Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

System 39 (2011) 403e415

www.elsevier.com/locate/system

From students’ and teachers’ perspectives: Metaphor analysis

of beliefs about EFL teachers’ roles
Wan Wan a,*, Graham David Low a, Miao Li b
a
Department of Education, University of York, York YO10 5DD, UK
b
Department of Foreign Language, North China Institute of Science and Technology, YanJiao, Sanhe City, Hebei Province, China
Received 15 January 2011; accepted 25 May 2011

Abstract

The paper reports on a study about how a group of Chinese university teachers and two groups of their English major students
used personal ‘teacher’ metaphors via a metaphor prompt “An English teacher is.because.” to represent their beliefs relating to
EFL teachers’ roles. Data sources also included follow-up individual interviews. The primary aims of the study were (a) to examine
the effects of metaphor analysis concerning beliefs about classroom teachers’ roles between teachers and students, including
comparing accounts by students at different levels of English proficiency and (b) to establish whether the use of metaphor analysis
involving teachers and students with a degree of interaction between them leads to behavioural change, particularly change in
teaching practices. The results identified mismatches regarding the interpretations of the teachers’ roles both between students and
teachers and between student groups at different levels of English proficiency. Metaphor functioned as a powerful cognitive tool in
gaining insight into students’ and teachers’ beliefs. Also, engaging in an interaction involving ‘teacher’ metaphors between students
and teachers worked reasonably well in resolving the belief conflicts across the two groups and led to willingness for changes in
teaching practice by most teachers.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Belief mismatches; Teachers’ roles; Metaphor analysis; Change in teaching practices

1. Introduction

Evaluating and assessing are extremely important in monitoring and improving second/foreign language teaching and
learning and one key aspect of both activities is to explore what people bring to the teaching-learning situation. This is
because teachers and students bring with them into the language classroom a complex set of variables based on attitudes,
experiences, and expectations, closely relating to their beliefs about the nature of the language-learning task (Riley, 2009)
and to their conceptions about what their classroom roles ought to be (Kumaravadivelu, 1991). An effective evaluation or
assessment of a classroom situation should accordingly involve explorations of beliefs from multiple perspectives and the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: wan.wan@york.ac.uk (W. Wan).

0346-251X/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.system.2011.07.012
404 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415

views of a range of relevant stakeholders (Allwright and Bailey, 1991; Barcelos, 2003; Clarridge, 1990; Low, 1987).
Moreover, if multiple stakeholders are to be involved, it makes sense for there to be a degree of interaction between them;
they should at least react to each others’ views and concerns. In short, teachers should be exposed to the beliefs and
conceptualisations of their students and vice versa. However, when students’ beliefs are seriously incongruent with those of
their teachers, problems arise, as students may misinterpret their teachers’ expectations and intentions, and this may in turn
trigger students’ passive or even active resistance (Barcelos, 2000). So, to help teachers develop their methodology and
style of teaching to fit a particular situation, it becomes important to explore the relationship between teachers’ and
students’ beliefs about teaching and learning, focusing in particular on mismatches between them (Ahmad and Aziz, 2009).
Although numerous studies in the last two decades have investigated beliefs about teaching and learning from both
teachers’ and students’ perspectives, surprisingly, there appears to be little work that has taken an inter-group
interaction approach (e.g., Hart, 2009), as suggested in Wenden (1999, p. 441). Rather, most have tended to focus
on how teachers’ beliefs influence students’ beliefs (Woods, 2003), based on the view that, as teachers exert a position
of authority in the classroom, their beliefs are likely to dominate (Barcelos, 2003, p. 171). As a result, it remains
entirely unclear whether, and how far, teachers can reconstruct and develop their beliefs about teaching and learning
when they are exposed to students’ perspectives.
There are various ways in which researchers can elicit beliefs and conceptualisations, but one increasingly common
method is metaphor analysis, whereby participants create metaphors for relevant activities/concepts and then actively
engage with them (Cortazzi and Jin, 1999; Villamil and de Guerrero, 2005). The logic for employing metaphor will be
explored in more detail below, but at this point we simply note that the hope is generally that engagement with the
metaphors will raise consciousness about differing conceptualisations or beliefs between different participant groups,
or about any teaching/learning problems, and as a result lead to changes in behaviour.
In this paper, we examine how groups of Chinese university teachers and their English major students constructed
personal ‘teacher’ metaphors (or metaphorical statements) to represent their beliefs about teaching and teachers’
roles1 in the specific context of EFL teaching at a Chinese university. This context was selected as teacher-student
interaction is not as common as in the UK or USA and face is a major factor in relations between the two parties
(Tian and Low, 2011). The aims of the paper are, firstly, to examine the effects of metaphor analysis concerning
teachers’ and their students’ beliefs about classroom teachers’ roles, and in the process to compare accounts by
students at different levels of English proficiency (specifically first/third-year students), and, secondly, to establish
whether the use of metaphor analysis, in a situation where the teachers reacted to the metaphors of their students, led to
a willingness by the teachers to consider changing their teaching practices.

