This article was downloaded by: [89.205.59.

75]
On: 05 August 2014, At: 05:18
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Classroom Discourse
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcdi20

‘Seeing is believing’: looking at EFL

teachers’ beliefs through classroom
interaction
a b
Li Li & Steve Walsh
a
Graduate School of Education , University of Exeter , Exeter, UK
b
School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences ,
Newcastle University , Newcastle, UK
Published online: 13 Apr 2011.

To cite this article: Li Li & Steve Walsh (2011) ‘Seeing is believing’: looking at EFL
teachers’ beliefs through classroom interaction, Classroom Discourse, 2:1, 39-57, DOI:
10.1080/19463014.2011.562657

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19463014.2011.562657

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 to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and 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 Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial 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
 Classroom Discourse
Vol. 2, No. 1, May 2011, 39–57

‘Seeing is believing’: looking at EFL teachers’ beliefs through

classroom interaction
Li Lia* and Steve Walshb
a
Graduate School of Education, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK; bSchool of Education,
Communication and Language Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
(Final version received 31 January 2011)
Taylor and Francis
RCDI_A_562657.sgm

Classroom
10.1080/19463014.2011.562657
1946-3014
Original
Taylor
2102011
li.li@exeter.ac.uk
LiLi
00000May
&Article
Francis
Discourse
(print)/1946-3022
2011 (online)

This article explores the pedagogical beliefs and classroom interactions of two
secondary school English-as-a-foreign-language teachers – one novice and one
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

experienced – in the People’s Republic of China. Using interview and classroom

observation data, our study depicts the teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about teaching
and learning by comparing what they say about their professional practice with
their classroom interaction. We argue that, by analysing teachers’ stated beliefs and
their interactions while teaching, it is possible to gain a fuller understanding of the
complex inter-relationship between what teachers say they do and believe and how
they interact with students. Our study has relevance to the growing body of
literature on teacher cognition, and to research on classroom interaction and
teacher development.
Keywords: teacher belief; interaction; Chinese; teaching; learning; culture

Introduction
Over the past 30 years, research has suggested that teachers’ beliefs heavily influence
their pedagogical practice (for example, Borg 2003; Ng and Farrell 2003; Mangubhai
et al. 2004), their instructional decisions in the classroom (Tillema 2000), and accep-
tance and uptake of new approaches, techniques and activities (Donaghue 2003). As
Williams and Burden (1997, 57) note, ‘teachers’ deep-rooted beliefs about how
languages are learned will pervade their classroom actions more than a particular
methodology they are told to adopt or course book they follow’. In the substantial
body of literature on teachers’ beliefs, these beliefs are often described as either stated
or enacted (cf. ‘professed’ and ‘attributed’; Speer 2005), and there is considerable
disagreement as to the precise relationship between stated/professed and enacted/
attributed beliefs, partly because this is a highly complex relationship and partly
because it is dependent on other factors, such as local context.
In review of the literature of language teachers’ beliefs, around 20 studies that
compared teachers’ beliefs with their classroom practices were identified. The majority
of these studies were conducted in contexts where English is taught as a second
language; few focused on non-native speaking (NNS) teachers, the focus of the present
study. The lack of attention to this group may not only result in a failure to understand
current practices in Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), but

*Corresponding author. Email: li.li@exeter.ac.uk

ISSN 1946-3014 print/ISSN 1946-3022 online

© 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/19463014.2011.562657
http://www.informaworld.com
 40 L. Li and S. Walsh

also in a failure to understand and develop English-as-a-foreign-language (EFL)

teachers from those countries. In light of this research gap, our study focuses on Chinese
teachers of English. Our aim is to explore NNS EFL teachers’ pedagogical beliefs by
investigating not only what teachers believe about teaching and learning English in an
instructed language environment (their stated beliefs articulated in interviews), but also
how they act and organise teaching and learning in classrooms (their interactions with
students). In particular, the paper focuses on the complex interrelationships between
teachers’ reported beliefs and their classroom interactions in Chinese secondary schools.

Teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices

It is widely accepted that beliefs generally refer to ‘suppositions, commitments, and
ideologies’ (Calderhead 1996, 715). While beliefs may be viewed as one of the most
valuable psychological constructs for looking at teacher education (Mansour 2009),
they are also one of the most difficult to define and investigate precisely because of
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

their psychological nature. According to Pajares (1992), beliefs are a ‘messy

construct’ for two reasons. Firstly, it is difficult to distinguish between knowledge and
beliefs. According to some researchers (see, for example, Pajares 1992; Calderhead
1996), beliefs are associated with opinions and perceptions while knowledge is
closely linked to facts. In a teaching context, it is not difficult to see how this distinc-
tion might break down. Secondly, understandings of teachers’ beliefs are closely
linked to the method of investigation; as with much educational research, findings are
closely linked to the research methods and instruments used.
There is a growing body of research literature which suggests that teachers’
beliefs directly affect both their perceptions and judgements of teaching and learning
interactions in the classroom, resulting in a range of classroom practices (Clark and
Peterson 1986; Clark and Yinger 1987). So far, a great deal of empirical evidence has
established the significance of beliefs for understanding teacher behaviour (see
reviews by Kane, Sandretto, and Heath 2002; Borg 2006). For example, Ng and
Farrell (2003) found evidence that what teachers say and do in their classrooms is
governed by their beliefs. Similarly, Lamb (1995), looking at an in-service teacher
education programme, concluded that how teachers had interpreted ideas during and
after the course heavily affected their practices. Other studies have described incon-
sistencies between teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practices (for example,
Farrell and Kun 2008; Phipps and Borg 2009). These discrepancies may be largely
caused by contextual factors (Borg 2006) such as an ‘inability to apply the new ideas
within the existing parameters of syllabus, examinations, and other practical
constraints’ (Lamb 1995, 75).
Despite the existence of a large body of research literature on teachers’ beliefs,
(Borg 1998, 1999a, 1999b; Breen et al. 2001; Richards 1996; Woods 1996), there
have been only a limited number of studies on NNS EFL in-service teachers’ beliefs.
For example, Yang (2000) surveyed 68 primary English teachers in Taiwan on their
beliefs about language teaching and learning, and further compared his findings with
Horwitz (1985) and Kern (1995). All three studies concluded that teachers believed it
is easier for children than adults to learn a foreign language; that it is important to
listen and repeat a lot; and that practice in the language laboratory is essential.
However, Yang also found that Taiwanese primary school teachers hold strong beliefs
about teaching culture while college teachers in Kern’s study were flexible and toler-
ant of learners’ errors. Davis (2003) drew on the work of Lightbown and Spada (1993)
 Classroom Discourse 41

to compare teachers’ and students’ beliefs regarding aspects of language learning in

Macao, China. The study found that teachers and students shared the same beliefs
about language learning resting upon ‘a common theoretical base comprised of an
admixture of behaviourism, innatism and interactionism’ (Davis 2003, 217). The
study reported that teachers believed that:

languages are learned mainly through imitation; students with high IQs are good
language learners; when students are allowed to interact freely (for example, in pair or
group work), they learn each other’s mistakes. (Davis 2003, 216)

Davis also demonstrated how teachers’ beliefs performed a dual function: on the
one hand, teachers saw themselves as performing ‘an extension of a parental role in
education’, while on the other they regarded themselves as powerful educators, who
can ‘make a significant difference in their students’ language competence at any age’
(2003, 218). In a different context, Sato and Kleinsasser (2004) investigated the
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

beliefs, practices and interactions of 19 teachers in a Japanese high school English

department using interviews, observations and teachers’ documents. The study
revealed that the teachers’ beliefs were closely tied to context, or to the school’s (tech-
nical) culture – its norms and values. Norms, which teachers described as ‘managing
students and various task assignments’ and ‘keeping pace with other teachers’, guided
not only what they taught, but how they taught (Sato and Kleinsasser 2004, 811).
These understandings helped develop teachers’ beliefs about teaching ‘the same way
for the common test and to maintain classroom management’ (Sato and Kleinsasser
2004). Due to the emphasis on grammar-oriented tests, the English language teachers
in this department held tightly to their beliefs about grammar, translation and the yaku-
doku (grammar translation) method. This study, together with other research, suggests
that language teachers’ behaviour is certainly linked very closely to their social,
cultural and institutional context (Burns and Knox 2005; Li 2008).
Teachers, as Borg (2003, 81) notes, are ‘active, thinking decision-makers who
make instructional choices by drawing on complex, practically-oriented, personalized,
and context-sensitive networks of knowledge, thoughts, and beliefs’. Understanding
language teachers’ beliefs cannot be achieved by simple recourse to what they say or
do at face value. Rather, a deep understanding is needed of the complex interplay
between personal beliefs and context-specific actions as depicted through classroom
interaction. In our review of the literature, we found few studies that considered class-
room interactional processes, something we regard as being crucial in order to estab-
lish teachers’ understanding about pedagogy, learners, themselves and the subject
matter. This is the precise gap we intend to fill in the present study: in order to
compare what teachers say they believe with what they actually do while teaching,
there is a need, we suggest, to focus on their classroom interactions. By focusing on
interaction, our research has the potential, at least, to link self-report data with actual
classroom behaviour. Since interaction lies at the very heart of that behaviour, there is
a very strong case for studying it.

