can appropriate various cultural artifacts(e.g., curriculum guidelines and innovative teaching methods) and reconstruct their social practices and interaction withintheir situated communities,which opens up opportunities for the development of their personal systems of teacher beliefs andknowledge (Freeman, 2004; Johnson, 2006). Also, teachers’ cognitive learning can be achieved by the “dialogicmediation” thatcan occur in their professional work and social interaction (Vygotsky, 1978). While dialogic mediation involves contributionsand discoveries by individual teachers, it attaches much importance to the assistance of an “expert” collaborator, e.g., theirmentors and colleagues, who can provide information and scaffolding for their cognitive learning (Lantolf, 2000). Throughdialogic mediation, teachers can examine their pre-existing beliefs and practice in a new light, acquire deep understanding ofnew teaching concepts, and develop self-regulated control over their own practice (Johnson & Golombek, 2003).

From socio-cultural perspectives, student teachers’ beliefs can experience various changes through their interaction andpractice during the teaching practicum (e.g., Borg, 1999; Ng, Nicholas, & Williams, 2010; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000). First of all,student teachers’ beliefs can be largely influenced by their participation and interaction with different members (e.g., stu-dents, mentors and other school colleagues) in the school community. In Ng et al.’s (2010) study, student teachers’ per-ceptions about good teaching evolved from a belief in being in control through expertise (teacher-centered) to a belief inbeing in control through charisma and building relationship with the students (student-centered) given their classroomobservation and communication with colleagues in the field schools. Similarly, in Stevens, Cliff Hodges, Gibbons, Hunt, andTurvey's (2006) study, student teachers developed new ways of thinking about the subject and students by engaging incollaborative work with the school teachers during the practicum. Classroom teaching can also play a mediating role instudent teachers’ belief development (Borg, 1999). Particularly, by critically examining their values and beliefs in classroomactions (Farrell, 1999, 2007), student teachers could become more aware of the possible convergence and disparity betweentheir beliefs and practice so that their belief systems could be constructed and transformed to guide their teaching. Further,student teachers can also engage in dialogic reflectionwith their mentors in their teaching practice where different ideas andunderstanding can be shared and developed, which can exert great influence on their belief transformation (Stuart & Thurlow,2000). However, Mattheoudakis (2007) points out that while “student teachers seem to be going through a slow and gradualprocess of developing and modifying their beliefs” (p. 1281), their participation in teaching practicummay have a low impact

Table 1Summary of belief change processes (Cabaroglu & Roberts, 2000, p. 393–398).

Belief change category The process of belief change

Awareness/realization Student teachers becomemore fully aware of a construct, idea or process so that they accept and understand it better inreal teaching contexts.

Consolidation/confirmation Student teachers perceive a consistency between existing beliefs and newly presented information in the learningprocess and as a result, their prior beliefs become more established.

Elaboration/polishing Student teachers refine their existing beliefs by elaborating relevant knowledge and/or connecting with new input.Addition Student teachers add new constructs to their existing beliefs. This process usually occurs after they recognize new

information as useful in making sense of a learning/teaching issue.Re-ordering Student teachers rearrange their beliefs according to importance so that some beliefs might be considered more

important or relevant than others in their teaching practice.Re-labeling Student teachers perceive no change in the construct or belief but adopt a new term for it.Linking up Student teachers make a new connection between two constructs or beliefs.Disagreement Student teachers abandon an old belief and embrace a new one in order to revolve a conflict between one’s current

beliefs and a new learning experience.Reversal Student teachers adopt a belief that seems to deny a former one. It can be seen as a more extreme form of disagreement.Pseudo change Student teachers experience a “false change” in their beliefs, which might take place when they perceive a belief to be

important but inappropriate or inapplicable to a current context of use.No change Student teachers experience no apparent change or development in their beliefs.

R. Yuan, I. Lee / System 44 (2014) 1–12 3

on the development of their beliefs, which can be attributed to various factors in the situated socio-cultural contexts. Forinstance, theymight be constrained by the prescribed syllabus and entrenched classroom practices, which did not allow themopportunities to innovate or deviate from the traditional methodology commonly followed by teachers in the school(Edwards & Protheroe, 2003; Tang, et al., 2012). They might also lack practical guidance from the mentors in order to developcontextual interpretation and pedagogic responses to local classroom events (Hobson, 2002).

Given the various socio-cultural factors involved in pre-service teachers’ learning environment, Cabaroglu and Roberts(2000) emphasized that student teachers’ belief change is “variable, cumulative and evolutionary” (p. 398), arising fromthe interaction between their individual meaning-making and their embedded learning environment. In their study on 20pre-service teachers’ beliefs during a one-year PGCE program, except for one participant whose beliefs seemed to remainconstant, the rest of the participants experienced various changes in their beliefs. A range of belief change categories wereidentified (see Table 1 for a summary of belief change categories), which offer a comprehensive look into the complexities ofstudent teachers’ belief transformation.

All these belief change processes of the participants, according to Cabaroglu and Roberts (2000), can be attributed to boththeir university coursework (with theoretical and reflective components) and school-based learning experience where theycould construct the meaning of language teaching and learning in real classrooms with the guidance of school mentors.However, while Cabaroglu and Roberts’ (2000) research sheds lights on the cognitive and social dimension of studentteachers’ belief transformation, they point out that their findings are mainly limited to “the identification of discrete processcategories of belief” (p. 398). There is thus a need to further explore the cumulative and evolutionary nature of studentteachers’ belief change, i.e., how different change processes might interact with (or contribute to) each other in studentteachers’ cognitive development in specific contexts.