2. Understanding the use of metaphor analysis in beliefs about language teaching and learning

Traditional mainstream research on beliefs about teaching and learning has, according to Kalaja (1995), mostly
relied on cognitive representations with predetermined assumptions and involving responses to questionnaires or
interviews with predetermined questions (Horwitz, 1985; Williams and Burden, 1999). However, these approaches
have been criticised for disconnecting beliefs from real social contexts and as being likely to lead to incomplete or
incorrect accounts of informants’ beliefs within an unnatural discourse (Barcelos, 2003). To remedy the situation,
“causal explanations as actually performed in discourse, or stretches of talk (or writing)” (Kalaja, 2003, p. 90)
produced by a person on relevant occasions are needed and this has led to the introduction of discursive research on
beliefs with a special emphasis on the analysis of informants’ language in context. This can include, as suggested by
Turunen (2003) and Oksanen (2005), speakers’ or writers’ use of words, grammatical or stylistic constructions, or
metaphors.
The use of metaphor to analyse beliefs is not recent. The last fifteen years have seen the publication of a series of
studies examining teachers’ and students’ understandings of teaching and/or learning (e.g., Cortazzi and Jin, 1999;
Ellis, 1999, 2001; Kramsch, 2003; Oxford et al., 1998; Woodward, 1991; Zapata and Lacorte, 2007) based on the
idea that identifying and discussing metaphors can bring implicit assumptions into awareness, or encourage
personal reflection, and as a result provide some insights into individuals’ perspectives on given topics (Cameron

1
Following the contextual approach to defining beliefs about language teaching and learning (Barcelos, 2003), beliefs about teachers’ roles in this
paper refer to how students and teachers perceive and organise their conceptions of teaching, including what they hold to be true about teaching.
 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415 405

and Low, 1999; Cameron and Maslen, 2010). The majority of these studies employ some version of Conceptual
Metaphor Theory (Lakoff and Johnson, 1980) and Vygotskyan notions of the interactive nature of language (i.e.
metaphor) and thought (Vygotsky, 1978) within Sociocultural Theory,2 whereby metaphor is seen as both
a cognitive and social phenomenon (Littlemore and Low, 2006), with language as one of several means of
expressing it. Metaphor can accordingly act as a mediational tool whereby interpretations are constructed from
accounts (preferably multiple accounts) given by people in specific social environments (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006).
Informants’ metaphors have accordingly been utilized for reflection and consciousness raising among students and
teachers, to shape their classroom practices (Tobin, 1990), to mediate understanding of their beliefs about teaching
(and learning) in the classroom and ultimately to predict behaviours likely to follow from them (de Guerrero and
Villamil, 2002).
At a general level, informants’ metaphors are normally collected either from analogical statements that arise
naturally in conversation or writing (e.g., interviews or personal narratives) or via completion of a prompt involving
thinking of a metaphor or simile in what is often called an “A IS (like) B” structure (e.g., Learning is like, .). The
analytic procedure, at a general level, involves a systematic generalisation by the analysts from participants’ meta-
phorical language, in order to infer an underlying conceptual metaphor that ultimately provides some insights into
participants’ thought patterns and understandings of a given topic (de Guerrero and Villamil, 2002).
Among the metaphor studies in education, a small proportion has started to investigate the relationship between
students’ and teachers’ beliefs about teaching and/or learning, such as dealing with the gaps or discrepancies in
teachers’ and learners’ beliefs by comparing metaphors from both parties (e.g., Block, 1990, 1992; Cortazzi and Jin,
1999; Ellis, 1999; Oxford et al., 1998). Thus, in his study about English teaching and learning in Spain, Block (1990)
studied the metaphors that both teachers and students used to construct their conceptions of ‘teachers’ and ‘learners’
through a series of interviews. A mismatch was spotted in understandings of the teachers’ roles; teachers saw
themselves as guides or nurturing parents, whereas students saw teachers as controllers of the classroom. The reason
for the discrepancy was considered to be either “a difference in point of departure” or “a difference in the sources of
their beliefs” (Block, 1990, p. 80). However, although Block noted the importance of a belief mismatch, he did not
suggest learning problems that might be involved, or offer solutions to resolve it.
Belief conflicts have been reported in several cross-cultural studies on educational metaphors. Cortazzi and
Jin’s (1999) work is particularly interesting because it explores how UK primary teachers’ metaphors of “A
good teacher is.” could contrast with metaphors elicited from postgraduate or undergraduate students from
England, China, Turkey, Lebanon and Iran. Their findings demonstrate the significant cultural gaps which need to
be bridged when Chinese students require help from British teachers. For example, while Chinese students
expected teachers to be more sensitive to their needs and offer help without students having to ask (e.g., teacher
as parent or friend), British teachers expected students to be more independent, assuming that students who do
not ask questions have no problems. To remedy the misunderstandings, Cortazzi and Jin claimed that being
acquainted with differing metaphors of teaching and learning was particularly important for all participants in
inter-cultural contexts.
This kind of metaphor interaction has proved to be equally important in other metaphor studies involving stake-
holders from a homogeneous social context (e.g., de Guerrero and Villamil, 2002; Oxford et al., 1998). In Oxford
et al.’s (1998) project, exploring the metaphors employed by students and teachers to talk about the conceptions of
teachers and teaching, group reflection on educational metaphors was proposed as a useful way to tackle the
unrecognized differences between students’ and teachers’ conceptions of teachers and teaching. Oxford and her
colleagues stated that by considering various metaphors and underlying beliefs about teaching, metaphor-based group
discussion between teachers and students could (a) increase and widen participants’ awareness (of classroom events,
style conflicts, and instructional methods), (b) facilitate self-reflection on individual assumptions about teaching, and
(c) assist students’ understanding of teachers’ positions in such a way as might lead to productive change in
inter-group relationships, particularly between students and teachers in the classroom. Nevertheless, Oxford and her
colleagues were not able to provide detailed accounts of any actual interaction.

