This article was downloaded by: [Linnaeus University]On: 11 October 2014, At: 18:50Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Asia-Pacific Journal of TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/capj20
Teachers' beliefs and practices: adynamic and complex relationshipHongying Zheng aa Sichuan Normal University , Sichuan , People's Republic of ChinaPublished online: 06 Aug 2013.
To cite this article: Hongying Zheng (2013) Teachers' beliefs and practices: a dynamicand complex relationship, Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41:3, 331-343, DOI:10.1080/1359866X.2013.809051
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2013.809051
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 2013Vol. 41, No. 3, 331–343, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2013.809051
Teachers’ beliefs and practices: a dynamic and complex relationship
Hongying Zheng*
Sichuan Normal University, Sichuan, People’s Republic of China
(Received 13 November 2012; final version received 2 March 2013)
Research on teachers’ beliefs has provided useful insights into understanding processesof teaching. However, no research has explored teachers’ beliefs as a system nor haveresearchers investigated the substance of interactions between teachers’ beliefs, prac-tices and context. Therefore, the author adopts complexity theory to explore the featuresof the teachers’ belief system and how interactions between different components ofthe teachers’ belief system contribute to complex features of their beliefs. The authorillustrates this application by using a case study example of a language teacher in aChinese secondary school. The study used the methods of semi-structured interviews,observations and stimulated recall interviews. It revealed the co-existence of differenttypes of beliefs. The interaction of these beliefs determined the relationship between theteacher’s beliefs and practice. Moreover, the practices of “token adoption” and eclecticapproach were noted as the non-linear features of the teacher’s belief system at the timeof curriculum reform.
Keywords: complexity theory; dialectic relationship; dynamic interaction; teachers’beliefs
Research of teachers’ beliefs
Exploring what teachers think, know and believe has been the focus of many educa-tional research endeavours with the development of cognitivism since the 1970s. In thelast 20 years, substantial evidence has indicated that teachers’ beliefs are “complex”,“dynamic”, “contextualised” and “systematic” (Borg, 2006, p. 272). Studies revealingteachers’ beliefs to be complex focus on the exploration of teachers’ beliefs in a range ofareas, such as pedagogical content (Andrews, 2001, 2003; Breen, Hird, Milton, Oliver, &Thwaite, 2001; Gatbonton, 1999; Johnston & Goettsch, 2000), prior learning experience(Farrell, 1999; Golombek, 1998; Hayes, 2005), teaching practices (Basturkmen, Loewen, &Ellis, 2004; Borg, 1999; Burns, 1992; Johnson, 1992; Richards & Lockhart, 1996; Woods,1996), learning process (MacDonald, Badger, & White, 2001; Peacock, 2001; Schulz,2001) and so on. Referring to the dynamic nature of teachers’ beliefs, some studies havefocused on cognitive development by comparing inexperienced and experienced teach-ers (Mok, 1994; Nunan, 1992; Tsui, 2003). Some have investigated how pre-service andin-service teacher training programmes contribute to the dynamics of teachers’ beliefs(Freeman, 1993). Others have examined teachers’ beliefs from an ecological perspective,claiming that the dynamic interactions between teachers and other participants contributeto the holistic exploration of “pedagogical reality” (Tudor, 2001, p. 9). Such reality mayoften seem “confusing, contradictory, and, at times, rather trivial” (p. 10).
*Email: [email protected]
© 2013 Australian Teacher Education Association
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
332 H. Zheng
As far as belief systems are concerned, there is considerable agreement that a beliefsystem consists of substructures of beliefs, which are not necessarily logically struc-tured (Richardson, 2003). The existence of conflicting, even contrasting beliefs makesit even more complex (Bryan, 2003). Some researchers have argued that the belief sys-tems consist of primary and derivative beliefs, central and peripheral beliefs (Brownlee,Boulton-Lewis, & Purdie, 2002; Green, 1971). Thompson (1992) highlighted two key fea-tures of beliefs: that they can be held with varying degrees of conviction and that they arenon-consensual. These statements indicate that teachers’ beliefs may demonstrate quali-tative differences, the interaction of which may lead to the emergence of new aspects ofthe relationship between beliefs and practice. The beliefs in a system never appear fullyindependent, which, consequently, argues for research to focus on teachers’ beliefs as aninterrelated system.
However, hardly any research has explored the qualitative differences between dif-ferent elements of teachers’ beliefs. Moreover, research so far has not investigated thesubstance of the interaction between different elements of teachers’ beliefs in relation totheir practice and contexts. As revealed by Borg (2006), of all the characteristics of beliefs,the least understood is the manner in which teachers’ beliefs function as a system. Hethus suggested that further research needs to be carried out on “how the different ele-ments in teachers’ cognitive systems interact and which of these elements, for example,are core and which are peripheral” (p. 272). In this research context, my study is designedto approach the relationship between teachers’ beliefs, practice and contexts through com-plexity theory that directly addresses the complex, dynamic, systematic and contextualisedfeatures.
