3.6 Beliefs about Language Learning

Johnson (1994) argues that the field of second-language education lags behind mainstream educational research in that it has neglected to focus adequate attention to the affective dimensions of second-language learning. Only since the late eighties and early nineties have researchers begun to shift from studying effective teaching behaviours, positive learner outcomes, and teacher-student interactions to consideration of the influence of teachers’ thoughts, decisions and judgements on second-language instruction. Such research is necessary to understand why teachers make the decisions they do and why they choose certain instructional materials over others or why they prefer certain practices over others.

Johnson conducted a qualitative study of the preservice beliefs of four English as a second-language teachers. Beliefs were inferred from teachers' narratives, intentions and instructional practices. One of the more important implications of the findings of this study was that the teachers' beliefs were largely based on images from their formal language learning experiences and that these beliefs may have been responsible for the teachers ineffectual teaching practices. The four teachers in the study criticized their own teacher-directed instructional practices. At the same time, "they described feeling powerless to alter their instructional practices because they had few, if any, alternative images of teachers and teaching to act as a model of action" (p.449). Feelings of being overwhelmed by classroom restraints and issues related to classroom management led to more teacher-centered instruction in spite of the desire to want to have more student-centered teaching. Freeman's (1991) findings of a study of the evolution of perceptions and understandings of four foreign language teachers are similar in many ways to Johnson's findings. Issues of classroom management led to tension in teachers' thinking. As foreign-language teachers, the study's participants understood the need for genuine and spontaneous interaction in order to promote language development. Yet, with class sizes of 20-30 adolescents, spontaneous interaction resulted in discipline problems and required teachers to provide more control and discipline.

Williams and Burden (1997) affirm that teacher beliefs play an important role in the language learning process and that, for this reason, teachers must understand their own beliefs, theories or philosophy. They argue that teachers must maintain a continuous process of personal reflection and that it is by becoming aware of their beliefs that they come to understand their own "implicit educational theories and the ways in which such theories influence their professional practice". The authors also posit that, although a syllabus or curriculum may be set down precisely for teachers, it is personally shaped by the teachers’ own belief systems. The authors explain:

Teachers' beliefs about what learning is will affect everything they do in the classroom, whether these beliefs are implicit or explicit. Even if a teacher acts spontaneously, or from habit without thinking about the action, such actions are nevertheless prompted by a deep-rooted belief that may never have been articulated or made explicit. If the teacher-as-educator is one who is constantly re-evaluating in the light of new knowledge his or her beliefs about language, or about how language is learned, or about education as a whole, then it is crucial that teachers first understand and articulate their own theoretical perspectives. (p. 56)

A similar argument is put forth by LeLoup (1995) in her longitudinal study of the evolution of beliefs of preservice language teachers. LeLoup's study is premised on the argument that students who enrol in foreign-language methods' courses already have a set of beliefs about language learning. These beliefs are formed by their "internalization of how they were taught and their perceptions of how they learned" (p. 137). These beliefs often result in teachers having misconceptions about language learning which could not only negatively impact on their understanding of the course content, but which could, as well, impinge on their success as FL teachers.

For this reason, argues Leloup, it is important that these beliefs be identified and examined and that erroneous concepts and myths be replaced by "sound language learning theory". The study on language learning beliefs combined a Likert-type questionnaire with a more descriptive, open-ended questionnaire. LeLoup concluded that while some of the beliefs held by preservice teachers represent "accurate appraisals of the knowledge base in language learning", others represent "FL learning myths" that need to be informed and revised according to second language acquisition research. Many of the beliefs held by the preservice teachers underwent revision by the end of their FL methods’ course.

Woods (1996) considers how teachers' beliefs, assumptions and knowledge shape their understanding of teaching and their decisions. Through interviews, teachers' stories and video-recordings of their lessons, Woods contributes to the knowledge of second- language teaching by clarifying how teachers' beliefs, attitudes and experiences influence classroom practices. His perspective contrasts somewhat with LeLoups’ in that he argues strongly in favour of recognition and acceptance of teachers' personal pedagogies and multiple interpretations of theory and top-down curriculum. He further argues that there is insufficient research "on what the second language teacher brings to the process of second language learning" (p.2).

Woods found that, given a new curriculum and two different teachers, two very different interpretations result in the course to be taught. Teachers’ underlying beliefs, assumptions and knowledge (BAK) about "what language is, how it is learned, and how it should be taught" resulted in differing classroom experiences for the learners. Given a new curriculum, the two teachers in his study experienced conflict between interpreting the curriculum in a way which would be consistent with his BAK as opposed to interpreting it in a way that would be more consistent with the "institutional system". Woods found that, not only do teachers interpret curriculum innovations in light of their BAK, they also interpret theoretical and pedagogical concepts related to second-language learning.

The study suggests that "each teacher has an individual system of interwoven beliefs, assumptions and knowledge, a system which has evolved in an individual and organic fashion when aspects of that teacher's BAK have interacted with experience, especially experiences that resulted in a conflict with the BAK’s current state" (p. 248). Woods affirms as a result of his investigation that while teachers’ BAK influences their interpretation of the curriculum in the case of a curricular evolution, the curriculum itself influences the evolution of a teacher’s BAK. The overall role of a teacher’s beliefs assumptions and knowledge is emphasized by Woods as he comments on their "pervasiveness":

It was not as if teachers’ networks of beliefs, assumptions and knowledge were activated in particular cases in order to resolve ambiguous cases or deal with conflicting situations. Rather it seemed to underlie everything that the teachers did and said: as if it was through their individual BAK systems that the teachers structured their perceptions of the curriculum and their decisions as to how to implement that curriculum, from overall organization of the units down to the specific classroom activities and verbalizations. (p.282)