2
Indeed, based on the work of Vygotsky (1978) and his followers (e.g., Wertsch, 1998; Lantolf, 2000; Lantolf and Thorne, 2006), a fundamental
claim of Sociocultural Theory is that human higher mental functioning generally, such as memory, attention, rational thinking, and learning, is
mediated by culturally-constructed auxiliary means (Lantolf and Thorne, 2006, p. 59).
406 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415

Hart (2009) is one of the few studies (with Villamil and de Guerrero, 2005) to investigate the effects of sharing and
discussing metaphors for beliefs, in this case about writing by students and teachers in a university writing class. Based
on Oxford et al.’s (1998) assumptions regarding the functions of metaphor-based classroom interaction, she argued
(and found) that discussing metaphorical conceptualisations of writing would be a useful pedagogical tool, bringing
students and teachers to a better understanding of each other’s positions, allowing teachers to resolve conflicts and
even leading to changes in individual views of writing (Hart, 2009, p. 276).
In short, research suggests that considerable attention needs to be paid to investigating inter-group discrepancies in
beliefs about teaching and learning in order to resolve belief mismatches between different stakeholders in the same
classroom and this will ultimately be beneficial to creating a welcoming environment in the classroom for students and
teachers alike (Oxford et al., 1998). Whether this applies equally in all cultural contexts is, however, unknown.

3. Research questions

Our research was designed to address four questions:

1. How do Chinese EFL teachers and students use metaphor to indicate the EFL teachers’ roles in the classroom?
2. To what extent do individual metaphorical accounts of beliefs about EFL teachers’ roles differentiate between
(a) students and their teachers and (b) students at different English proficiency levels (first/third-year students)?
3. How do teachers react to students’ beliefs about EFL teachers’ roles?
4. Do belief mismatches/conflicts in EFL teachers’ roles suggest problems related to EFL teaching and/or
learning?

4. The present study

4.1. Subjects

The study was conducted in the Department of Foreign Language Studies at a university in China. The subjects
were:

35 third-year English major students who had passed TEM-4 (the Chinese national Test for English Majors,
Band 4).

35 first-year English major students who had not taken TEM-4, and

33 EFL English teachers who had taught both groups of students.

4.2. Data collection: instrumentation

Data collection took place in three stages involving a theory-based support workshop, completion of a metaphor
elicitation task and follow-up interviews.

4.2.1. Stage one

Participants were invited to attend a metaphor-related workshop. This was used, firstly, to establish a working
definition of metaphor and explain how it can be a mediational tool for uncovering people’s mental activities and,
secondly, to help subjects understand what we wanted them to do with metaphor.

4.2.2. Stage two

A short questionnaire (Appendix A) was distributed to the 33 EFL English teachers and 70 first/third-year
undergraduate English major students. The questionnaire was designed (a) to collect subjects’ demographical
information, (b) to elicit participants’ metaphors of ‘English teachers’ as regards one of their core modules,
‘Comprehensive English’dvia a metaphor completion task (An English teacher is . because.), plus personal
metaphorical reasoning that was later used to classify the metaphors in the data analysis phase and understand the
 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415 407

rationale for choosing specific metaphors (following Jin and Cortazzi, 2011) and (c) to explore possible reasons for
task difficulty, if some participants experienced problems with the task.3 Prior to this, the questionnaire was piloted
with five students and five EFL teachers in the same department. Minor wording changes were made in the instructions
following their feedback.

4.2.3. Stage three

Each participant whose responses were not excluded at stage two (see details in Section 4.3) was asked to attend an
individual interview two days after completing the task. This was designed to gather additional information about why
each respondent chose particular metaphor(s) to describe the roles of the ‘English teacher’, and to help us establish
criteria to categorise the metaphors in the data analysis phase. Initially, we had scheduled an open discussion of
‘teacher’ metaphors involving all teachers and students. However, a number of students said they would feel
embarrassed, or would hesitate to make public comments in a face-to-face conversation with their teachers. It
therefore became clear that it would be contextually more appropriate, certainly for the students and possibly for the
teachers, to limit the interaction to giving teachers their students’ metaphors at the follow-up interviews and asking
them to react to them in the light of their own metaphors.

4.3. Data analysis

The data analysis, in general, followed the traditional approach created by Cameron and Low (1999, p. 88)
involving “collecting examples of linguistic metaphors, generalising from them to the conceptual metaphors,
[and] using the results to suggest understandings or construct people’s beliefs”. The whole procedure involved four
steps: (a) naming/labelling, (b) sorting (clarification and elimination), (c) categorisation, and (d) analysing data
(also see Saban et al., 2007, p. 126). We first coded linguistic metaphors supplied by the participants (e.g. “My
teacher is like a dictionary”). We then analysed each response to identify three elements: the topic (i.e. the teacher),
the vehicle (i.e. the term to which the topic is compared), and the ground (i.e. the nature of the relationship between
the vehicle and the topic). Not all participants’ metaphors were analysable and valid. Following the criteria4
developed by Saban et al., (2007), five literal statements from three first-year students and two third-year
students, and one teacher’s response with no metaphorical reasoning were excluded (reducing the interview
sample to 32 teachers, 32 first-year and 33 third-year students). Next, based on the metaphor itself, on the
entailments (the reasons given by the participants), and on similarities with other metaphors, we generated eight
conceptual categories from the remaining responses (Appendices B, C, and D). We had regular discussions about
categorising and the formulation of appropriate conceptual categories (see Table 1). Discrepancies in classification
were negotiated until a joint decision was reached.
The creation of the higher-level categories thus roughly paralleled the vehicle grouping phase in Cameron et al.
(2010), but with the difference that in this case the resulting categories were thematic (and not necessarily meta-
phoric). Overall, the procedure followed the good practice guidelines in Low and Todd (2010) and Jin and Cortazzi
(2011), especially concerning the use of multiple sources of data.

5. Results

In general, Table 1 shows that among the eight conceptual categories isolated, there was no marked difference in
conceptualisations of teachers’ roles between the three groups as regards teacher as ‘nurturer’, ‘devotee’ or ‘provider’.