Complexity theory in understanding teachers’ belief systems
Complexity theory, which relates to chaos theory, originated in different disciplines, includ-ing biology, physics and mathematics, in the mid-twentieth century (Feryok, 2010). Theword “complexity” does not mean the same in relation to the theory as it does in everydaylanguage. It means “edge of chaos” (Lewin, 1999), which refers to the point between mech-anistic predictability and complete unpredictability (Bak, 1996). In other words, althoughsystems are filled with turmoil and confusion, they still have the maximum potential toadapt, learn and develop. The word “system” refers to a set of things so related as toform a unity or organic whole. Complex systems consist of different types of element oragent, which connect and interact in different and changing ways. These elements or agentsmay themselves be complex systems, which are coupled and tend to be non-linear. It thusemphasises the dynamic interaction between different components of systems, which aimsto explain “how the interacting parts of a complex system give rise to the system’s col-lective behaviour and how such a system simultaneously interacts with its environment”(Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008, p. 1). Moreover, it looks at the world in ways whichbreak with simple cause-and-effect models, linear predictability and a dissection approachto understanding phenomena. Instead, it emphasises non-linearity, unpredictability, mutual-adaptation, co-evolution, dynamic interaction and self-organisation for organisational life.It has been applied to examine cognitive development (Smith & Thelen, 1993; Thelen &Smith, 1994), second language development (de Bot, Lowie, & Verspoor, 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 1997, 2002; Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008; van Lier, 1998, 2004) and so on.Central to these applications is the idea that complexity theory studies systems “producedby a set of components that interact in particular ways to produce some overall state or format a particular point in time” (Larsen-Freeman & Cameron, 2008, p. 26).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 333
Hence, stressing holism, interconnectedness, and unpredictability, complexity theoryprovides a powerful challenge to conventional approaches to research on teacher beliefs,and, in a way, more accurately represents the diversity of teachers’ mental lives, themeaning of which is constructed in the examination of interactions between and amongthe components of teachers’ beliefs, practice and contexts.
The study
In 2001, the Chinese government launched the National English Curriculum Standardsfor Nine-Year Compulsory Education and Senior High School Education (the NECS).The NECS aims to promote the concept of “quality education for each and every stu-dent” (Ministry of Education, 2001, p. 2). For the first time in Chinese educationalhistory, the NECS has promoted a paradigm shift from a traditional teacher-dominated,knowledge-based transmission mode of teaching to a more learner-centred, experience-based, problem-solving mode of teaching. However, shifts in educational orientation in thecurriculum do not necessarily induce changes in teachers’ beliefs and practice. The aware-ness of cognitive dissonance in practice may lead to changes in beliefs and/or practice.For an individual’s belief system, a flexible system may be fostered by reflection on thecognitive dissonance in practice. Therefore, in order to promote language teachers’ adap-tation to the NECS, it is important to understand how the interactions between differentcomponents of language teachers’ belief system contribute to the complex features of theteachers’ belief system.
Research questions
In the study, I regard EFL (English as a Foreign Language) teachers’ beliefs as a complexsystem, within which the teachers’ beliefs about EFL teaching and learning, classroompractice and contexts are sets of interacting components, while at the same time being com-plex systems themselves. In the context of curriculum reform in China, the changes in EFLteachers’ belief systems involve complex interactive dynamics between these componentsin the teachers’ belief system. Taking into consideration the diversity of EFL teachers’beliefs, and the filtering effect of teachers’ beliefs in all aspects of EFL teaching, my studyinvestigated the following two research questions:
(1) What are the distinguishing features of the Chinese secondary school EFL teachers’beliefs in the context of curriculum reform?
(2) How do the interactions between language teachers’ beliefs and practices contributeto the complex features of the teachers’ belief system?
Sampling
In order to explore the features of language teachers’ belief system in great detail, I con-ducted a case study on six Chinese EFL teachers. The participant teachers were selected onthe basis of representativeness in relation to the research questions: (1) they were all experi-enced teachers, with more than three years’ teaching experience; (2) they were teachers withrelatively homogeneous current teaching situations, for example, they were all teachingstate secondary school students aged from 13 to 15.
In order to maintain anonymity and confidentiality, I used pseudonyms for all theparticipant teachers and all data collected during the study were kept, and will remain,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
334 H. Zheng
confidential. Moreover, the consent form was designed to ensure that no pressure wasapplied to the teachers as they had the freedom to decline involvement in the study. In orderto conform to ethical guidelines, the participants were also informed of the general aims,the procedures, the benefits and potential harm of the study to the participant teachers.