Teachers’ beliefs and classroom interaction

According to Ellis (1998, 145), an ‘internal’ perspective of the second-language
classroom views teaching as a ‘series of interactional events’. Any understanding of
these ‘events’ should focus on the turn-taking and exchange structures in operation
 42 L. Li and S. Walsh

and pay attention to the collaborative nature of the discourse. Understanding the ways
in which classroom talk is ‘accomplished’ (Mehan 1979) is crucial to an understand-
ing of the role of interaction in second-language acquisition. Put simply, an under-
standing of classroom interaction lies at the very heart of an understanding of
learning and teaching.
What, then, can we learn about teachers’ beliefs by looking at their interactions in
class? Why use interaction as a lens to study beliefs? Several reasons can be advo-
cated. First, and according to van Lier (1996, 5), ‘interaction is the most important
element in the curriculum’; a position that is echoed by Ellis (2000, 209; original
emphasis), who claims ‘learning arises not through interaction, but in interaction’. At
first sight, this position only adds to the argument for studying interaction, not for
using interaction to study beliefs. Yet as we have already seen (see above), most of
the key constructs which make up teachers’ beliefs centre on interaction: teaching,
learning and learners, subject matter, professional development, the teacher – all
require interaction if they are to be understood fully. Understandings about teachers’
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

beliefs must acknowledge the importance of interaction given that interaction lies at
the very heart of teaching, learning, and professional development.
A second reason for using interaction to study beliefs rests on the notion that good
practice lies at the heart of most teachers’ beliefs. Teachers are concerned in any
dialogue about their beliefs to relate their own practices to what is acclaimed as good
practice in the field (Li 2008). The decisions taken by teachers are important as good
decisions are those that facilitate learning opportunities. The ability to make the ‘right
decision’ entails an understanding of teaching and learning, teacher and learners’ roles
and the subject matter, which in turn is directly influenced by their beliefs.
A third, and related, reason for choosing interaction as a means of understanding
beliefs is that the obvious starting-point for discussing beliefs is the local context in
which teachers work. One way in which teachers can articulate their beliefs is by
understanding the practices in their classroom context. By looking at how teachers
interact with their students, we can possibly understand how teachers’ beliefs direct
their interactions, and vice versa.
There are, then, at least three reasons for studying teachers’ beliefs through a class-
room interaction lens. First, classroom interaction provides evidence of the learning
that takes place; second, it casts light on teachers’ practices, which are, arguably,
influenced by their beliefs; and third, a focus on interaction gives teachers insights into
their own local contexts, which both shape and are shaped by their belief system.

The study
Context
The study was conducted in two Chinese secondary state schools in Beijing. The two
participating teachers were volunteers in a larger project, and data used in this study
were collected between 2005 and 2006. In the larger study, the research focus was on
teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about teaching and learning, the teacher and the learner,
and the subject matter. Here, we focus only on two teachers’ beliefs about teaching
and learning. These two teachers have been assigned pseudonyms, Li Fang and Da
Xin.
Li Fang was teaching junior high school students in an Ordinary School.1 Accord-
ing to her, she was an inexperienced teacher because she had only started teaching two
years previously when she graduated from a teacher education college in a southern
 Classroom Discourse 43

city and obtained a teaching position in Beijing. She had two classes with over 90
students in total. She was very keen to develop herself as a respected teacher and
attended professional development activities every week organised by the District
Education Bureau.2 The school encouraged teaching reform and recently invested in
a large number of computers for teaching. All classrooms were equipped with a
computer and a white board. The school also has CCTV in each classroom so that the
principal can monitor each class at any time.
In the classroom observation data presented in this article, Li Fang is teaching a
class of junior high school students, aged 13–14 and of intermediate language ability.
The lesson presented for analysis is typical for this class, follows the course-book
closely and makes use of a mixture of oral and written exercises. Most of the teaching
is in ‘lockstep’, with the class working together as one group and limited use of pair
and group work. The topic of the lesson is Martin Luther King and her pedagogic
focus is listening and writing skills development.
Compared with Li Fang, Da Xin is a very experienced EFL teacher, with 22 years’
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

teaching experience. He was teaching Senior 1 in a District Key School.3 He was the
director of the EFL section of his school and also the lead teacher4 in the district. He
had a lot of experience in designing test papers and in training and mentoring new
teachers. It would be fair to say that he had experienced a considerable amount of
reform and innovation since becoming an EFL teacher.
In the lesson presented in this paper, Da Xin is teaching a group of senior high
school students, aged 15–16 and of intermediate language ability. The topic of the
lesson is the play The necklace by Guy de Maupassant, which the class have read in
summary. The main pedagogic focus is oral fluency practice around the topic of the
play.