3
A few recent studies (e.g., McGrath, 2006; Saban et al., 2007; Wan, 2007; Zapata and Lacorte, 2007) have reported the existence of
unsuccessful answers to prompts, and at times identified issues connected with task difficulty in relation to the metaphor elicitation techniques in
“A IS B (because.)” structures. In most cases, this has simply involved noting the absence of a metaphor, an explanation or both; few papers try
and account for task failure. In the present study, a number of participants attributed their unsuccessful responses to the unfamiliarity of meta-
phordeven after fairly salient examples had been provided, some were simply not able to create and then explain a metaphor (see also Davis,
2009, p. 205). How to help participants complete a metaphor elicitation task seems to be a complex problem and more research is needed.
4
Saban et al. (2007, p. 127) treated as invalid: (a) plain description or no mention of a metaphor; (b) mention of a metaphor but no provision of
a rationale; (c) a fuzzy or hybrid metaphor, or difficulty placing the metaphor under one clearly recognizable conceptual theme; (d) idiosyncratic
metaphors.
408 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415

Table 1
Summary of conceptual categories across three groups
Categories Teachers 3rd year students 1st year students
Teacher as provider 6 4 5
Teacher as nurturer 6 6 5
Teacher as devotee 5 4 5
Teacher as instructor 3 9 4
Teacher as culture transmitter 2 7 9
Teacher as authority 0 3 4
Teacher as interest arouser 6 0 0
Teacher as co-worker 4 0 0
Total 32 33 32

Discrepancies, however, were identified with respect to teacher as ‘instructor’, ‘cultural transmitter’, ‘interest
arouser’, ‘authority’ and ‘co-worker’. It also can be seen from Table 1 that a major divergence in interpretations of the
teachers’ roles between the two student groups was identified in the category of ‘instructor’ metaphors.

5.1. Main conceptual categories with similar conceptualisations of ‘teacher’

5.1.1. Teacher as provider

Teachers in this category were considered either as conveying knowledge in various ways (e.g., book, machine,
salesman, encyclopedia, actor/actress and mineral resources), or as assisting students to learn (e.g., dictionary, candle,
tools, glasses and keyboard). Interestingly, the ‘dictionary’ metaphor emerged in both student groups, but was
supplied with opposite explanations. In the first-year student group, the teacher was perceived as a knowledgeable
individual or master, because “you can turn to him/her whenever you have questions” (S3). However, the same
metaphor in the third-year student group conveyed a negative attitude to the teacher as a ‘walking dictionary’, who
mechanically “explains the meanings and the use of words” (S36). The dissatisfaction with such teaching was also
revealed in a third-year student’s ‘keyboard’ metaphor, with complaints that the teacher “simply followed and copied
the contents of textbook” like “the ‘ctrlþc’ and ‘ctrlþv’ buttons on the keyboard” (S35).

5.1.2. Teacher as nurturer

Teachers in this category were compared to a gardener or a parent (mother or father), in all cases considering the
teacher as a facilitator of personal growth and development, creating the schema of young plants (or children) needing
care. The teacher’s main responsibilities were accordingly to take care of students and nourish their potential abilities.
This interpretation of a teacher’s role is consistent with the long-standing Chinese traditional proposition that teachers
have a parent-like responsibility to guide students’ lives (Cortazzi and Jin, 1999).

5.1.3. Teacher as devotee

Teachers in this category were considered totally devoted to their job and were compared to a silkworm, candle,
chalk, or bee, implying great respect for the profession of teaching. This category has been found in several other
studies (e.g., de Guerrero and Villamil, 2002; McGrath, 2006; Saban et al., 2007), but notably in Pinnegar et al.’s
(2010, p. 643) study of US preservice teachers, where it was treated as somewhat naı̈ve, with few teaching/
learning implications other than “work hard” and “be honored”. However, in a Chinese context, teacher as “devotee”
(like teacher as “nurturer”) is very much in line with the traditional view of a good teacher and deeply rooted in the
culture (Cui and Liu, 2009); an ideal teacher has always been expected to be, as one student noted, “dedicated to the
education career and give more than they gain” (S45). Indeed, the nine students who gave “devotee” metaphors all
made fairly positive comments on their teachers’ hard work in the interviews, thereby supporting a positive
interpretation.
 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415 409

5.2. Conceptual categories with divergent conceptualisations of ‘teacher’

5.2.1. Teacher as instructor

In the teacher group, the teaching roles were described as being that of either a helper (prompter, candle) or a moral
guide (Aladdin’s Lamp). In both student groups, the teacher was considered responsible for finding the right track for
students to reach their targets (e.g., driver, radar and lighthouse) and for helping students set study goals (e.g., beacon).
Although all three groups emphasised the concept of assistance, the third-year students seemed to be asking for
a much higher level of support than that implied by either the teachers’ or the first-year students’ metaphors. Inter-
estingly, this seems to be in conflict with one of Vygotsky’s (1978) fundamental conclusions about “scaffolding”,
which was that “.a form of guided discourse and cognitive support given by adults, or more skilled peers . is
progressively withdrawn as the learner moves towards mastery of a particular skill or activity” (cited in Cortazzi and
Jin, 1999, p. 153). There seem to be two possible reasons for this divergence, judging by the explanations given by
students and teachers at the follow-up interviews.
Firstly, in China, TEM-4, as a compulsory English exam for undergraduate English majors, has exerted a heavy
pressure on the students since they started university. Students are normally asked to attend the exam by the end of
their second year, which largely drives them to work hard in the first two years. However, once they have passed the
exam, some are very likely to experience what is called in Chinese a “gap period”, which means that most of them will
have to search for their next target. It is therefore not surprising if some students who have passed the exam expect
more professional guidance from their teachers to set up the new goals, such as pursuing a higher degree or searching
for jobs.
Secondly, in the final two years, English major students are normally faced with a set of modules at advanced level
(such as Comprehensive English), representing a big intellectual jump compared with the modules in the first two
years. The students here thus had “much more difficulties to cope with the texts” (S47) and therefore wanted more
instructional support from their teachers.
It might also be of interest to investigate why the first-year students tended to be relatively more independent of
their teachers. The results of the follow-up interviews clearly suggested that most students (19/32) had suffered from
the cramming teaching style (a kind of teacher-centred strategy) before they started university and thus were keen to
experience a change when at university. Therefore, unlike the third-year students, the first-year students emphasised
the teacher’s roles in the teaching-learning process as those of “a guide” (S19) or “a helper” (S16), rather than that of
“a leader” (e.g., S48) implied by most third-year students’ metaphors, so there is perhaps not too much of a divergence
of opinion about teachers’ instructional help between teachers and the first-year students.