Given the limitation of the space of the paper, I draw on the case of one teacher, whomI have called Li, as an illustrative example. Li worked in a junior high school in Chengdu,Sichuan province in China. It is a state school under the administration of the Ministry ofEducation and EFL teachers in this school are required to follow the NECS as the generalguidance for teaching, the fact of which makes Li no exception from the other five teach-ers in terms of contextual background. Li has worked in this school for 12 years since hergraduation from a university that trains primary and secondary teachers. Her school headteacher recommended her to me as a participant teacher in my study because of her indus-trious work and her success in helping students achieve high scores in exams. Moreover,she was chosen as an example because I had elicited rich data from her as she was eager toshare her beliefs with me.
Data collection
Interviews, classroom observation and stimulated recall interviews were adopted as theways to elicit data. Semi-structured interviews were conducted before classroom observa-tions in order to elicit the teachers’ professed beliefs about EFL teaching and learning.After the semi-structured interviews, I conducted classroom observations to ascertain theextent to which the teachers’ classroom practice was affected by their beliefs. In order toachieve authenticity of the data, I conducted classroom observations on naturally occur-ring teaching for each teacher in their teaching of one unit, which usually covered eight tonine sessions. In order to explore how the teachers put their ideas into practice and howtheir professed beliefs related to their practice, I focused my observation on the followingactivities in each observed lesson: (1) the implementation of lesson planning for each les-son and for the whole unit; (2) vocabulary teaching; (3) grammar teaching; (4) listeningcomprehension tasks; (5) reading comprehension tasks; (6) speaking activities; (7) writ-ten exercises; (8) pair work and group work; (9) error correction; (10) use of the targetlanguage. After each observation, I conducted stimulated recall interviews to elicit theteachers’ beliefs underlying specific practices. These interviews involved the use of video-tapes and sometimes field notes to aid the teachers’ recall of the beliefs underpinning theirpractice in class.
Data analysis
Data analysis starts from the research questions. As complexity theory emphasises the“interconnectedness” of complex systems, I explored the features of the teachers’ beliefsnot only from the perspective of the content of the beliefs, but also from that of the relation-ship between different beliefs. To be specific, I adopted template approaches by starting theanalysis using pre-determined codes: beliefs about EFL; beliefs about EFL teaching; beliefsabout EFL learning; beliefs about EFL learners; beliefs about EFL teachers. These initialcodes served as a template for data analysis, on which basis I gathered relevant phrases, sen-tences or whole paragraphs under each code heading, forming five major categories of theteachers’ beliefs. Then I further identified emerging themes and sub-themes within eachcategory. The themes concerning the connections between the teachers’ beliefs emergedwhen examining the features of the content of beliefs.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 335
In exploring the relationship between the teachers’ beliefs and practice, I adopted anopen and “inductive” approach to analysing the teachers’ stimulated recall interviews byrelating them to their practices. In the study, the initial data analysis revealed that 279 com-mentaries were used to rationalise 385 identified classroom practices by six teachers. I thendrew up individual profiles for each of the teachers, in which I listed the beliefs thematisedfrom commentaries articulated by each teacher, and alongside each item of belief, thosepractices that, according to the teacher, expressed or reflected particular beliefs. Each indi-vidual profile therefore displayed the links that the teacher made between their beliefs aboutEFL teaching and learning and related practice.
All the data analysed were kept in Chinese. In order to avoid transformation of themeanings expressed in the original transcripts through translation from Chinese to English,all analysis of the data was based on the original Chinese transcript. I only translated intoEnglish those quotations which I have inserted into the paper.
Findings: Li’s complex belief system
As a teacher of 12 years’ teaching experience, as well as a language learner herself, Li heldher own views about EFL teaching and learning based on her language learning and teach-ing experience. Moreover, against the background of the national curriculum reform, shewas exposed to the influence of the NECS. In the process of accommodating the NECS, shealso needed to adapt to the realities of each teaching situation in its own right. On the basisof the sociocultural understandings of teachers’ beliefs and practice, complexity theoryoffers a framework by means of which beliefs can not only be systematically investigatedwithout isolating them from their social context, but also be given a role to play in adapt-ing contexts (Thelen & Smith, 1994). In this case, Li’s belief system was examined in thestudy in the here-and-now context, to which the experience of past language teaching andlearning is fitted.