Research questions
To recap, the focus of this study is teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about teaching and
learning. We are particularly interested in the complex inter-relationship between their
stated beliefs and their interactions with students. The study addresses the following
research questions:

● What are these Chinese EFL teachers’ pedagogical beliefs about teaching and
learning?
● In what ways are the teachers’ stated beliefs related, if at all, to their classroom
practices?

Data collection
A qualitative case study was chosen as the best approach to investigate teachers’
beliefs and the interrelationships between pedagogical beliefs, classroom interaction
and professional practices, which allows different methods to seek in-depth under-
standing of some social phenomenon, especially when such understanding encom-
passed important contextual conditions (Yin and Davis 2007). The data used in the
study are taken from a video-recording of one lesson followed by a semi-structured
interview with each teacher (see Appendix 1 for interview guidelines). In order to
provide a clear focus for reflection and discussion, classroom observations took place
before individual interviews. Classroom observations were video-recorded, with the
 44 L. Li and S. Walsh

main focus on the teacher and the classroom activity, rather than on individual
students. Each lesson lasted between 40 and 45 minutes. These recordings were then
transcribed (see Appendix 2 for transcription conventions).
Semi-structured interviews were employed, each lasting around 60 minutes,
beginning with general questions about the observed session, and then moving to
more structured questions following the interview template (see Appendix 1). Teach-
ers were encouraged to reflect upon their own practice and relate it to underlying
theory. Individual interviews were fully transcribed and checked by the interviewees
to make sure their views were not misunderstood or misinterpreted (Lincoln and
Guba 1985).

Data analysis
Our data are drawn from two sources. Firstly, transcribed interview data were analy-
sed using content analysis, and four main themes were identified: beliefs about teach-
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

ing, about learning, about teachers and learners, and about the language itself; themes
that, incidentally, appear very frequently in the literature reviewed (see, for example,
Calderhead 1995). In this article, our focus is on teachers’ beliefs about teaching and
learning.
Secondly, video-recordings of the two teachers were transcribed, using a discourse
analytic approach. Discourse analysis is the study of spoken or written texts. Its focus
is on words and utterances above the level of sentence and its main aim is to look at
the ways in which words and phrases function in context. Perhaps the earliest and
most well-known proponents of discourse analysis are Sinclair and Coulthard (1975),
whose observation that most classroom discourse follows an initiation–response–
feedback/evaluation (IR(F/E)) structure is still highly relevant to the study of class-
room discourse today. For every move made by a student, teachers typically make
two; for example:

I (Initiation) T: what’s the past tense of go?

R (Response) S: went
F/E (Feedback/Evaluation) T: went, excellent.

In the present study, videotaped data were transcribed (see Appendix 2 for
transcription conventions) and analysed from a discourse analytic perspective. Our
aim was to uncover the ways in which the participating teachers interacted with their
students and to compare these interactions with their interview comments. Unlike the
more micro-analytic perspective offered by conversation analysis, our main concern
here was to offer a broad description of classroom interactions, which could then be
compared with the interview data. The analysis that follows, therefore, is intended to
help us offer insights into the complex inter-relationship between teachers’ stated
beliefs and their interactions with students, rather than to uncover every detail of those
interactions.
Teachers’ stated beliefs (from the interview data) and their interactions with students
(from the classroom observation data) were compared as a means of gaining insights
into the complex relationship between what teachers report as belief and their
interactions while teaching. Put differently, this procedure allowed us to compare what
teachers say they do while teaching with what they actually do as evidenced in their
interactions. The procedures used in this study also provided us with an opportunity
 Classroom Discourse 45

to reflect on the extent to which classroom interaction data can enhance understandings
of teachers’ beliefs.

Findings
In the findings, we present the stated beliefs of teachers, as expressed in interview, and
compare these comments with extracts from the classroom transcripts. In the presen-
tation of our findings, we first deal with each teacher in turn and then make some
observations and comparisons about both teachers. Findings are presented according
to themes emerging from the interviews and relate to teachers’ beliefs about vocabu-
lary teaching and beliefs about oral communication in the classroom.