Informed by socio-cultural perspectives, this research draws on Cabaroglu and Roberts’ (2000) framework as delineated inthe above to explore the dynamic and complex process of student teachers’ belief change during their teaching practicum. Asindicated above, pre-service student teachers’ belief development can be facilitated or constrained through their interactionswith different members (e.g., pupils, mentors, and other school teachers) and appropriation of various cultural artifacts (e.g.,curriculummandates and teaching resources) in specific classroom and school situations (Malderez, 2009; Richardson, 2003).Also, their own agency to utilize and transform different social resources and engage in reflective practice (Farrell, 2007;Turnbull, 2005) can play a critical role in their cognitive development. Focusing on three student teachers’ beliefs changeduring the teaching practicum, we believe this study can enrich our understanding of how their cognitive learning can takeplace in relation to various socio-cultural factors in their situated school contexts.

3. The study

3.1. Research questions

The research question that guided this studywas:What are the participants’ teacher beliefs before the teaching practicum,and how do their beliefs change during the teaching practicum?

3.2. Context and the participants

This study took place in the context of a four-year pre-service language teacher education program at a university inBeijing, China. In the program, language teaching courses are provided in the first three years, and student teachers are

R. Yuan, I. Lee / System 44 (2014) 1–124

required to engage in a ten-week teaching practice in the fourth year. During their teaching practice, a serving teacher fromthe school is appointed as the mentor for each student teacher, who is responsible for guiding, supporting, and evaluatingtheir learning in the school.

This research was designed to capture the change of student teachers’ beliefs through the teaching practicum. Threestudent teachers – Amy, Karen, and Ella (pseudonyms were used), female native Chinese assigned to the same secondaryschool, were invited to participate in this study from the same cohort of pre-service language teachers (70 in total). They wereselected for the study for two main reasons. First, as they were in the same secondary school, this allowed us convenience indata collection and in exploring the research phenomenon (i.e., student teachers’ belief change) in depth through extendedengagement with the participants in the same context (Stake, 2008). Also, the school was chosen as our research site becauseit is one of the top secondary schools in Beijing, which enjoys a good reputation with outstanding students, competentteachers, and sound school culture. Embedded in such a favorable learning environment, we believe the student teacherswere likely to reap benefits from the teaching practicum, thus enabling us to gather insights into their belief change. Ethicalapproval was obtained from the university, the school and the three participants before the study commenced.

3.3. Data collection

The present studywas conducted during the participants’ 10-week teaching practicum in their final year of study. Multiplemethods were used to collect data, including interviews, classroom observation (followed by stimulated recall interviews), aswell as weekly journals the participants kept for the practicum (as a required assignment of the program).

3.3.1. InterviewsThe participants’ teacher beliefs and field experiences were investigated with four rounds of semi-structured interviews.

These interviews with different focuses were scheduled before, during and after the teaching practicum. Interview protocolswere designed based on the research questions concerning whether and how their beliefs changed in the teaching practicumand the possible influencing factors. The first interview was carried out before the practicum, which aimed to investigate theparticipants’ pre-established beliefs about language teaching and learning and about themselves as language teachers. Thesecond and third interview, conducted during the 4th and 10th week of the practicum, explored the possible change in theirbeliefs derived from their interaction with different people (e.g., their students and the mentors) and their participation indifferent professional activities (e.g., lesson planning and practical teaching) in the field school. The last interview took placetwo weeks after the teaching practicum. The participants were guided to reflect on the whole field experience, their beliefchange, and the personal and situational factors that influenced their beliefs. All the interviews were conducted and audio-taped by the first researcher. Chinese was used in the interviews as the participants felt easier to articulate their beliefs andperceptions in their first language.

3.3.2. Classroom observation and stimulated recall interviewIn order to tap student teachers’ belief change in their teaching practice, classroom observation and stimulated recall

interviews were used in our study. The participants taught 8 lessons (45 min for each lesson) in the last 4 weeks of thepracticum, and the first researcher observed and videotaped the 1st, 5th, and 8th lesson of each participant with observationnotes taken. At the end of eachweek, a stimulated recall interviewwas held between the researcher and each student teacher.With video playback, the participants were asked to stop the videotape every time they recalled what they were thinking andencouraged to share everything they could recall at that point (Meijer, Zanting, & Verloop, 2002). The researcher alsoidentified some teaching episodes based on the observation notes, which might reflect or contradict the beliefs stated by theparticipants in their previous interviews, or which the researcher considered successful or needing further improvements. Forexample, the researcher noticed a lead-in activity designed by Amy was not well-received by her students in class. Thisteaching episodewas identified during the stimulated recall interview inwhich Amywas asked to reflect on the situation andexplicate the possible reasons behind. All the stimulated recall interviews, conducted in Chinese, were recorded as well.

3.3.3. Participants’ written reflectionsDuring the teaching practicum, the participants’weekly journals (in Chinese) were also collected at the end of eachmonth,

where they delineated their field learning experience and shared their inner thoughts and beliefs.

3.4. Data analysis

A systematic qualitative interpretive approach was employed in data analysis. First of all, all the recorded interviews(including stimulated recall interviews) were transcribed and translated by the first researcher. The translated version wasthen sent to the participants for member checking with further revision conducted based on their comments. Afterward, theinterview transcripts of each participant were first reviewed to identify the specific beliefs the participant held about lan-guage teaching and learning, language teachers’ professional lives and development, as well as themselves as a languageteacher. The emerging beliefs were then categorized and compared across different interviews (conducted at different stagesthroughout the practicum) to discover the possible belief change categories of each participant, which were further re-examined and re-assembled by drawing on Cabaroglu and Roberts’ (2000) framework to shed light on how the