5.2.2. Teacher as culture transmitter

Metaphors in this category implied various demands for the teacher to act as a “culture transmitter”. In general, the
dominant “bridge” metaphor and others (e.g., guide, media, window, ribbon, and engineer of the soul) required
teachers to “pass or bridge the English culture with the language knowledge to the students” (S20). The students also
expected teachers to introduce new learning approaches (“My teacher is like a TV”, S24), and to provide information
on study abroad (“My English teacher is like a preacher”, S26). In contrast to the students’ desire to learn about
culture, teachers seemed to be much less interested in cultural issues and no culture-related metaphor could be
identified in the teacher group. Based on explanations given by teachers in the interviews, “not emphasising” culture in
class was blamed on the heavy prescribed teaching schedules that did not allow much time to discuss culture-related
topics.

5.2.3. Teacher as authority

Metaphors in this category (including magician, expert, sunshine, and sky) again portrayed a long-standing
tradition of holding teachers in respect (Cortazzi and Jin, 1999, p. 168). Chinese people emphasise authority,
power distribution, rule-governed family, society and group wellbeing (Zhan and Le, 2004, p. 18); “it is thus regarded
as lack of respect if students question the authoritative status of teachers” (S64). Interestingly, the traditional view of
teachers’ authoritative position was not reflected in the teachers’ metaphors. Moreover, all teachers, at their inter-
views, disagreed with the “authority” metaphors and stated that they could learn from students; “I am not the only
resource of knowledge in the classroom” (T1). Indeed, the teacherestudent interpersonal relationship was considered
a vital aspect of students’ learning. To sort out the problem, also raised by Zhan and Le (2004, p. 18), “out of respect
410 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415

and nervousness students sometimes fear to establish a good relationship with teachers” (T29), all teachers took
a very non-teacher-centred view, that they played a core role in establishing interpersonal relationships with students.

5.2.4. Teacher as interest arouser and co-worker

Metaphors in this category involving entertainer, magnet and collaborator were only found in the teacher group.
The “entertainer” and “magnet” metaphors in teacher as ”interest arouser” were used to highlight organising class-
room activities for the purpose of attracting students’ attention. The “co-worker” metaphors compared teachers to
collaborators, which clearly was against the traditional hierarchical system in the classroom and recognised that
“students could have positive contributions to make” (T29), thereby again supporting their views of a harmonious
interpersonal student-teacher relationship built on the basis of equality.

5.3. Teachers’ responses to students’ “teacher” metaphors

At the follow-up interviews, the 32 teachers were invited to make comments on students’ teacher metaphors. The
result was generally similar to what Hart (2009, p. 274) found, in that all reported learning something new and
indicated a willingness to alter (or at least engage in ongoing reflection about) their pedagogical behaviours as a result
of this new information. Specifically,

12 mentioned that they would reschedule the cultural agenda to meet students’ demands for learning about
culture, but they had to think seriously about how to make room for teaching culture in a tight teaching scheme;

10 stated that they would organise classroom activities involving pair work, group work and individual work to
help students engage in the class;

all 32 disagreed with the “authority” metaphors and indicated that they had the responsibility to establish
interpersonal relationships and that this was integral to creating learning opportunities for each student;

20 insisted on retaining the view of the teacher as an assistant or guide during the teaching-learning process,
rather than taking the role of a leader or controller, “leading them to the destination” (S52), as one third-year
student put it. Of the 20 people involved, 12 commented on the fact that the “instructor” metaphors implied
different needs by the two student groups and admitted that they were unaware that their third-year students
expected more instructional support than did their first-year students. They intended, as a result, to clarify the
specific needs of their third-year students.

6. Discussion

The findings suggested that there were indeed mismatches between students’ and teachers’ beliefs about the
teachers’ roles, and that, though not seriously opposed to each other, they could nevertheless cause problems.
At the follow-up interviews, teachers’ comments on students’ “teacher” metaphors suggested that although they
(the teachers) did not reject a conventional role as instructors, clearly they were concerned about the degrees of
instructional support which they were supposed to offer. It can be confidently inferred from their metaphors and the
follow-up explanations that, in order to establish a good interpersonal relationship with students, teachers expected
their roles to be those of a guide, a helper or an assistant in the teaching-learning process, rather than that of
a superior authority, dominating students’ learning. They also felt that students would be willing and able to make
positive contributions in class. This seems, however, to be inconsistent with what the third-year students’ expected
from their teachers. Surprisingly, the first-year students who had been thought to rely too much on their teachers
were fairly independent. For the 32 teachers who taught both the first- and the third-year students, it became
obvious that there was a teaching problem that needed to be resolved. Another divergence between students and
teachers was identified with respect to learning about culture. The prescribed heavy teaching agenda seemed to
account for why teachers “purposefully” neglected cultural issues. The good thing is that the teachers did respond
positively to students’ demands for learning about culture, indicating a willingness to add some cultural content to
their classes. Nevertheless, the issue of how to modify the tight teaching schedule to make room for teaching culture
remained a problem.
It can thus be reasonably concluded from the findings that having teachers compare students’ metaphors with
their own was useful in at least two ways. Firstly, both students and teachers engaged with the metaphor elicitation
 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415 411