Li Fang
The classroom excerpts presented below are taken from a listening and writing class,
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

based on the story of Martin Luther King. In Excerpt 1, Li Fang explains her beliefs
about language teaching:

Excerpt 1

Students’ attitudes towards learning English and learning decides (sic) my belief of
language teaching. Students think they learn from me because I talk all the time and tell
them something all the time. I don’t have a choice but do this in order to let students see
they are learning because they think their scores reflect whether their English is
improved or not.

From the interview data, it is apparent that she makes a strong connection between
learning and teaching, viewing her own approach to teaching as being closely related
to students’ beliefs about learning English (‘Students’ attitudes towards learning
English and learning decides my belief of language teaching’). Although we do not
know how she has found out about the beliefs of her students, she claims to be
responding to what her students believe and teaches according to this knowledge
(‘Students think they learn from me because I talk all the time and tell them something
all the time’). Interestingly, Li Fang seems to be stressing the idea that learning takes
place when she dominates the interaction (‘I talk all the time’). She goes on to explain
her position, arguing that students can gauge their progress more accurately if she lets
them ‘see they are learning’. What Li Fang appears to be suggesting here is that her
own talk is important to the learning which takes place, and that her learners learn
from her when she talks a lot.
There is further evidence of this position in Excerpt 2a:

Excerpt 2a

I am more dominant in class, because the students are weak, they will keep silent if you
organize them to do group work or pair work. They don’t want to participate the activity
(sic) either because it is not the content of the exams. Also students are weak, so in class
I have to help them with word pronunciation and spelling, otherwise they will fall
behind.

Li Fang here suggests why it is necessary for her to take the lead and how this helps
her students who are ‘unwilling’ to take part in any whole class teaching. It is interesting
 46 L. Li and S. Walsh

to note that, for Li Fang, being dominant is not necessarily a ‘bad thing’. She justifies
the need to dominate the interaction on the grounds that her students are ‘weak’ and
stay silent when asked to work in pairs or groups. She goes on to explain that students
only focus when something is going to be examined.
Turning now to Li Fang’s interactions with students, the Excerpt (2b) is taken
from halfway through the lesson. After reading aloud the new vocabulary and the
instructions for the listening activity (a gap-fill), Li Fang checks the answers with
students. The importance she attaches to the teaching and learning of vocabulary
comes out quite clearly here. She highlights the word ‘ring’, focusing first on its
spelling (line 5), then on its English meaning (line 6), and finally on its Chinese
equivalent (line 9).

Excerpt 2b

1 T now the second one is er=

Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

2 L1 =((xxx))=
3 T =Wei Wang louder
4 L1 ((xxx))
5 T that freedom(.) ring ring can you spell it (.) R I N G what’s
6 the meaning of it ring R I N G (.) sorry ok the whole class
7 can you tell me what’s the meaning of ring RI N G (2) the
8 cord (?) is ringing the cord is ringing (2) do you know the
9 word (2) the cor is ringing (translation) ok
(translation)

Li Fang, in Excerpt 2b, is concerned to help students with pronunciation and spell-
ing. Her elicitation request in line 1 is met with an inaudible response from Student 1
in line 2 and again in line 4. In the teacher’s extended turn (lines 5–9), she introduces
the word ring, first pronouncing it, then spelling it (line 5), checking meaning (line 6),
giving an example (line 8) and finally translating it into Chinese (in line 9). Through-
out this extract, there is evidence of extended wait time, pauses of two seconds where
the teacher is waiting for a response from students (in lines 7, 8 and 9). Li Fang’s
‘dominance in class’ highlighted in the interview data (see Excerpt 2a) is clearly
exemplified in her interactions with students. She dominates the discourse by making
frequent use of teacher echo: repeating the word ‘ring’, repeating the spelling of the
same word, repeating her example ‘the cord is ringing’, and repeating her translation
of the word.
Her stated beliefs about vocabulary teaching and her actual practice (in Excerpt
2(b)) correlate very closely. Student involvement is minimal, her domination is
total, exemplifying the idea of ‘teacher as model’. Her classroom practice is
entirely congruent with her stated belief about the need to control patterns of
communication and dominate the discourse (see Excerpt 1). Clearly, while stated
belief and actual practice do coincide in this extract, there might be some question
about the extent to which this is desirable: to what extent should students be
excluded from the interaction by a teacher who believes that she should dominate
the discourse?
Li Fang’s interest in vocabulary is a recurring theme in the classroom data analy-
sed here. It is something that she mentions on more than one occasion in the interview
data. Consider, for example, the following extracts, where an extract from the inter-
view data (Excerpt 3a) is followed by an extract of classroom data (Excerpt 3b):
 Classroom Discourse 47

Excerpt 3a

I think vocabulary is quite important because they are like the bricks to the building.
Once they have enough vocabulary, they could express themselves.