R. Yuan, I. Lee / System 44 (2014) 1–12 5

participant’s beliefs changed in the teaching practicum (i.e., the processes of belief change). Take Amy as an example. Herbelief about language teachers experienced the process of change – “disagreement” (Cabaroglu & Roberts, 2000) – as shemoved from a belief that language teachers are experts with no need for further development to a new belief that teacherlearning is significant and can take place in their teaching practice and through social interaction. Special attention was paidto the relationships between the identified belief change processes in order to account for the cumulative and evolutionarynature of belief development (Cabaroglu & Roberts, 2000). An across-case analysis (Merriam, 1998) was also conducted withthe themes and categories of each case juxtaposed, refined, and integrated, leading to the final interpretation of the data. Asfor the classroom observations, the videotapes were reviewed together with the transcribed stimulated recall interviews andthe observation notes. A series of significant teaching episodes were identified and transcribed by the first researcher in orderto reflect the process of the participants’ belief change in relation to their teaching practice. Regarding the participants’written reflections, relevant data pertaining to their teacher beliefs and professional learning were revisited to triangulatewith the other data sources. To enhance the trustworthiness of the findings, the two researchers analyzed the data inde-pendently, followed by discussion to reach “intercoder agreement” (Nunan & Bailey, 2009, p. 428). The three participantswere also invited to comment on the data interpretation, and their comments were taken into consideration during therefinement of the final analysis.

4. Findings

In order to shed light on the complex and dynamic processes of the student teachers’ belief transformation in their sit-uated socio-cultural context, the research findings are presented case by case, which provides both a descriptive and analyticaccount of what the participant’ beliefs were like before the teaching practicum, how their beliefs changed and what thenewly emerged beliefs were.

4.1. Amy

Before the teaching practicum, Amy held a set of conflicting beliefs about language teaching by perceiving a dichotomybetween the traditional approach (focusing on vocabulary and grammar with mechanical drills) and Communicative Lan-guage Teaching Approach (CLT). Influenced by the university coursework, she believed that “language learning needs to bemeaningful and interactive and CLT can help teachers develop students’ communicative abilities and language skills”(Interview 1). However, these beliefs were at odds with her high school learning experiences, dominated by grammar drillsand rote learning. Thus she was not certain whether CLT could be successfully applied to the real language classroom:

I think I got two contradicting views in my head. On the one hand, I like to follow CLT because I don’t want to teach in atraditional way and forcemy students to do all the grammatical drills like I had experienced in high school. On the otherhand, I feel it (CLT) sounds idealistic and I don’t know whether it can really work in the classroom (Interview 1).

Irrespective of the language teaching methodology, Amy believed that interest plays a crucial role in language learning,and teachers can arouse students' interest by initiating interesting topics in class:

It is important for students to learn with interest.We can talk about something funny in class to arouse their interest(Interview 1).

Before the practicum, Amy also expressed skepticism about the need for frontline teachers to continue their professionallearning, which was advocated in the teacher education courses:

I think the idea that teachers need to acquire new knowledge and continue to learn seemed unrealistic as they arealready experts and they do not have to learn (Interview 1).

Amy’s engagement in the teaching practicum exerted considerable impacts on her beliefs about language teaching.Through discussing with her mentor and observing her mentor’s lessons, where the communicative approach was adopted,her concerns about the feasibility of CLTwere allayed, and she felt more “enlightened and encouraged” to put it into her futurepractice (Interview 2). On the other hand, Amywas reassured that “the traditional approach is not completely useless, and thesuccess of teaching lies in teachers’ careful design and adaptation in relation to students’ needs” (Interview 2). After observingher mentor’s class, Amy became more convinced of the feasibility of CLT in the Chinese context, as her mentor showed thatCLT could bring about enjoyable and productive learning experience in the classroom:

In the mentor’s class, I find the students are not only enjoying themselves but also learning the language. CLT canworkand I am more confident to try it out in the future (Weekly journal).

Amy’s ongoing reflection made her realize that instead of dichotomizing CLT and traditional teaching approaches, an“integrated approach” should be adopted in her future teaching (Tang et al., 2012):

I will try to cultivate students’ communicative competencies and learning strategies by using CLT.

I will also use the traditional method, like drills, to consolidate their language knowledge (Interview 4).

R. Yuan, I. Lee / System 44 (2014) 1–126

Thus in terms of Amy’s belief about language teaching, due to the continuous interaction between her field experiences(e.g., classroom observation and interactionwith the mentor) and her personal reflections (Ng, et al., 2010; Stuart & Thurlow,2000), she abandoned her original polarized view about the traditional and modern approach to language teaching, andbegan to embrace a new belief that “the modern and traditional approach can go hand in hand to meet students’ needs inlanguage learning” (Interview 4).

In addition, Amy’ belief about language teaching underwent further changes in her own teaching practice in classrooms(Borg, 1999). Before the teaching practicum, while Amy recognized the importance of catering to students’ interest, she held asimple belief that “talking about or showing students something funny in class” (Interview 1) could arouse students’ interestand engage their language learning. Holding this belief, in the first lesson, Amy conducted a lead-in activity by using a stagephoto of an American TV show to introduce some new vocabulary to the students (Lesson observation). She thought the showwas popular and interesting, which could attract students’ attention. Surprisingly, her attempt failed as most students did notwatch American TV shows. Reflecting on this lesson, Amy commented:

Now I understand I need to design the lesson by putting myself in the students’ shoes rather than sitting in the officeand guessing what my students might like (Stimulated recall Interview 1).

In her reflection, Amy also learned that teachers’ talking about or showing students something interesting is not insuf-ficient in language classrooms; instead “they should take into account students’ real life experiences and design meaningfulactivities to actively engage students in their learning” (Interview 2). Thus, through the teaching practicum, Amy deepenedher belief about the role of interest in the classroom and developed some new understanding of how teachers can cater tostudent interest through trial and error (Johnson, 1999).

Furthermore, Amy was exposed to the “learning culture” within the community of language teachers in the field school,which reconstructed her beliefs about teachers’ professional learning. She and other student teachers were invited to a bookclub, which served as a school-based professional development activity for all the English teachers in the field school. In thebook club, the teachers engaged in discussionwith their peers after reading books about language teaching. As Amy reflected:

Every Tuesday afternoon, they (teachers) would gather in the common room and talk about the book they had beenreading. Usually one teacher would lead the discussion and share his/her reading and the others would follow and talkabout how to adapt the ideas in their own practice. Sometimes, they would argue with each other but the atmosphereis quite open and smooth. They also asked for our (student teachers’) opinions based on what we had learned in theteacher education courses (Interview 2).

