3.3 Beliefs and Change

One common theme or conclusion in the literature about teachers’ beliefs is that changing them is a complex, perhaps even, mysterious, process. Contrary to the attempts of theorists and those involved in trying to promote teacher professional development, teachers’ beliefs appear to be static (Nespor, 1987), resistant to change (Brousseau et al., 1988), and are generally not affected by reading and applying the findings of educational research (Hall Loucks, 1982). Pajares (1992) provides insight into how beliefs function and how this functioning actually contributes to their resistance to change:

[beliefs] provide personal meaning and assist in defining relevancy. They help individuals to identify with one another and form groups and social systems. On a social and cultural level, they provide elements of structure, order, direction and shared values. From both a personal and socio/cultural perspective, belief systems reduce dissonance and confusion, even when dissonance is logically justified by the inconsistent beliefs one holds. This is one reason why they acquire emotional dimensions and resist change. People grow comfortable with their beliefs, and these beliefs become their "self" so that individuals come to be identified and understood by the very nature of the beliefs, the habits they own. (p. 317)

A number of researchers have found that the more central a belief, the more it will resist change (Rokeach, 1968). Woods (1996) speculates that when teachers' beliefs are very tightly interconnected with other beliefs, they are more difficult to change. On the other hand, when the belief is less densely connected to other beliefs, change is a less complex operation. The implication is that, in order for change to occur, there must be some deconstruction of beliefs before another set can be constructed. This process, argues Woods, can "lead to periods of disorientation, frustration, even pain" (p. 293). Furthermore, he notes, because each belief is part of an interwoven network which includes many other beliefs, teachers cannot simply at will 'change' one belief by itself. Instead, teacher change can only be encouraged but not mandated.

Nespor (1987) argues that instructional change is not a matter of abandoning beliefs, but of gradually replacing them with more relevant beliefs. Dwyer et al. (1992) concur with Nespor when they argue that implementing change in education must include changing teachers’ practices and beliefs by gradually replacing them with more relevant beliefs shaped by experiences in an altered context. They argue that it is this altered context that may make the difference in terms of impacting on the beliefs. The altered context in which their study was situated was that of a technology-based environment. Their research was conducted in the context of the Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow project (ACOT) and focused specifically on the evolution of teacher beliefs in high-access-to-technology classrooms. They found that "teachers' beliefs may be best modified while they are in the thick of change, taking risks and facing uncertainty" (Dwyer et al., 1991, p.52). Confronted with change, teachers are forced to reevaluate their beliefs about learning and instruction and only by changing these beliefs can instructional change take place.

Bracey (1993) considered three technology reports including the ACOT project to determine the influence of technology use on teaching. Bracey's interpretation suggests that technology use serves as a catalyst for change and that computers "appear to change teachers in ways that educational reformers have been calling for" (p.9). The resulting changes involved teachers adjusting their beliefs about effective teaching. He concluded that teachers were more willing to take risks, that they allowed for more independent student work, that they worked more as facilitators and that they provided for more dynamic learning experiences. A similar conclusion was reached by Schofield and Verban (1988) in an investigation of computer use on the teaching of mathematics. They remarked that introducing computers into the classroom, not only changes the teacher's role, but results in a shift from a didactic to a constructivist approach.

Nonetheless, this ability for beliefs to change in the altered context of a technology-based environment involves a process that is fraught with conflict. Even when innovative teachers try to alter their practices and beliefs, the cultural norms continue to support lecture-based instruction, subject-centered curriculum, and measurement-driven accountability (Dwyer et al. 1992, p.2). Whereas teachers may be committed to investigating the potential of modern technology, they are "held in check by the principals of 19th century instruction" (Dwyer et al. 1991, p.51). At the same time, the demands of the profession of teaching can also provide a certain resistance to change in beliefs. Teachers cope with the significant demands of their job by relying on their beliefs: "Teachers are, by nature of their work, pragmatists. They must survive the day; they must be ready for the next. Confronted by large numbers of computers or not, they arrive at their classrooms the very first day of their careers with a deeply-rooted belief about schooling that will help them weather the storm of the demands they face" (Dwyer et al. 1992, p.8).

Changing how teachers think about teaching and learning is a complex and challenging process. Mandating a change in the way people think about technology or about new ways of teaching and of learning is unlikely to be effective. Providing people with training and with new information and knowledge to help make them think differently may present significant challenges as well. As the literature on the subject tells us, people’s beliefs are so ingrained and so interwoven with their life’s experiences and with what they know, that they are immune to direct manipulation. Changing people’s beliefs is tantamount to changing who they are as individuals. As Nespor (1987) explains: "...belief systems often include affective feelings and evaluations, vivid memories of personal experiences, and assumptions about the existence of entities and alternative worlds, all of which are simply not open to outside evaluation or critical examination..." (p.321).