In Excerpt 3(a), Li Fang comments on the importance of vocabulary (the bricks to the
building) and indicates that vocabulary learning should not only take priority, but it is
the key to successful language learning (‘Once they have enough vocabulary, they
could express themselves’). In the same way that a building is constructed brick by
brick, Li Fang seems to be suggesting here that learning a second-language is equally
incremental: once learners have learnt enough words, they can start to use the language.
Her stated beliefs are borne out strikingly in Excerpt 3(b), taken from the begin-
ning of the lesson. After a brief introduction about who Martin Luther King was, Li
Fang begins the lesson by going over new vocabulary. She asks students to repeat after
the tape, focusing on pronunciation and spelling.
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

Excerpt 3b

1 T First er we should er read the new words read the new

2 words ok now the whole class er just er take out your
3 books (3) turn to page 168 168 let’s read the new words
4 of unit 14 unit 14 first let’s go over the new words then it
5 will help you to er listen to my er to have the class to
6 have the new class ok (8 plays tape) just follow
7 the tape to read the new words pay attention to the (0.4)
8 pronunciation and spelling of the new words °ok°

Here, the classroom data illustrate very clearly that, even in a lesson whose main focus
is listening and writing, Li Fang places great importance on the learning of new words.
Her metaphor of ‘building bricks’ is brought out in the transcript: ‘first let’s go over
the new words then it will help you to er listen’. Extending her metaphor a little
further, there also seems to be an assumption that the new words must be learnt first
to provide the foundation to the ‘building’, here a listening activity. By learning the
new words, there is an implication that listening will be easier. It is also interesting to
note that Li Fang’s ideas about ‘learning’ vocabulary centre very much on spelling
and pronunciation (‘pay attention to the pronunciation and spelling of the new words
ok’), while there are many other aspects of ‘knowing’ a word: knowing how it collo-
cates, knowing its form, knowing related words, and so on.
Excerpt 3(b) is typical of the kind of instructional language found in what can be
termed managerial mode (Walsh 2006). In this classroom micro-context, the teacher’s
goal is to locate learning in time and space and to focus attention on a particular activ-
ity. In the data, there are no less than six repetitions of the phrase ‘new words’, high-
lighting this teacher’s insistence of the need to check vocabulary before doing any
skills work. Pauses are relatively infrequent and are accompanied by actions (taking
out books in line 3 and playing the tape in line 6). The teacher holds the floor and only
hands over to learners at the end of the extract, marked by the softly uttered discourse
marker ‘ok’.
In addition to highlighting the importance of vocabulary, Li Fang also comments
on its difficulty for learners. In Excerpt 4a, she emphasises in the interview the fact
that vocabulary is ‘the most difficult part’ and the fact that ‘they [learners] always find
it difficult’.
 48 L. Li and S. Walsh

Excerpt 4a

Vocabulary is the most difficult part because they always find it difficult to memorize
the words and the usage. I don’t think there is a way to solve this problem except more
exercises and clear explanation.

Li Fang provides further evidence of her beliefs about vocabulary learning and teach-
ing when she refers to the difficulty learners face in memorising new words and in
knowing how to use them. She goes on, in Excerpt 4a, to suggest a solution to this
problem: ‘more exercises and clear explanation’.
When we compare this stated belief with her interactions with students, we see
once again that Li Fang spends some time dealing with the meanings of key vocabu-
lary. In Excerpt 4b, taken from the same class on Martin Luther King, the teacher first
goes over new words and then displays PowerPoint slides giving further information.
While students read the text on the slide, Li Fang explained and checked the meanings
of key vocabulary:
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

Excerpt 4b

1 T Do you know action ACT is the verb action is the noun for
2 act is the noun ok of do you know ACTion action act is the
3 verb verb what does it mean act
4 L1 ((xxx))
5 T louder you don’t have to be shy (1.0) ok Mei Lin, do you
6 know action
7 L1 ((Chinese translation))
8 T ((translation)) OK how about its noun form
9 ((translation of the question))?
10 L1 ((Chinese translation of actor))
11 T ((Chinese translation of actor)). ((Chinese
12 translation of action))? Act actor actress it’s
13 ((translation of actress)) here is ((asking a
14 question in Chinese)) what organise his first actions
15 ((translation of the
16 question as well as the answer))