Through participation in the book club, Amy experienced how the original unrealistic idea of teacher learning was broughtinto reality. Her previous belief that “teachers are already experts and they do not have to learn”was replaced by a new beliefthat teacher learning is both “significant and feasible” (Interview 4). Amy learned from the teachers that even though theywere experienced they were humble and continued to seek their own professional development, even treating studentteachers as equals and co-learners. This was impressive to Amy.

4.2. Karen

Karen started her teaching practicum with a relatively simple understanding about language teaching, which is mainlyconcerned with knowledge transmission and experience sharing:

Teaching English is like sharing my English knowledge and learning experiences with my students and organizingsome activities for them to interact with each other (Interview 1).

In terms of her belief about language teachers, like Amy, Karen also believed that language teachers are experts and enjoyauthority in the classroom:

While teachers should be friendly with students, they should also be authoritative in the classroom. They should notmake mistakes in front of students; otherwise they might lose their respect (Interview 1).

Through the teaching practicum, Karen expanded and deepened her beliefs of language teaching and language teachers.First of all, through designing lesson plans and discussing with her mentor, her prior simple perception of language teachingwas challenged (Mattheoudakis, 2007) as she realized that language teaching is not merely about “sharing experience andorganizing activities”, but it is rather complex and dynamic with a lot of details teachers must attend to:

When I showed mymentor the first lesson I designed, she kept asking mewhy I designed this activity, why I chose thispicture, and what I will do if my plan does not work out. I realize teaching is complex and challenging and teachersneed to take a broader perspective in the design and implementation of each lesson. For example, teachers always needto think about students’ language level and interest, and their short-term needs and long-term development. Moreimportantly, teachers need to think about how to provide students with scaffolding and guidance, rather than justtalking and sharing (Interview 2).

While the mentor’s questions put Karen in deep thinking about the complexities of language teaching including students’levels and needs as well as how to guide them, she was at a loss about “how to put all the fragments (details) together in her

R. Yuan, I. Lee / System 44 (2014) 1–12 7

practice” (Interview 2). To solve this problem, her mentor went through the design of the first lessonwith her, which coveredsetting up lesson objectives, designing lesson activities, and evaluating students’ learning outcomes. She also shared her ownunderstanding and suggestions by relating to what she had learned in the teacher education course. Through the dialogicmediation with the mentor (Vygotsky, 1978), she saw the importance of “forming a situational understanding of the subjectmatter, the curriculum, and the students” in teaching (Weekly journal). Such understanding, according to Karen, is “the key tointegrating the disparate principles and details of language teaching into a coherent and practical framework to guide herpractice” (Weekly journal). Take the use of teaching material as an example, Karen explained,

With the understanding of the curriculum, my students’ English levels and their needs, I will be able to chooseappropriate teaching materials. First, the material should be authentic and interesting so that students can learn realEnglish and won’t feel bored. Second, the materials should not be too difficult but still challenging, so they won’t getfrustrated and can develop their potential. Besides, it is better to expose them to various text types from time to time,like narrative, argumentative and poems, and also a balance needs to be maintained between different aspects ofEnglish learning, including reading, listening, speaking, and writing (Interview 4).

Therefore, through her dialogic interaction with the mentor during the teaching practicum (Johnson, 2006; Tang, 2004),Karen realized the complexities of language teaching, which entails a comprehensive and situational understanding of thesubject matter, the curriculum and the students, contrary to her previous simple belief that language teaching is primarilyabout sharing knowledge and experience and organizing activities.

In terms of her belief about language teachers, before the practicum, Karen believed that teachers were authorities andshould notmakemistakes in front of students. Through observing hermentor’s lessons during the practicum, she developed anew belief about teachers’ mistakes. In one observed lesson, a student directly pointed out her mentor’s mistake:

When the mentor was teaching, a student raised his hand and pointed out a mistake she just made. The teacherapologized to the whole class immediately and also gave a big compliment to that student (Interview 2).

This incident overturned Karen’s prior belief that teachers are “all-knowing” and infallible. Instead of concealing their“imperfections”, she realized that teachers should be “open-minded and self-critical in the classroom” (Weekly journal).

Karen’s belief about language teachers being all-knowing and their superior roles was further challenged and recon-structed in her own teaching practice. In a listening class taught by Karen, one student raised a question about the differencebetween “biography” and “true story”. Karen had never thought about this question, and as a result, she stood in the frontand did not know how to respond to this unexpected situation. In the post-lesson meeting, with the advice of the mentor,Karen reflected on how she could turn this “embarrassing situation” into an opportunity for students’ learning. In the nextlesson, she introduced not only the difference between the two text types, but she also asked the students to review andcompare other text types, like romance and comedy (Lesson observation). This teaching incident made a strong resonancewith Karen’s classroom observation as mentioned above, which consolidated her belief that teachers are not all-knowing butinstead they do make mistakes. More importantly, by reflecting on her teaching and seeking improvement (Farrell, 1999,2007), she enriched her belief and came to realize teachers’ role as “co-learner” who can learn with their students in theclassroom:

When there are some difficult questions, I realize it does not matter to say “I don’t know” in front of students. Whatreally matters is that you should take this opportunity to learnwith your students. You can ask them for help and worktogether to find out the answer. By treating them as co-learners, students will become more motivated in their ownlearning (Stimulated recall Interview 2).