Li’s complex beliefs
In the study, the teachers’ beliefs were examined as being composed of the following fiveareas, including beliefs about EFL, beliefs about EFL teaching, beliefs about EFL learn-ing, beliefs about EFL learners, and beliefs about the teaching roles. For example, in termsof beliefs about EFL – an epistemological issue about what English is about as a for-eign language – Li believed that “EFL is an instrument that helps students understand theworld and pass exams as well.” Li expressed her belief about EFL teaching as involving“a communicative process on both information and thoughts between teachers and learn-ers”. Meanwhile, she emphasised that “EFL learning is a process of habit formation, whichrequires repetition.” As to the teachers’ role, Li believed that “it would change accordingto different activities while teachers and learners were interlocutors”. She thus regarded thebest way of teaching is to teach according to learners’ differences, which “are due to thelearners’ intelligence, learning habit and the degree of support from their family”.
Simply having beliefs about different areas may not fully explain the features of com-plexity of the teachers’ belief system. The teachers might have held alternative beliefs aboutthe same issue, with varying degrees of conviction. For example, Li explained her EFLteaching objectives by saying:
My focus on developing learners’ communicative skills has changed greatly with the imple-mentation of the NECS. Teaching EFL is to teach the students ways to communicate with
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
336 H. Zheng
others. For example, when we learn something about “invention”, the purpose is not to teachthe students several useful expressions or words, but to help them share their ideas about“invention” with their peers. Only by communicating with others, can students internalise thelanguage. However, I cannot deny that sometimes I also teach for exams as the students arerequired to get high scores in junior high entrance examinations.
This statement showed that Li assimilated the new concept about EFL teaching for com-municative skills from the NECS into her beliefs, while the belief about teaching for examsco-existed with it. In the meantime, these two beliefs display different degrees of convic-tion. The above example revealed that Li’s belief about teaching for communicative skillswas stronger in degree of conviction than her beliefs about teaching for exams in this teach-ing context. Li’s belief in the importance of teaching for exams outweighed her belief inthe importance of teaching for communicative skills. Thus, the degree of conviction of theteachers’ beliefs was not static, which varied according to different situations. In the study,Li’s convictions about certain beliefs were stronger when they were grounded in previ-ous teaching experiences than when they were based on theoretical justification. Once Liemphasised the importance of communicative language teaching by saying:
Some teachers may stick to their previous way of teaching by focusing on grammar translationapproach. However, I believe communicative language teaching approach can help learnerslearn real English. By doing so in recent two years, I realise that communicative languageteaching can not only help my students communicate more fluently but also help them achievehigh scores in exams.
The complexity of Li’s beliefs also lay in the fact that different areas of her beliefs wereinterrelated with one another. In Li’s case, her beliefs about EFL teaching and learningconsisted of a coherent belief system. To be precise, Li’s beliefs about EFL as a way ofcommunication were related to her beliefs about how she conducted EFL teaching. Heremphasis on the approach of repetition was seen to be closely related to her beliefs aboutEFL learning as a process of habit formation. These connections were consistent and posi-tive. However, there were also occasions when two inconsistent beliefs co-existed, such asthe co-existence of contextualised and de-contextualised teaching. In the study, Li did notexplicitly claim that she adopted de-contextualised teaching, which, however, was evidentin some of her teaching practices. Such phenomena may be explained by the concept of“token adoption”, indicating that some new terms in the NECS such as “contextualisedteaching”, “CLT [communicative language teaching]”, “learners as communicators”, andso on were only picked up by her without real understanding. These beliefs were professedexplicitly by Li in the study, but were not directly related to her practice. Whether these pro-fessed beliefs were the beliefs underpinning the teachers’ practice needs to be examined byrelating to their classroom practice.
Dynamic and non-linear relationship between Li’s beliefs and practice
Most previous study of the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practice focused onthe exploration of consistency and inconsistency. As most instances of inconsistency inbeliefs identified in the literature are arguably partly due to the fact that researchers have notdistinguished between the teachers’ professed beliefs and their implicit beliefs underpin-ning practice, my study explored teachers’ beliefs by juxtaposing their professed beliefs andtheir beliefs in practice so as to elicit the interactive complexity existing between the two.In order to obtain the data of the teachers’ beliefs in practice, I focused on their retrospective
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 337
commentaries upon the immediate context (i.e. the context in which the teachers’ actionstook place). As the exploration of the teachers’ retrospective comments extrapolated themeanings the teachers attributed to their practices, the possible patterns of the links betweenbeliefs and practice emerged. Such an exploration reveals the dynamic aspect of the system,which implies that the relationship between the teachers’ beliefs and practice changes allthe time as the teachers’ belief system is not isolated but connected to a dynamic contextof educational reform.
In the study, in most cases, more than one belief underpinned a practice. These beliefsdynamically interacted with each other in particular teaching contexts. They might eitherbe compatible with, or contradictory to, each other, exerting different influences on theteachers’ practice according to different classroom circumstances. In the case of Li, thestudy identified 86 individual classroom practices in Li’s observed lessons and 47 commen-taries underpinning these practices, which indicated the complexity of Li’s belief systemin relation to the features of diversity and interaction of her beliefs in practice.