In Excerpt 4(b), the teacher launches the topic in line 1, focusing attention on the
word ‘act’ and attempting to elicit its meaning in the display question (a question to
which the teacher already knows the answer) in line 3. Following an inaudible
response in line 4, and a one-second pause, the teacher nominates a student in line 5.
The IRF sequence which follows (lines 5–8) is repeated in lines 8–11, with the teacher
initiating a response (lines 5 and 8), the student responding (lines 7 and 10) and the
teacher offering an evaluation or feedback on that response (lines 8 and 11). It is strik-
ing too that the code-switch initiated by the student in line 7 is taken up by the teacher
and extended in subsequent turns (lines 8 and 11–15). There is progressively greater
use of Chinese through the extract, with the teacher using more and more L1, even
though the switch was initiated by the student.
In terms of Li Fang’s beliefs about vocabulary teaching, we can again see conver-
gence between her stated and enacted beliefs. In Excerpt 4(a) she comments on a
common problem that she encounters in her teaching (‘they always find it difficult to
memorize the words and the usage’), and then goes on to describe her strategy for
dealing with the problem (‘more exercises and clear explanation’). In the classroom
 Classroom Discourse 49

interaction in Excerpt 4(b), we see Li Fang using the different forms of the word ‘act’
to teach its meaning. Her explanation focuses very much on the forms (act, actor,
actress, action) of the word, while to explain the different meanings Li Fang uses a
Chinese translation. Excerpt 4(b) opens with an elicitation of the meaning of the word
action. Stressing the word act, Li Fang attempts to demonstrate the connection
between the verb act and the noun action. Her question do you know is repeated (in
lines 1 and 2), but fails to elicit any response. She eventually elicits a response by
asking a modified question what does it mean act (in line 3). The student’s response
is undecipherable and apparently inaudible to the teacher who asks for a repetition in
line 5. The one-second pause and nomination strategy in line 5 result in the same
student offering a Chinese translation of the word act (in line 7). Later in the same
class, we again see how Li Fang highlights the importance of vocabulary and stresses
the need for learners to pay attention to spelling and pronunciation.
From the extracts examined here, and indeed across the interview and observation
data, Li Fang consistently demonstrates that her stated beliefs and classroom practices
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

are aligned: that is, what she believes is what she does, and vice versa. We can say
that her spoken, stated beliefs and her professional actions correspond very closely
indeed. There is congruence between the words used to express her beliefs and her
actions, expressed through interactions with her students.
We now turn our attention to the second teacher, Da Xin.

Da Xin
When analysing the interview data for Da Xin, a number of commonly occurring
themes emerge, broadly related to oral communication in the classroom. The
comments below offer several insights into this teacher’s beliefs about what language
is and how it should be taught:

Excerpt 5

(a) So in my teaching, I try hard to let them accept my belief that communication goes
first and language is not only a subject but a media you go into another community.
(b) Learning focus first should be developing communicative skills, and second should
be developing cognitive skills, like thinking and analyzing skills. I personally don’t
agree that learning should be viewed as a knowledge acquiring process.

Several themes emerge from these interview comments. First, Da Xin regards
language as being more than a subject for academic study; according to him, the most
important thing is that language is used for communication. By studying a second-
language, he seems to be suggesting that learners are able to access another culture
(‘you go into another community’). Second, Da Xin sees learning, in the first instance,
as being about the acquisition of skills rather than knowledge. When we consider a
teaching episode, we can gain further insights into this teacher’s stated beliefs. In
Excerpt 6, students have just finished reading the play The necklace by Guy de
Maupassant. In this 45-minute lesson, students have spent some time learning about
the play through PowerPoint slides, reading, and watching a video-clip of the play. In
the last 15 minutes of the class, the teacher Da Xin asks each student to stand in turn
and relate, in their own words, the sequence of events that make up the story. As the
students seem to have some difficulties in retelling the story, the teacher probes and
uses questions to try to elicit the main events.
 50 L. Li and S. Walsh

Excerpt 6

1 T Ok I have a question why WHY ((gestures student to stand))

2 why didn’t she Mathilde I mean have er a diamond necklace (3)
3 L1 °because she was not rich°
4 T it’s very important she was not rich go on ((gestures for another
5 student to stand))
6 L2 on the way [home]
7 T [on on] her way home did she did she take part in
8 the PArty did she take part in the BALL or in the party (.) did
9 she take part in the ball or in the party (.) yes or no
10 L2 yes (nods)
11 T so tells us tell us something about party (.) do you think ↑so?
12 L2 er in the play er he:: he:: he may has pretty=
13 T =she might have been pretty at that day er at that night ok on
14 that night and then and did she have a very good time (.) did
15 she have a very good time at the party in the party ok yes ok
16 she had a very good time (.) and her husband=
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