4.3. Ella

Before the teaching practicum, Ella had formed some initial conceptions about language teachers and their professionallives. Based on her prior experience as a student, she tended to focus on the less favorable aspects of teaching as a highlydemanding and stressful job (Interview 1). Specifically, she pointed out the heavy workload faced by language teachers asthey had “tons of assignments they need to mark” (Interview 1):

Hardworking teachers are like marking machines. They need to provide corrections for every single error in students’assignments (Interview 1).

In terms of language teaching, Ella regarded CLT as an effective approach to “stimulating students’ interest and fosteringtheir communicative abilities” (Interview 1). She also highlighted the importance of teachers in “guiding students to exploreand learn in their own way” (Interview 1).

In the teaching practicum, first of all, Ella’s belief about language teachers and their professional lives was broadenedthrough her participation and interaction in the community of English teachers in the school (Ng, et al., 2010; Tang, 2004). Inthe book club, she saw how teachers shared with each other their teaching and offered support to each other. Through theirdaily communication, she also learned how they managed to maintain a strong sense of motivation by keeping a balancebetween work and their personal life. Thus Ella realized that though teaching itself is demanding and can be stressful (as heroriginal belief), teachers can strike a work-life balance:

R. Yuan, I. Lee / System 44 (2014) 1–128

The teachers go to have dinner and sing Karaoke with each other. They also go traveling with their family.I think weshould have passion for teaching, but meanwhile we should pay attention to the quality of our own life (Interview 4).

Besides, the book club experience enriched her beliefs about language teaching, particularly with respect to how to givecorrective feedback on students’writing. After hearing a teacher share her recent reading about providing selective feedbackto students’ compositions in the book club, Ella’s prior belief about teachers as “marking machines” (Interview 1) waschallenged. Moreover, this sharing triggered a small “reform” in the teaching of writing in the school as some English teachers(including Ella) worked together to design and implement a “feedback code form” in their classes, which aimed to informstudents about different error types and give them autonomy to conduct peer-correction and self-correction. This reformexperience in which student teachers and school teachers engaged in collaboration (Stevens et al., 2006) added breadth anddepth to Ella’s beliefs of “corrective feedback” in teaching writing. She realized that teachers need not be marking machines(her original belief) but instead:

They (teachers) need to be purposeful and flexible in using feedback to develop students’ writing abilities, criticalthinking, and independence (Weekly journal).

Therefore, Ella’s participation in the book club as well as the feedback reform overruled her prior perception that teachersshould provide corrective feedback for all student teachers’ written errors, helping her modify and develop a new under-standing that teachers should develop their students as “post-modern learners” (Kumaravadivelu, 2006, p. 206) who areautonomous and strategic in their own error correction and language learning.

Through classroom teaching, Ella’s beliefs about language teaching and learning were further contested, refined anddeveloped (Borg, 1999). To begin with, Ella had concerns about the traditional approach to language teaching and she wasmore inclined towards communicative language teaching. However, her mentor turned out to be a traditional teacher whofocused a great deal on grammar and vocabulary in the classroom, demanding Ella to follow her traditional style of teaching:

Mymentor decidedmy teaching plan and askedme to do lots of drills in each lesson. I do not have any autonomy in myown teaching (Interview 3).

Thus, Ella had to follow her mentor’s requirement with little opportunities to try out alternative approaches (e.g., CLT) inher teaching. Through her first-hand experience with the traditional approach as a student teacher, she began to appreciateits merits, particularly in teaching the language form:

As we always say “Practicemakes perfect”, I think traditional method is an effective approach in teaching grammar andvocabulary by giving students plenty of opportunities for practice (Interview 2).

However, a critical incident occurred, which enabled her to discover the limitations of a decontextualized, form-focusedapproach to language teaching. On one occasion, she found that students made similar mistakes with the passive voice whenshe marked their writing assignments. After reflecting on this she realized that through mechanical drills, students could onlyremember accurate grammatical forms but might not be able to use them appropriately in context. Then she shared with hermentor and suggested some activities based on a “discovery learning approach”, a concept she learned from the universitycoursework. Although her mentor generally favored a more traditional approach, she allowed Ella to experiment with the newapproach in the next lesson, which turned out to be effective. The students were able to work out abstract rules from concreteexamples independently and understand the contextual usage of the passive voice (Lesson observation). In the end, Ella reflected,

I realized that traditional methodmay not be the best way to teach English. It would bemore beneficial to give studentsautonomy and engage them in learning throughmeaningful activities as CLTadvocated.Teacher explanation and drillscan follow interactive tasks to help them understand the structure and master the rules. It should be a combination ofboth methods (Stimulated recall Interview 3).

In this incident, by exercising her agency (Turnbull, 2005), Ella applied her theoretical knowledge into her teachingpractice (Johnson, 2006), which consolidated her prior belief in “involving students in language learning through thecommunicative approach” (Weekly journal), and in allowing them to “explore and learn in their own way” (Interview 1).Similar to Amy, she also developed a better understanding of themerits and limitations of a traditional approach that relies ondrills and constructed a belief about the importance of an integrated approach in language teaching.

5. Discussion

Situated in an EFL context, this study demonstrates that student teachers’ beliefs are not pre-determined or stable, butopen to change and development, which corroborates Borg’s (2006, 2009) claim that significant changes do take place in pre-service teachers’ beliefs through the teaching practicum. Given their past learning experience as a language learner andstudent teacher, student teachers could form a set of beliefs about language teaching and learning, language teachers’ pro-fessional lives and development, as well as themselves as a language teacher. As they come to the field school, their en-counters with the realities of language teaching could trigger a chain of changes in their teacher beliefs. Based on Cabarogluand Roberts’ (2000) framework, our study reveals a range of belief change processes, including confirmation, realization,disagreement, and elaboration. Two new change processes, integration and modification, are also identified.

