3.4 Beliefs about Teaching and Learning

As the studies described in this section will illustrate, researchers often categorize the differences in beliefs of teachers as either behaviorist (transmissionist) or constructivist. It should be noted from the start however, that such a dichotomy, while useful in terms of being able to clearly categorize beliefs, may be simplistic and misleading. Theories of learning such as constructivism are so diverse (Ernest, 1995) that it is questionable whether we can possibly categorize sets of beliefs in terms of a behaviorist/constructivist dichotomy. Not only are these theories of learning complex and open to a variety of interpretations, but teachers' beliefs themselves are complex, sometimes contradictory and therefore resist a concise classification.

Klien (1996), in his study of preservice teachers, argues that teachers’ beliefs can be eclectic and contradictory and that teachers may hold both transmissionist as well as constructivist views. In his study of the learning and knowledge beliefs of 279 preservice faculty of education students, the majority endorsed a view of learning that included both constructivist and transmission-oriented themes. While the participants in the study may have agreed with the study’s constructivist items, they did not simultaneously reject a transmissionist view of teaching. An interesting conclusion reached by Klein was that while "constructivism denotes a set of related beliefs for some educational theorists, these same beliefs appear independent of one another to many students" (p.369). He concludes that many preservice teachers may hold contradictory sets of beliefs depending on the context and that these beliefs may reflect, at the same time, a constructivist and transmissionist philosophy. Klien explains these findings by suggesting that beliefs "are not organized into a coherent body of knowledge" or that the preservice teachers in some way reconcile the different approaches, themes or philosophies (p.370).

Collinson (1996) conducted a case study on K-5 staff development and found differing beliefs about teaching and learning which "produced tensions between adherents of behaviorist and constructivist paradigms"(p.10). While some of the teachers were able to articulate the reasons behind their preference for a particular paradigm, others simply "did not have specific vocabulary to describe what they felt" (p.10). Nonetheless teachers’ pedagogical beliefs surfaced in their group discussions through "noticeably different vocabularies". While some teachers talked about "integrating the curriculum" and "finding the kid’s level", others referred to the need to "cover the curriculum" and "straight grades" (p.11). The teachers who adhered to the behaviorist paradigm believed in the effectiveness of teaching to the test, worried about being "able to cover everything" and about having their performance measured by their students’ test scores.

In his review of the literature on teachers’ beliefs and knowledge, Calderhead (1996) summarized beliefs related to teaching and learning. He categorizes teachers’ beliefs in two categories by arguing that some teachers view teaching as a process of knowledge transmission, while others view it as a process of guiding children’s learning or as a process of developing social relationships. He also distinguishes between beliefs of teachers based on their experience. Preservice teachers start with control-oriented belief systems that emphasize the importance of maintaining order and good discipline and guiding the activities of the children. During training, these attitudes become more liberal and child-centered. However, when teachers enter full-time teaching, they once again revert to a control-oriented belief system.

Teachers' beliefs about curriculum are also pivotal in terms of bringing about significant change in education. Taylor (1990) refers to the "determinist beliefs" of teachers that the curriculum is determined by the state and that teachers have little control or influence over it. Teachers may also perceive the curriculum as a real object instead of the subject of socially-negotiated knowledge (Ibid.). As a result of holding such beliefs, argues Taylor, teachers fail to adapt their role to suit local circumstances and, furthermore, adopt the role of manager who is concerned with delivering the syllabus and controlling students interactions with it. Instead, he explains, they should assist students in "negotiating the nature of their learning activities". Prawat (1992) sees teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning as closely linked to their beliefs about curriculum. He describes teachers' "dichotomous view of the learner and of the curriculum" as one of the sets of beliefs that will impede the adoption of a constructivist view of teaching and learning. He argues that teachers need to adopt an "open-systems" view of curriculum whereby they begin to perceive the curriculum as a "a network of important ideas to be explored" rather than "a course to be run" (p.382).

Prawat (1992) argues that teachers' beliefs pose a major obstacle to educational reform "because of their adherence to outmoded forms of instruction that emphasize factual and procedural knowledge at the expense of deeper levels of understanding" (p. 354). Teachers’ beliefs, claims Prawat, are inconsistent with constructivist approaches to teaching and learning. At the start of their professional training, many teachers view teaching as telling, and learning as remembering, a belief that presents difficulties in terms of moving teachers towards a more constructivist approach (Calderhead, 1988; Russel, 1988). Challenging teachers’ fundamental beliefs about teaching and learning therefore represents an important step in any effort to bring about educational reform.

Constructivist theory requires a radical shift in thinking and in teachers' roles and places greater demands on teachers (Prawat, 1992). For teachers to shift their beliefs to accommodate a constructivist epistemology would require them to develop new practices and to abandon well-established and seemingly successful practices (Taylor, 1990). To accomplish this, teachers would first need to overcome some of the obstacles to changing their practices. Taylor observed that the teacher in his study was "limited by constraints which he associated with the inherent nature of both the curriculum and the students" (p.19). Beliefs about student expectations of a central role for the teacher as well as concerns about being accountable and progressing with the syllabus limited the teacher’s development of a constructivist pedagogy. Taylor concluded that the teacher’s positivist epistemology, along with constraints which the teacher associates with students and curriculum policies, limited the adoption of more constructivist beliefs. The teacher’s reconstruction of beliefs requires, not only self-negotiation but, as well, social negotiation with teachers, students and the larger school community.

A further obstacle to teachers' adoption of constructivist teaching beliefs relates to the nature of constructivist theory itself. Constructivism is a new theory and many of its implications have not yet been made clear. While constructivist views of learning may be well developed, such is not the case with constructivist view of teaching (Prawat, 1992). Furthermore, notes Prawat, constructivism is open to many interpretations. Thus, while the major impediment to educational reform may well be teachers' beliefs, changing these beliefs to reflect constructivist philosophy may represent a formidable challenge. The following section will provide some insight into the curious and complex interplay between change, constructivism, technology use and teachers’ beliefs.