Firstly, the teachers’ practice seemed to be in fact determined by a combination of arange of compatible beliefs. Here the term “compatible beliefs” indicates that differentbeliefs are consistent and co-exist in underpinning certain practice without causing con-flict. For example, under the influence of the beliefs that “prior knowledge helps learnersto understand new knowledge”, “the introduction of prior knowledge can arouse learners’interest and stimulate them to participate in learning actively”, and “a contextualised intro-duction can leave learners with a deep impression”, Li introduced new words in class byreferring to learners’ prior knowledge. That is, the way in which the learners undertookthe learning process and the learners’ needs were the major concerns for Li in this specificcontext and they were compatible with promoting the contextualised vocabulary introduc-tion. Therefore, whether the beliefs can work in harmony to underpin a certain action or notdepends mostly on the extent to which they are compatible with the teachers’ core beliefsabout EFL teaching objectives and the ways to achieve these teaching objectives. In thiscase, Li’s beliefs about EFL teaching objectives worked as a core belief in underpinningher practice.
Secondly, the consistency between the teachers’ professed beliefs and practice maybe superficial. That is, the teachers may adopt an officially promoted teaching concept inname only, not in essence, which is called the practice of “token adoption” (Tudor, 2001,p. 45). In the case of Li, such practice was mostly revealed in relation to her implementationof new concepts in the NECS. For example, although Li claimed that she adopted task-based language teaching (TBLT) in her teaching, her practice revealed a variety of activitieswhich deviated from real TBLT in that they failed to achieve the purpose of learning tocommunicate. That is, Li regarded the mere adoption of tasks as the practice of TBLT. Liexplained in one episode that “the main purpose of using these tasks in teaching was topromote learners’ interest in learning”, which differs from the original aim of TBLT: tocreate a real purpose for language use and provide a natural context for language studyand to promote constant learning and improvement (Willis, 1996). The reasons behind theissue may partly be her misinterpretation of TBLT, and partly her pedagogical knowledgeand so on.
In relation to complexity theory, the practice of “token adoption” exemplifies the non-linear feature of the development of the teachers’ belief system at the time of change.The introduction of the new concepts of the NECS did not cause the teachers’ beliefs andpractice to change in ways that were expected. That is, if the teachers misinterpreted certainnew concepts in the NECS as being in tune with the beliefs they already had, they didnot necessarily change their practice. Thus, the interactions between their existing beliefs,
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
338 H. Zheng
the new concepts of the NECS, their interpretation of the NECS, and the teaching realityproduced tensions which might have led to the practice of “token adoption”.
Thirdly, the study provides strong evidence for the fact that not all the beliefs can oper-ate without conflict and tension. The tensions between beliefs were a distinct feature ofthe teachers’ belief system, and reflected non-linearity in the development of their beliefsystem at the time of the curriculum reform. For example, in the study, Li revealed ten-sions mostly related to her existing beliefs and the new concepts promoted in the NECS,such as the tensions between teacher-centredness and learner-centredness, between pro-moting learners’ overall language competence and teaching for passing exams, betweenthe behaviourist approach and CLT, and so on. In commenting on an episode when sheinterrupted learners to correct their errors, Li explained:
I planned to focus on meaning and ignore the errors in conducting this task because I believedthat by focusing on meaning, learners can experience a real language situation with an infor-mation gap. It can help them to be more engaged in the follow-up listening task. The learnersmade mistakes in applying this sentence pattern, which is the focus of this lesson the learnersmust master within the time frame of this session. If I do not correct these errors immediately,the students will make the same mistakes in exams.
Contrary to her belief about the importance of ignoring the errors to focus on meaning, Li’sbelief in practice was to conduct immediate error correction. In this case, when encoun-tering the conflicts between beliefs, Li showed greater concern about immediate learningoutcomes at the cost of the learners’ affective and cognitive needs. Therefore, the beliefabout promoting immediate learning outcomes by correcting errors immediately after thestudents made them were the ones that were mirrored in Li’s practice. In the study, thisbelief was called the core belief. These core beliefs were stable and exerted a more pow-erful influence on practice than other peripheral beliefs. In the above example of Li, sheabandoned peripheral beliefs that were in conflict with her core beliefs.