R. Yuan, I. Lee / System 44 (2014) 1–12 9

First of all, the participants’ belief change started with four processes: confirmation, realization, elaboration anddisagreement (Cabaroglu & Roberts, 2000). Through confirmation, the student teachers strengthened their prior beliefs byperceiving a consistency between these beliefs and the newly presented information. For instance, Amy’s belief in CLT wasconfirmed by observing her mentor’s teaching, which gave her confidence in applying the communicative approach to herfuture practice. Realization refers to the process that the student teachers became more fully aware of or picked up a newbelief in the teaching practicum. One example is that through lesson preparation and discussionwith the mentor, Karen cameto realize the complex and dynamic nature of language teaching. Through elaboration, the student teachers also deepened andexpanded their existing beliefs by adding in new dimensions. For instance, Ella further expanded her belief about languageteachers through the book club and daily interaction. Though she still considered teaching demanding and stressful, sherealized that teachers can promote their own well-being by keeping a balance between their work and personal life.Disagreement took place when the student teachers rejected their previously held beliefs. In Karen’s case, she moved from theperception that teachers as authorities should notmakemistakes to a new belief that teachers should be open and self-criticaland mutually develop their knowledge with students.

Following the above processes of teachers’ belief change, some other change processes also emerged, including integrationand modification. Integration is a new process of belief change identified by our study. Extending from linking up as making aconnection between two constructs (Cabaroglu & Roberts, 2000), integration indicates a more complicated process of refiningand reorganizing of the prior and newly acquired beliefs into a comprehensive and integrated system. For example, followingthe realization of “a situational understanding of the subject matter, the curriculum and the students” in language teaching,Karen explained how such understanding guided her to choose appropriate teachingmaterials by integrating different aspects(principles and details) into a coherent framework, including catering to students’ English levels and interests and striking abalance between different text types and language skills. As for Amy, while her beliefs in CLT were confirmed after observingher mentor’s teaching, the projections into her future work contexts cast new doubts on her perception of CLT’s feasibility.Later, with the mentor’s insightful suggestions and her own reflections, she resolved the rigid dichotomy between “modern”and “traditional”methods and came upwith an “integrated approach” combining the “modern” and “traditional” elements tomaximize the advantages of each method. Thus the development of pre-service teacher beliefs moved from realization orconfirmation to integration. Another new concept that emerged from our study, modification, accompanies the process ofdisagreement. While Cabaroglu and Roberts (2000) suggested disagreement can lead to reversal (i.e., adoption of opposite ofprevious beliefs), our research demonstrated amore complex process inwhich the original beliefs are not simply rejected andreplaced by the opposite ones but are modified and refined through field learning activities. In Ella’s case, while her expe-riences of book club overruled her prior perception that teachers should provide correct answers to all students’ writtenerrors, through participating in the school-based reform, she furthermodified her beliefs and developed a newunderstandingthat teachers should use corrective feedback to foster students’ autonomy and critical thinking. As a result, while Cabarogluand Roberts’ (2000) research is limited to the identification of discrete belief change categories, our study extends theirfindings by revealing the ongoing process of pre-service EFL teachers’ belief transformation. For instance, confirmation andrealization can accompany integration, and disagreement can lead to modification. What needs to be pointed out is that ourstudy does not mean to capture the entire process of pre-service teachers’ cognitive development or suggest some linear andfixed routes for their belief change. On the contrary, given student teachers’ individual experiences and various encounters inthe situated contexts, different belief change processes might emerge in varying contexts, which interact with each other andcontribute to the development of their personal belief system in guiding their learning to teach (Johnson, 1999).

Moreover, our study testifies to the transformative influence that school-based learning can exert on student teachers’cognitive development (Borg, 1999; Stuart & Thurlow, 2000; Tang, 2004). Drawing on sociocultural perspectives, a range ofinfluencing factors can be identified which contribute to the processes of student teachers’ belief change during the teachingpracticum. First of all, as new members of the school community, the participants engaged in its professional practice withspecial assistance from other full members. In spite of the relatively short length of the teaching practicum (10 weeks), theywere given abundant opportunities to take part in a variety of social learning activities, such as classroom observation, bookclub and teaching reform. These activities brought in fresh and rich learning experiences for the student teachers, consoli-dating, modifying, and expanding their teacher beliefs in terms of both language teaching and being language teachers(Johnson, 2006). For Amy, thanks to her participation in the book club, she discarded her previous belief that teachers areexperts with no need for further development and acquired a new understanding of teacher learning in their own practice.For Ella, through participating in the book club and the school-based reform on the teaching of writing, she reconstructed herbelief that instead of being markingmachines teachers can be purposeful and strategic in using feedback to develop students’autonomy and writing abilities.

The mentors also played an influential role in student teachers’ developing and changing beliefs. First of all, through theirown teaching, the mentors could inform student teachers about the subject matter, teaching methods and pupils’ needs andmodel appropriate teaching practice (Gao & Benson, 2012; Malderez, 2009). In the lessons the student teachers taught, thementors were involved in the lesson design and preparation, provided scaffolding to assist the student teachers’ teachingperformance, and engaged them in post-lesson reflection (Gebhard, 2009; Johnson, 2006). For example, while Karen wasoverwhelmed by the complexities of language teaching, her mentor carefully guided her through the process of lesson designwith cognitive support and practical assistance, which helped her form a situational understanding of language teaching.More importantly, the mentors could facilitate student teachers’ belief construction and development through “dialogicmeditation” (Johnson, 2009, p. 63) during which student teachers’ personal beliefs are made explicit, with new ideas and

R. Yuan, I. Lee / System 44 (2014) 1–1210

insights being introduced in order to advance their cognitive abilities. For example, Amy developed a new belief about the“integrated” language teaching approach with the mentors’ strategic mediation through modeling and questioning. There-fore, although the participants only taught 8 lessons during the practicum, the opportunities to interact with the “expert”collaborators (mentors) with scaffolding and guidance shaped and reshaped their teacher beliefs (Johnson, 2006).