task and the interview and did in fact reflect on the teacher’s role in the context of the EFL classes. Secondly, the
“teacher” metaphors in the reaction activity did operate as a useful mediational tool. Looking at students’ various
“teacher” metaphors enabled teachers to clarify “how to be a good provider” (T29) and identify the conflicts (in
the categories of “culture transmitter” and “authority” metaphors) and gaps (in the categories of “interest arouser”
and “co-worker” metaphors) in beliefs about classroom teaching roles between the two groups. More importantly,
reacting to students’ “teacher” metaphors resulted in a willingness by most teachers to alter their teaching
schedule.

7. Conclusions

In summary, the present study adds to current research on the usefulness of metaphor analysis in which researchers
attempt to elicit beliefs. The literature suggests (see Section 2) that metaphor analysis linked to a sociocultural
approach can be effective as a way of accessing how beliefs about teaching/learning impact on evaluations by teachers
and students of actual course situations. Where beliefs and evaluations diverge, the result can be used to stimulate
negotiation between the different parties, leading, it is hoped, to improvements in practice. The study reported here
was an attempt to establish whether the procedure would work in a cultural context (namely China) where classes were
frequently highly teacher centred and where negotiation between teachers and students was rare and loss of face was
an important consideration.
The answer is generally positive. Firstly, several inter-group discrepancies were found. Divergences in beliefs were
identified between the teachers and the students regarding the interpretation of the teacher as “instructor”, “cultural
transmitter”, “interest arouser”, “authority” and “co-worker”, and between the two student groups (at different levels
of English proficiency) as regards teacher as “instructor”. Secondly, as Hart (2009) found with her participants, the
majority of the teachers involved (22/32) said they would change aspects of their teaching, and all claimed that they
had learned something from the engagement with their students’ metaphors.
Methodologically, the use of metaphor analysis, in this study, seemed to work well in investigating both
teachers and students’ beliefs about teachers’ roles. Most participants successfully used classroom experiences to
reflect on the teacher’s role(s) via a metaphor elicitation prompt, though some did find the task hard. In addition,
linking personal analogical statements with follow-up interviews (following Jin and Cortazzi, 2011) increased the
trustworthiness of the metaphor analysis, allowing us to be clear whether entailments were positive or negative.
Clearly, metaphor analysis is not the only way to gain insight into students’ and teachers’ beliefs and lead to
possible alterations in teaching practices, but in sensitive cases, where face is crucially involved, A IS B-type
metaphor’s combination of being highly salient and foregrounding strong emotional commitment, while
remaining indirect and impersonal, would seem to make it particularly appropriate. Our conclusion is accordingly
that, as Barcelos (2003) suggested, metaphor analysis procedures applied to beliefs about second/foreign
language teaching and learning need to encompass culturally/contextually-appropriate interaction between
stakeholders.
The key limitation of the study was that it was not possible to establish how far the teachers did in fact make
changes to their programmes. The small sample size and lack of random sampling also limits the generalisability of
the results. The change from stakeholder interaction to reactions by the teachers is not really a limitation, but it would
be interesting to explore in future studies what happens in a Chinese university context where teachers do compare
metaphors with their students.
This has been just a single case study with very limited interaction; to explore the pedagogic value of the interactive
method, what are now needed are more contextualised studies involving teachers and learners of different sorts,
studies involving more (or different) stakeholders such as teacher trainers (Low, 1999), policymakers, administrators
and parents (Hart, 2009) and crucially, studies involving different amounts and types of interaction.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ana Barcelos and Paula Kalaja for making parts of their unpublished MA and PhD theses
available. We would also like to thank Paul Roberts for his comments on the first draft of the paper.
412 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415

Appendix A. Metaphor questionnaire

Instruction

You are required to describe English teachers’ roles in the module Comprehensive English. Please think of
a metaphor and complete the sentence “An English teacher is.because. ”. You need to explain why you choose
specific metaphor(s) (after ‘because.’).

1. Your email is.

2. Your are a TEACHER , a STUDENT ,
3. How many years you have been teaching, if you are a teacher?
4. Have you passed TEM-4, if you are a student? YES , NO ,
5. Please complete the sentence: An English teacher is.because.
6. If you feel difficult or have any problem with thinking of a metaphor, could you please give your reasons?

Thank you very much!

Appendix B. “Teacher” metaphors from Teachers (N [ 32)

Conceptual categories Exemplar metaphors Entailments (because.)*

Teacher as provider Book(3) Providing lots of knowledge (T1. also T/2/3)
Machine (2) Teaching mechanically in China (T3. Also T4)
Salesman Being paid for selling knowledge to students (T5)
Teacher as nurturer Gardener (3) Fostering students carefully/students are like flowers and young
trees (T6. Also T/7/8)
Mother (3) Being patient and looking after students (T9. Also T10/11)
Teacher as devotee Candle Sacrificing himself/devoting himself (T12)
Horse Working hard (T13)
Servant Serving students heart and soul (T14)
Silkworm (2) Demanding less but devoting much (T15. Also T16)
Teacher as instructor Helper Sorting out their learning difficulties (T17)
Candle Helping students leave darkness (T18)
Aladdin’s Lamp Inspiring students (T19)
Teacher as cultural transmitter Bridge (2) Helping students understand English cultures and customs
(T20. Also T21)
Teacher as interest arouser Entertainer (2) Making classes interesting and facilitating students’ engagement
(T22. Also T23)
Magnet (4) Attracting students’ attention (T24. Also T/25/26/27)
Teacher as co-worker Collaborator (4) Not the only resource of knowledge in the classroom (T28)
Learning from my students (T29. Also T/30/31/32)
Note: The wording represents that used by one of the participants. Occasional spelling and grammar errors have been corrected to aid readability.