Moreover, the teachers were also found to adopt an eclectic way of teaching when theywere aware of the tensions in teaching. That is, when encountering unfavourable contex-tual factors, the teachers did not necessarily choose totally to reject their teaching plans.They might adopt an eclectic way to ease the tensions in teaching. The following episodeillustrates how Li adopted the eclectic approach in teaching vocabulary:
Li: For some good apples, they are sweet and . . . what?Ss: Crispy.Li: Crispy. Read after me: crispy.Li: And for some cookies, if they are fresh enough, they are crispy. OK, are you clear?Ss: Yes (hesitation).Li: OK, read these words together.Ss: Sweet, sweet, crispy, crispy.Li: Now answer this question in a sentence: what does the apple taste? S1.S1: The apple tastes sweet and crispy.. . .
When commenting on this episode, she recalled her thinking at the time as follows:
I really wanted to present more examples for the students to understand but those words suchas “cookies”, “biscuits” which taste crispy are also new words to them. I thought of using
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 339
English explanation of “easily broken” but they only learned its meaning of “being damaged”.Therefore, it is difficult to offer appropriate examples or explanations. I know vocabularyis better to be learned experientially but it needs constant exposure to authentic language,which is not accessible to learners with the limited time in the foreign language learningenvironment. So we had to ask students to preview words before class, and then we explainedthem contextually in class for better understanding and memorisation.
In this episode, Li introduced the new word by using examples and she also relied greatlyon learners’ previews and de-contextualised drills. Referring back to her professed beliefs,Li labelled her EFL teaching as “a combination of the traditional way of teaching and themodern way of teaching”. This indicated that Li was aware of these tensions. Thus shebelieved that an eclectic approach was the best way to ease the tensions. In this case, theconsciousness of the tensions in teaching might lead to cognitive change, prompting newpractice. These examples from Li reveal the dynamic interaction between beliefs. To beexact, when all related beliefs serve or are not at odds with core beliefs, they are com-patible in terms of underpinning the teachers’ actions and vice versa. When contradictionhappened, certain beliefs which were in line with the teachers’ core beliefs took priority ininfluencing practice.
Moreover, contextual factors such as limited exposure to authentic language, timeconstraints and teachers’ pedagogical knowledge cannot be ignored in examining therelationship between the teachers’ beliefs and practice. In the study, there were occa-sions when Li practised contextualised teaching while there were also occasions whenshe taught vocabulary in a de-contextualised situation. The shift from contextualised tode-contextualised teaching was conditioned by different teaching purposes and her inter-pretations of the ways in which these teaching purposes could be achieved. Therefore, therelationship between beliefs and practice was not absolute but conditioned by differentteaching situations.
Discussion: complex and dynamic belief systems
Teachers’ belief systems are complex. The complex feature of the teachers’ beliefs has to do“not with what is believed but with how it is believed” (Green, 1971, p. 47). My study didnot only reveal what the teachers believed, but also how they believed what they believed.To be specific, the study revealed that no single belief was totally independent of all otherbeliefs. Individual beliefs took their place in belief systems, never in isolation. Some ofthem were positively related, while others contradicted each other. Among positively relatedbeliefs, certain beliefs about EFL teaching objectives played a core role in determiningthe teachers’ practice that showed consistency with their beliefs. On the other hand, thoseconflicting beliefs might cause tensions. When confronting these tensions, the teachersusually gave different priority to certain beliefs in guiding their practice on the basis ofcore beliefs. Unlike other studies that examined the consistent or inconsistent relationshipbetween teachers’ beliefs and practice (i.e. Phipps, 2009), my study provided evidenceto argue against the general comment on such a relationship as the teachers’ practice hadalways been determined by certain beliefs. The inconsistency may only exist between teach-ers’ practice and certain aspects of teachers’ beliefs, such as their professed beliefs. In thiscase, my study revealed that it was the interaction between core and peripheral beliefsthat determined the relationship between the teachers’ beliefs and practice, which, in away, presented more accurately the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practice thanprevious studies. In this case, any attempt to change teachers’ beliefs and practice should
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
340 H. Zheng
take teachers’ core beliefs into consideration and the mechanism of interaction between theteachers’ beliefs and practice.
Moreover, the examination of the interactions between different components of the sys-tems provided a perspective from which to view teachers’ belief systems in a dynamic way.When examining the relationship between the teachers’ beliefs and practice, the practiceof “token adoption” emerged, which represents a dynamic feature of the teachers’ complexbelief system. As revealed in the study, some consistent relationship between the teachers’beliefs and practice may be superficial in that the teachers only adopted the names of cer-tain practices without implementing them in real practice. As the beliefs underpinning thepractice of “token adoption” were implicit, both teachers and researchers might have beenblind to such practice, and to the actual beliefs underpinning such practice. The explorationof the discrepancy between what the teachers claim to be their beliefs and what they reallydo in the classroom can help to make the issue explicit; in this case, the process would givethe teachers the opportunity to reflect on their implementation of the NECS. In the contextof English language teacher development in China, if we manage to make more implicitbeliefs explicit, the tensions between their existing beliefs, the concepts of the NECS, theteachers’ interpretation of the NECS, and the teaching reality may be exposed so that moreeffort can be made by both the teachers and the related agents to prevent the practice of“token adoption”.