However, the constraints the mentors put on the student teachers could pose obstacles to their belief development(Hobson, 2002). In Ella’s case, mentoring exerted a different kind of influence on her belief development. Under her mentor’sstrict control (who played the role of an authoritarian), initially shewas not given opportunities to try out alternative teachingapproaches in class. Being compelled to adopt a traditional, form-focused approach, and with little scaffolded learningprovided by the mentor, Ella began to develop a new belief about the potential benefits of the traditional method in teaching,contrary to her previous belief in CLT. Through her ongoing teaching, however, Ella discovered some problems in students’learning of the passive voice brought by the form-focused and decontextualized approach. She shared with the mentor andproposed a new plan informed by the discovery approach. The mentor allowed her to try out her plan in the classroom, as aresult of which, she formed a better understanding of the merits and limitations of the traditional approach and developed anew belief about an integrated approach that combines the traditional and communicative method. In Ella’ case, the findingsshow that mentors could exert powerful impacts on student teachers’ cognitive development by granting or withholdingopportunities for them to explore and learn in real practice (Grudnoff, 2011; Malderez, 2009).

Lastly, sociocultural perspectives also emphasize the role of agency in people’s cognitive development, which involves thereconstruction and transformation of the existing social recourses and practices inways that are responsive to individual andlocal needs (Johnson, 2009; Lasky, 2005; Thorne, 2005). In this study, the student teachers demonstrated their capacity tooperate with a strong sense of agency (Turnbull, 2005), which catalyzed their practical learning and pushed their beliefchange forward. First of all, by taking a reflective stance, the participants evaluated their working environment and soughtassistance from others in face of obstacles and challenges. For example, Karen came to her mentor for help about how to turnan “embarrassing” situation into a learning opportunity for students. Also, the teachers actively inquired into their ownclassroom teaching and engaged in “reflective practice” (Farrell, 2007), through which their beliefs were examined andtransformed. For instance, despite the constraints imposed by the mentor, Ella reflected on her teaching of grammar andengaged in discussion with the mentor to seek solutions to the problems that emerged from teaching. By employing theconcept of “discovery learning approach”, shemanaged to help students master the use of the passive voice, which confirmedher belief in students’ autonomous learning and CLT and helped her develop an integrated view of language teaching. In thissense, the student teachers became agentive and reflective users and producers of theory in their own practice (Johnson,2006).

6. Implications and conclusion

Drawing on sociocultural perspectives, this study reveals the processes of teachers’ belief change, which can be attributedto their situated learning in the field school with sound professional culture and expert support. Despite the short duration ofthe teaching practicum, the participants’ prior beliefs interacted with the new input and experiences through participation,practice, and reflection, as result of which, their beliefs about language teaching and their self-understanding as a languageteacher were both transformed and developed (Freeman & Johnson, 1998; Kelly, 2006). That said, we are aware that as ourstudy focuses on three participants in a particular school, its findings cannot be generalized to other contexts. It should also benoted that the teaching practicum generally provides student teachers with atypical teaching experience that could differhugely from that of regular teachers. In the study, for instance, the student teachers taught only 8 lessons in 4 weeks. We arenot sure whether and how their beliefs might change when they become real language teachers in the classroom. It is alsouncertain whether their changed beliefs in the teaching practicum can be sustained in their future practice where morecontextual challenges might emerge. Moreover, in terms of school contexts, while the learning environment in the fieldschool was considered highly favorable (particularly in Amy and Karen’s cases), it remains unclear whether the studentteachers’ beliefs would have undergone similar changes had they been placed in a school with less support.

Despite the limitations of the study, some implications can be drawn from our findings for the design and improvement ofpre-service language teacher education. First of all, we believe that maximum opportunities should be provided for studentteachers to take part in various professional activities in both the coursework and the teaching practicum, such as reflectivejournal writing (Lee, 2008), post-lesson debriefing (Watson & Williams, 2004), action research (Johnston, 2009). Throughexposure to various forms of learning activities, they can engage in critical reflection on their perceptions about languageteaching and learning (Gao & Benson, 2012), develop an appreciation of the complexities and challenges that compriseteachers’ professional practice, and construct a strong self-belief as a language teacher (Borg, 2006; Turnbull, 2005). Besides,student teachers should try to exercise their agency and engage in “reflective practice” (Farrell, 2007) so that they can makeconnections between theory and practice and explore how they can apply their beliefs of learners, language, and learning tocontexts within which they work (Cheng et al., 2010). To achieve this, an open and supportive environment is crucial inteacher education programs, given the various institutional and sociocultural factors at play in student teachers’ learning toteach (Johnson, 2009). Particularly, as our research suggests that student teachers’ cognitive learning might be hindered bytheir mentors’ heavy control, school mentors and other stakeholders need to be alert and sensitive to the subtle power re-lations between them and mentees, and the school communities where the teaching practicum takes place should try tointegrate student teachers into their professional work and lives to a larger extent. In this way, both autonomy and scaffolding

R. Yuan, I. Lee / System 44 (2014) 1–12 11

can be provided so that student teachers can articulate their thoughts, experiment with new ideas, and develop their “praxis”through the process of dialogic mediation (Hobson, 2002; Johnson, 2006).

Further research can investigate in greater depth the long-term belief development of pre-service language teachers,particularly the possible change in their beliefs in their first few years of teaching. Besides, it would be meaningful to explorehow different institutional and socio-cultural factors may impact student teachers’ belief change (or lack of change) indifferent school contexts.