Appendix C. “Teacher” metaphors from 1st year students (N [ 32)

Conceptual categories Exemplar metaphors Entailments (because.)*

Teacher as provider Book (2) Giving students all what they want to know (S1. Also S2)
Dictionary Students can turn to for help (S3)
Glasses Helping students to see the world much clearly (S4)
Encyclopedia Important sources of knowledge (S5)
Teacher as nurturer Gardener (3) Cultivating students’ mind
(S6. Also S7/8)
Father (2) Teaching students learning English from zero (S9. Also S10)
(continued on next page)
 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415 413

(continued )
Conceptual categories Exemplar metaphors Entailments (because.)*
Teacher as devotee Candle (3) Devoting their lives to education career (S10. Also S12/13)
Bee (2) Always keeping busy and working hard (S14. Also S15)
Teacher as instructor Navigator Helping students find the right track (S16)
Light (2) Offering help when students have difficulties/inspiring students
(S17. Also S18)
Beacon Guiding students to set their goals (S19)
Teacher as cultural transmitter Bridge (4) Main sources of knowledge about culture/connecting two
cultures/make inter-culture
communication easier
(S20. Also S21/22/23)
TV (2) Main sources of knowledge about culture (S24. Also S25)
Preacher Providing information of teaching and learning abroad (S26)
Ribbon (2) Connecting two different cultures
(S27. Also S28)
Teacher as authority Sky (2) Always feeling scary to talk to them (S29. Also S30)
Expert (2) Having extensive skill or knowledge (S31. Also S32)
Note: The wording represents that used by one of the participants. Occasional spelling and grammar errors have been corrected to aid readability.

Appendix D. “Teacher” metaphors from 3rd year students (N [ 33)

Conceptual categories Exemplar metaphors Entailments (because.)*

Teacher as provider Tool Passing knowledge from generation to generation (S33)
Mineral resources Rich in knowledge (S34)
Keyboard Strictly following and copying textbooks, like ‘ctrlþc’ and ‘ctrlþv’
operation with computer (S35)
Dictionary Just explaining the meaning and the use of words (S36)
Teacher as nurturer Gardener (4) Looking after students like nurturing young plants
(S37. Also S38/39/40)
Mother (2) Finding students’ potential and helping students reach them
(S41. Also S42)
Teacher as devotee Candle (2) Generously giving all his knowledge to students (S43. Also S44)
Chalk (2) Dedicated to the education career and give more than they gain
(S45. Also S46)
Teacher as instructor Radar Directing learning English (S47)
Lighthouse Leading aimless students where to go (S48)
Guide Offering advices for learning (S49)
Bus driver (2) Deciding the route and the progress of learning (S50. Also S51)
Train Leading students to the destination (S52)
Beacon (2) Leading students directly to the destinations (S53. Also S54)
Team leader Being responsible for both learning and learning (S55)
Teacher as cultural transmitter Bridge (3) Helping students learn English cultures (S56. Also S57/58)
Belt Linking the eastern culture to the western culture (S59)
Media Important resources of learning about English culture (S60)
Window (2) Through which students can learn about English culture
(S61. Also S62)
Teacher as authority Magician (2) Helping students to learn with his/her magic (S63. Also S64)
Sun Having being powerful in teaching-learning process (S65)
Note: The wording represents that used by one of the participants. Occasional spelling and grammar errors have been corrected to aid readability.

References

Ahmad, F., Aziz, J., 2009. Students’ perception of the teachers’ teaching of literature communicating and understanding through the eyes of
audience. European Journal of Social Sciences 7 (3), 17e26.
Allwright, R.A., Bailey, K.M., 1991. Focus on the Language Classroom: An Introduction to Classroom Research for Language Teachers.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
414 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415