As a way to ease the tensions in the teachers’ belief system, an eclectic approachwas revealed in examining the teachers’ practice. Such practice has been referred to as“eclecticism” by some researchers (e.g. Grittner, 1977; Gu, 2007; Prabhu, 1987). Echoingsome research findings regarding the features of Chinese teachers’ practice (e.g. Gu, 2007;Zheng & Davison, 2008), my study indicated that Chinese teachers tended to regard theeclectic approach as “an effective option in the face of change”. The co-existence of differ-ent approaches to teaching adopted by the teachers indicated that such eclectic practice wasa typical feature of their practice. From the complexity perspective, I regard the practice of“eclecticism” as part of the dynamic process of the development of teachers’ beliefs andpractice. It is an approach that does not rigidly follow a single paradigm of teaching, butinstead draws upon multiple teaching approaches to meet different teaching objectives andexpectations in different teaching contexts. In the study, Li’s practice reflected the varietyof her belief systems, which were bound to vary both in response to different teaching sit-uations and as a consequence of interactions between beliefs. In this case, the teachers’eclectic practice can be regarded as a sign of diversity, that is, diversity of beliefs, diver-sity of practice, and diversity of the ways in which beliefs, practice and contexts interact tocontribute to this non-linear interactive result.
Conclusion
People may argue that the non-linearity and diversity of belief systems leads to chaos.Complexity theory does reveal the chaotic nature of complex systems. However, it isimportant to note that chaos is not complete disorder, but is rather behaviour that arisesunpredictably in a complex system. The value of complexity theory lies in the fact that itoffers a theoretical framework to, on the one hand, break away from a reductionist view,and on the other hand, draw patterns from diversity and non-linearity. It is true that somepatterns emerged in the study such as the practice of “token adoption”, the eclectic way ofteaching and so on. Early reductionist representations of the relationship between beliefsand practice presented a linear view of being either consistent or inconsistent. By adoptingcomplexity theory, I have been able to theorise the network of interactions between beliefs
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 341
and practice in a way which more accurately represents the diversity of teachers’ beliefsystems. Future research on the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practice shouldabandon the search for dualistic evidence of consistencies or inconsistencies betweenbeliefs and practice; rather the research focus should be diverted to the exploration of theinteractive features of teachers’ beliefs and how such interactions impact their practice.In this way, the study contributes to the research agenda in that it provides a framework forexamining teacher beliefs as a whole.
What needs to be acknowledged is that the study is restricted by an exclusive relianceon the teachers’ and the researcher’s perspectives of the teachers’ belief systems. If valuesand beliefs about language teaching and learning had been examined from the perspec-tives of students, colleagues, school leaders, administrators, more tensions would haveemerged from the data. Moreover, the two perspectives adopted in this study limitedthe research focus to the pedagogical aspects of the teachers’ belief systems. To give amore complete account of teachers’ belief systems, a more thorough exploration of thecultural and social perspective of the systems is needed. In this case, an ethnographicstudy is suggested to provide a description of the culture and social structure of a socialgroup.
Some evidence in the research shows that this kind of in-depth case study plays arole in producing change in beliefs and practice. However, as my study is more of adescriptive nature, such analysis of the changes in teachers’ beliefs and practice is limited.Nevertheless, in order to explore ways to change beliefs, an interventionist study wouldneed to be conducted with reference to some of my findings. As revealed in the study,core beliefs played a more important role than peripheral beliefs in underpinning practice.Changes in teachers’ beliefs and practice may thus become more possible if new conceptsare introduced as core beliefs in certain teaching situations. As teachers’ belief systems arecomplex and different components in the systems are not related in a simple cause–effectway, such attempts to change beliefs involves taking account of other related components,such as school policies, administrative roles and so on.
AcknowledgementsThis paper is sponsored by Centre for Teacher Education Research in Sichuan Province, SichuanPhilosophy and Social Science Key Research Base (No. TER2011-002).
Notes on contributorHongying Zheng is Associate Professor in Sichuan Normal University. She obtained her PhD fromthe University of Cambridge. She specialises in research in second language education with particularinterest in teacher education and EFL teaching.
ReferencesAndrews, S. (2001). The language awareness of the L2 teacher: Its impact upon pedagogical practice.