References

Borg, S. (1999). Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching. System, 27, 19–31.Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: a review of research on what language teachers think, how, believe, and do. Language Teaching,

36(2), 81–109.Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum.Borg, S. (2009). Language teacher cognition. In A. Burns, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 163–171). New

York: Cambridge University Press.Cabaroglu, N., & Roberts, J. (2000). Development in student teachers’ pre-existing beliefs during a 1-year PGCE programme. System, 28, 387–402.Cheng, M., Cheng, A., & Tang, S. (2010). Closing the gap between the theory and practice of teaching: implications for teacher education programs in Hong

Kong. Journal of Education for Teaching: International Research and Pedagogies, 36(1), 91–104.Edwards, A., & Protheroe, L. (2003). Learning to see in classrooms: what are student teachers learning about teaching and learning while learning to teach in

schools? British Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 227–242.Fang, Z. H. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47–65.Farrell, T. S. C. (1999). The reflective assignment: unlocking preservice teachers’ beliefs on grammar teaching. RELC Journal, 30, 1–17.Farrell, T. S. C. (2007). Reflective language teaching: From research to practice. London: Continuum Press.Freeman, D. (2004). Language, socio-cultural theory, and second language teacher education: examining the technology of subject matter and the ar-

chitecture of instruction. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher education: A sociocultural approach (pp. 169–197). Clevedon, England:Multilingual Matters.

Freeman, D., & Johnson, K. E. (1998). Reconceptualizing the knowledge-base of language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 32(3), 397–417.Gao, X. S., & Benson, P. (2012). “Unruly pupils” in pre-service English language teachers’ teaching practicum experiences. Journal of Education for Teaching:

International Research and Pedagogy, 38(2), 127–140.Gebhard, J. (2009). The practicum. In A. Burns, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 250–258). New York:

Cambridge University Press.Grudnoff, L. (2011). Rethinking the practicum: limitations and possibilities. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(3), 223–234.Hawkins, M. (2004). Social apprenticeships through mediated learning in language teacher education. In M. Hawkins (Ed.), Language learning and teacher

education: A sociocultural approach (pp. 89–110). Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.Hobson, A. (2002). Student teachers’ perceptions of school-based mentoring in initial teacher training (ITT). Mentoring and Tutoring: Partnership in Learning,

10(1), 5–10.Johnson, K. E. (1999). Understanding language teaching: Reasoning in action. Boston: Heinle & Heinle Publishing Company.Johnson, K. E. (2006). The sociocultural turn and its challenges for second language teacher education. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 235–257.Johnson, K. E. (2009). Second language teacher education: A sociocultural perspective. New York: Routledge.Johnson, K. E., & Golombek, P. R. (2003). “Seeing” teacher learning. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 729–738.Johnston, B. (2009). Collaborative teacher development. In A. Burns, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education

(pp. 241–249). New York: Cambridge University Press.Kagan, D. (1992). Implications of research on teacher beliefs. Educational Psychologists, 27(1), 65–90.Kelly, P. (2006). What is teacher learning? A socio-cultural perspective. Oxford Review of Education, 32(4), 505–519.Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding language teaching: From method to postmethod. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understanding teacher identity, agency and professional vulnerability in a context of secondary school reform.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 899–916.Lantolf, J. (2000). Introducing socio-cultural theory. In J. Lantolf (Ed.), Socio-cultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.Lantolf, J. (2004). Sociocultural theory and second and foreign language learning: an overview of sociocultural theory. In K. van Esch, & O. St. John (Eds.),

New insights into foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 13–34). Frankfurt, Germany: Peter Lang Verlag.Lee, I. (2008). Fostering preservice reflection through response journals. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 117–139.Lortie, D. (1975). School teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Malderez, A. (2009). Mentoring. In A. Burns, & J. C. Richards (Eds.), The Cambridge guide to second language teacher education (pp. 259–268). New York:

Cambridge University Press.Mattheoudakis, M. (2007). Tracking changes in pre-service EFL teacher beliefs in Greece: a longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 1272–

1288.Meijer, P., Zanting, A., & Verloop, N. (2002). How can student teachers elicit experienced teachers’ practical knowledge? Tools, suggestions, and significance.

Journal of Teacher Education, 53(5), 406–419.Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Ng, W., Nicholas, H., & Williams, A. (2010). School experience influences on pre-service teachers’ evolving beliefs about effective teaching. Teaching and

Teacher Education, 26, 278–289.Nunan, D., & Bailey, K. (2009). Exploring second language classroom research: A comprehensive guide. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Pajares, F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307–332.Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: a longitudinal study. System, 29, 177–195.Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Raths, & A. C. McAninch (Eds.), Teacher beliefs and classroom performance: The impact of teacher

education (pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.Stake, R. (2008). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (pp. 119–150). Los Angeles: SAGE Publications,

Inc.Stevens, D., Cliff Hodges, G., Gibbons, S., Hunt, P., & Turvey, A. (2006). Transformations in learning and teaching through Initial Teacher Education. Literacy:

Teacher Education and Development, 40(2), 97–105.Stuart, C., & Thurlow, D. (2000). Making it their own: preservice teachers’ experiences, beliefs, and classroom practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(2),

113–121.Tang, E., Lee, J., & Chun, C. (2012). Development of teaching beliefs and the focus of change in the process of pre-service ESL teacher education. Australian

Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 90–107.Tang, S. Y. F. (2004). The dynamics of school-based learning in initial teacher education. Research Papers in Education, 19(2), 185–204.Thorne, S. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 393–409.

R. Yuan, I. Lee / System 44 (2014) 1–1212

Tillema, H. (2006). Stability and change in student teachers’ beliefs about teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 4(2), 217–228.Turnbull, M. (2005). Student teacher professional agency in the practicum. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(2), 195–208.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. New York: Plenum.Watson, A., & Williams, M. (2004). Post-lesson debriefing: delayed or immediate? An investigation of student teacher talk. Journal of Education for Teaching:

International Research and Pedagogy, 30(2), 85–96.Wertsch, J., Tulviste, P., & Hagstrom, F. (1993). A sociocultural approach to agency. In A. Forman, N. Minick, & A. Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning socio-

cultural dynamics in children’s development (pp. 336–357). New York: Oxford University Press.Wright, T. (2010). Second language teacher education: review of recent research on practice. Language Teaching, 43(3), 259–296.