Barcelos, A.M.F., 2000. Understanding teachers’ and students’ language learning beliefs in experience: a Deweyan approach. Unpublished PhD
thesis. The University of Alabama.
Barcelos, A.M.F., 2003. Researching beliefs about SLA: a critical review. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New
Research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp. 7e33.
Block, D., 1990. Student and teacher metaphor for language learning. In: Ribe, R. (Ed.), Towards A New Decade (ELT): Novenes Jornades
Pedagogiques per a rensenvament de l’Anglês. ICE, Barcelona, pp. 30e42.
Block, D., 1992. Metaphors we teach and learn by. Prospect 7 (3), 42e55.
Cameron, L., Low, G.D., 1999. Metaphor. Language Teaching 32, 77e96.
Cameron, L., Maslen, R. (Eds.), 2010. Metaphor Analysis: Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities.
Equinox, London.
Cameron, L., Low, G.D., Maslen, R., 2010. Finding systematicity in metaphor use. In: Cameron, L., Maslen, R. (Eds.), Metaphor Analysis:
Research Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. Equinox, London, pp. 116e146.
Clarridge, P.B., 1990. Multiple perspectives on the classroom performance of certified and uncertified teachers. Journal of Teacher Education 41
(4), 15e25.
Cortazzi, M., Jin, L., 1999. Bridges to learning: metaphors of teaching, learning, and language. In: Cameron, L., Low, G.D. (Eds.), Researching
and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 149e176.
Cui, S.H., Liu, J.L., 2009. Analysis of distortion problems of teachers’ role. Academy 3, 15e26.
Davis, H.S., 2009. Student and teacher conceptualizations of reading: a metaphor analysis study of scripted reading interventions in secondary
classrooms. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Cincinnati.
de Guerrero, M.C.M., Villamil, O.S., 2002. Metaphorical conceptualizations of ESL teaching and learning. Language and Teaching Research 6,
95e120.
Ellis, R., 1999. A metaphorical analysis of learner beliefs. Paper presented at the 12th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Tokyo, Japan.
Ellis, R., 2001. The metaphorical constructions of second language learners. In: Breen, M.P. (Ed.), Learner Contributions to Language Learning:
New Directions in Research. Longman, Harlow, pp. 65e85.
Hart, G.A., 2009. Composing metaphors: metaphors for writing in the composition classroom. Unpublished PhD thesis. Ohio University.
Horwitz, E.K., 1985. Using student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the foreign language methods course. Foreign Language
Annals 18 (4), 333e340.
Jin, L., Cortazzi, M., 2011. More than a journey: learning in the metaphors of Chinese students and teachers. In: Jin, L., Cortazzi, M. (Eds.),
Researching Chinese Learners: Skills, Perceptions and Intercultural Adaptations. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, pp. 67e92.
Kalaja, P., 1995. Student beliefs (or metacognitive knowledge) about SLA reconsidered. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 5 (2),
191e204.
Kalaja, P., 2003. Research on students’ beliefs about SLA within a discursive approach. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA:
New Research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp. 87e108.
Kramsch, C., 2003. Metaphor and the subjective construction of belief. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New Research
Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp. 109e128.
Kumaravadivelu, B., 1991. Language-learning tasks: teacher intention and learner interpretation. ELT Journal 45 (2), 98e107.
Lantolf, J.P., 2000. Introducing sociocultural theory. In: Lantolf, J.P. (Ed.), Sociocultural Theory and Second Language Learning. Oxford
University Press, Oxford, pp. 1e26.
Lantolf, J., Thorne, S.L., 2006. Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Lakoff, G., Johnson, M., 1980. Metaphors We Live By. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Littlemore, J., Low, G.D., 2006. Figurative Thinking and Foreign Language Learning. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills.
Low, G.D., 1987. The need for a multi-perspective approach to the evaluation of foreign language teaching materials. Evaluation & Research in
Education 1 (1), 19e29.
Low, G.D., 1999. Validating metaphor research projects. In: Cameron, L., Low, G.D. (Eds.), Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp. 48e68.
Low, G.D., Todd, Z., 2010. Guidelines for good practice in metaphor analysis. In: Cameron, L., Maslen, R. (Eds.), Metaphor Analysis: Research
Practice in Applied Linguistics, Social Sciences and the Humanities. Equinox, London, pp. 217e229.
McGrath, I., 2006. Using insights from teacher’s metaphors. Journal of Education for Teaching 32 (3), 303e317.
Oxford, R., Tomlinson, S., Barcelos, A., Harrington, C., Lavine, R.Z., Saleh, A., Longhini, A., 1998. Clashing metaphors about classroom
teachers: toward a systematic typology for the language teaching field. System 26, 3e50.
Oksanen, J., 2005. Students’ beliefs about themselves as users of Finnish, Swedish and English: analysis of metaphorical constructions.
Unpublished MA thesis. University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Pinnegar, S., Mangelson, J., Reed, M., Groves, S., 2010. Exploring preservice teachers’ metaphor plotlines. Teaching and Teacher Education 27,
639e647.
Riley, P.A., 2009. Shifts in beliefs about second language learning. RELC Journal 40 (1), 102e124.
Saban, A., Kocbeker, B.N., Saban, A., 2007. Prospective teachers’ conceptions of teaching and learning revealed through metaphor analysis.
Learning and Instruction 17, 123e139.
Tian, J., Low, G.D., 2011. Critical thinking and Chinese university students: a review of the evidence. Language. Culture and Curriculum 24 (1),
61e76.
Turunen, P., 2003. Metaphorical expressions used by university students about themselves as learners of English and about their teachers.
Unpublished MA thesis. University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Tobin, K., 1990. Changing metaphors and beliefs, a master switch for teaching? Theory into Practice 29 (2), 122e127.
 W. Wan et al. / System 39 (2011) 403e415 415

Villamil, O.S., de Guerrero, M.C.M., 2005. Constructing theoretical notions of L2 writing through metaphor conceptualization. In: Bartels, N.
(Ed.), Applied Linguistics in Language Teacher Education. Springer, New York, pp. 79e90.
Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Wan, W., 2007. An examination of metaphorical accounts L2 writers tell about their writing processes. Unpublished MA dissertation. University
of York, UK.
Wenden, A., 1999. An introduction to metacognitive knowledge and beliefs in language learning: beyond the basics. System 27, 435e441.
Wertsch, J.V., 1998. Mind as Action. Oxford University Press, New York.
Williams, M., Burden, R.L., 1999. Student’s developing conceptions of themselves as language learners. Modern Language Journal 83, 193e201.
Woods, D., 2003. The social construction of beliefs in the language classroom. In: Kalaja, P., Barcelos, A.M.F. (Eds.), Beliefs about SLA: New
Research Approaches. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht, pp. 201e229.
Woodward, T., 1991. Models and Metaphors in Language Teaching. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Zapata, G.C., Lacorte, M., 2007. Preservice and inservice instructors’ metaphorical constructions of second language teachers. Foreign Language
Annals 40 (3), 521e534.
Zhan, S., Le, T., 2004. Interpersonal relationship between teachers and students: an intercultural study on Chinese and Australian universities.
Paper presented at 2004 AARE International Education Research Conference, Melbourne, Australia.