Language Awareness, 10(2&3), 75–90.Andrews, S. (2003). ‘Just like instant noodles:’ L2 teachers and their beliefs about grammar
pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching, 9(4), 351–376.Bak, P. (1996). How nature works: The science of self-organized criticality. New York, NY:
Copernicus.Basturkmen, H., Loewen, S., & Ellis, R. (2004). Teachers’ stated beliefs about incidental focus on
form and their classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 243–272.Borg, S. (1999). Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53(3), 157–167.Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education. London: Continuum.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
342 H. Zheng
Breen, M.P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Thwaite, A. (2001). Making sense of languageteaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 470–501.
Brownlee, J.M., Boulton-Lewis, G.M., & Purdie, N.M. (2002). Core beliefs about knowing andperipheral beliefs about learning: Developing an holistic conceptualisation of epistemologicalbeliefs. Australian Journal of Educational & Developmental Psychology, 2, 1–16.
Bryan, L.A. (2003). The nestedness of beliefs: Examining a prospective elementary teacher’s beliefsystem about science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40(9),835–868.
Burns, A. (1992). Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practice. Prospect, 7(3), 56–66.de Bot, K., Lowie, W., & Verspoor, M. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second
language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10(1), 7–21.Farrell, T.S.C. (1999). The reflective assignment: Unlocking pre-service teachers’ beliefs on grammar
teaching. RELC Journal, 30(2), 1–17.Feryok, A. (2010). Language teacher cognitions: Complex dynamic systems? System, 38(2),
272–279.Freeman, D. (1993). Renaming experience/reconstructing practice: Developing new understandings
of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9(5/6), 485–497.Gatbonton, E. (1999). Investigating experienced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. The Modern
Language Journal, 83(1), 35–50.Golombek, P.R. (1998). A study of language teachers’ personal practical knowledge. TESOL
Quarterly, 32(3), 447–464.Green, T. (1971). The activity of teaching. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Grittner, F. (1977). Teaching foreign languages. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Gu, Q. (2007). Teacher development: Knowledge and context. London: Continuum.Hayes, D. (2005). Exploring the lives of non-native speaking English educators in Sri Lanka. Teachers
and Teaching, 11(2), 169–194.Johnson, K.E. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during liter-
acy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(1),83–108.
Johnston, B., & Goettsch, K. (2000). Teachers’ narrative inquiry as professional development. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. AppliedLinguistics, 18(2), 141–165.
Larsen-Freeman, D. (2002). Language acquisition and language use from a chaos/complexity theoryperspective. In C. Kramsch (Ed.), Language acquisition and language socialization (pp. 33–46).London: Continuum.
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Cameron, L. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Lewin, R. (1999). Complexity: Life at the edge of Chaos. Chicago, IL: The University of ChicagoPress.
MacDonald, M., Badger, R., & White, G. (2001). Changing values: What use are theories of languagelearning and teaching? Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(8), 949–963.
Ministry of Education. (2001). National English curriculum standards for nine-year compulsoryeducation and senior high school education. Beijing: People’s Education Press.
Mok, W.E. (1994). Reflecting on reflections: A case study of experienced and inexperienced ESLteachers. System, 22(1), 93–111.
Nunan, D. (1992). The teacher as decision-maker. In J. Flowerdew, M. Brock, & S. Hsia (Eds.),Perspectives on second language teacher education (pp. 135–165). Hong Kong: City Polytechnic.
Peacock, M. (2001). Pre-service ESL teachers’ beliefs about second language learning: A longitudi-nal study. System, 29(2), 177–195.
Phipps, S. (2009). The relationship between teacher education, teacher cognition and classroompractice in language teaching: A case study of MA students’ beliefs about grammar teaching(Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Leeds, Leeds).
Prabhu, N.S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Richards, J.C., & Lockhart, C. (1996). Reflective teaching in second language classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Richardson, V. (2003). Preservice teachers’ beliefs. In J. Rath & A.C. McAninch (Eds.), Advances in
teacher education (pp. 1–22). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 343
Schulz, R.A. (2001). Cultural differences in student and teacher perceptions concerning the role ofgrammar teaching and corrective feedback: USA-Colombia. Modern Language Journal, 85(2),244–258.
Smith L., & Thelen E. (Eds.). (1993). A dynamic systems approach to development: Applications.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Thelen, E., & Smith, L. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition andaction. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Thompson, A.G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. Grouws(Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York,NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Tsui, A.B.M. (2003). Understanding expertise in teaching: Case studies of second language teachers.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tudor, I. (2001). The dynamics of the language classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.van Lier, L. (1998). The classroom and the language learner. London: Longman.van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective.
Boston, MA: Kluwer.Willis, J. (1996). A framework for task-based learning. London: Longman.Woods, D. (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and classroom
practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Zheng, X., & Davison, C. (2008). Changing pedagogy. London: Continuum.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Lin
naeu
s U
nive
rsity
] at
18:
50 1
1 O
ctob
er 2
014
Recommended