17 L2 =and they have a very good time=

18 T =they had a very good time ok sit down go on that’s all go on
19 L3 but on her way home=
20 T =on her way home on THEIR way home
21 L3 oh oh oh on their way home he find the the diamond necklace
22 was not around her neck=
23 T =good thank you

Throughout this extract it is apparent that Da Xin is attempting to get students to use
their own words to recount the details of the story, stopping them when he is not satis-
fied with a response. In line 2, for example, his request for clarification followed by a
three-second pause alludes to a piece of key information that is currently missing. The
response ‘because she is not rich’, is eventually provided by Student 1 in line 3, said
softly. A similar sequence occurs in lines 4–17 where the teacher offers an assessment
of the student’s contribution in line 7 (did she take part in the party?), which serves to
both highlight to the student that something is wrong with his response and indicates
the need to tell a story in the right sequence order. The question is repeated three times
in lines 7–9, with the teacher finally clarifying for Student 2 that a simple ‘yes/no’ will
suffice as a response.
In line 12, we see Student 2 struggling to express himself and explain what
happened at the party; in line 13, L2 is interrupted by the teacher, who then asks
another prompt question (‘did she have a very good time?’), which is answered by Da
Xin in line 15. The combined prompt question and modelled self-response (‘she had
a very good time’) followed by the mention of her husband eventually result in the
student’s response in line 17, Essentially, this act of communication is simply a repe-
tition of what the teacher has been offering all along. It is corrected in line 18 (‘they
had a very good time’).
The floor is now handed to Student 3, who takes up the story in line 19 and is
immediately corrected in line 20 (‘on THEIR way home’). His contribution in lines
21 and 22 is finally met with approval by Da Xin in line 23, even though there were
obvious errors which this teacher might have corrected on another occasion.
From the data presented here, it seems that this teacher’s prime objective is to
promote oral communication, confirming his belief that communication goes first (see
Excerpt 5a). It would be unfair to dispute the fact that a lot of interactional work takes
place in Excerpt 6 in order to elicit, clarify, provide missing information, and so on.
 Classroom Discourse 51

Da Xin does a lot of interactional work to ensure that students provide complete
responses and do not omit key details. However, when we look more closely at the
interaction, we are able to make a number of observations about the precise nature of
the communication. In particular, we see that this teacher has very specific answers
which he is trying to elicit:

● whether Mathilde is rich or not (line 3)

● information about the party (lines 7–12)
● levels of enjoyment (lines 13–18)
● what happened on the way home (lines 19–22)

Patterns of communication throughout this extract follow very closely the three-
part elicitation script where teacher initiates (I), students respond (R) and teacher gives
feedback (F):
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

I T why didn’t she Mathilde I mean have er a diamond necklace (3)?

R L1 °because she was not rich°
F T it’s very important she was not rich

Essentially, what the students are doing is responding to prompts from the teacher,
who has preconceived notions of what constitutes a ‘correct’ response. Apart from the
open-ended question in line 2 (‘why didn’t she have a diamond necklace?’), the
remaining questions are of a closed variety, capable of only producing yes/no
responses from the students. So in lines 7–9 we have the question ‘did she take part in
the party’, repeated three times, while in lines 13–16 we have the question ‘did she
have a good time’, again repeated. Finally, in line 15 the teacher answers his own
question: ‘yes ok she had a very good time’. For their part, learners typically either
echo the words of the teacher or respond to his prompts, as evidenced in the following
student turns taken from Excerpt 6:

3 L1 °because she was not rich°

17 L2 =and she have a very good time=
21 L3 oh oh oh on their way home he find the the diamond necklace

In order to understand the relationship between this teacher’s stated beliefs and his
interactions in class, we would clearly need to know much more about what he means
by ‘oral communication’. In Excerpt 6, for example, the teacher’s pedagogic goals
might be to quickly check understanding of the text, in which case his interruptions
might be deemed appropriate. In line 7, for example, he completes the turn of L2 (indi-
cated by the overlap [ ]), who up until that point was holding the floor; similarly, in
line 13, he interrupts L2 (indicated by the latched turn), a strategy that is repeated in
lines 18, 20 and 23. What this highlights is that stated beliefs can only be interpreted
in relation to specific contexts and specific pedagogic goals. Our understandings of
beliefs about ‘oral communication’ require additional data such as statements about
specific pedagogic goals and classroom interaction data.
There is evidence too in Excerpt 6 that students are capable of more sophisticated
responses, greater spontaneity and topic development, all features of naturally occur-
ring communication. In line 3, for example, L1 is able to reply to the teacher’s open
question ‘why did Mathilde not have a necklace’ with a perfectly appropriate
response: ‘because she was not rich’. In line 6, L2 is prevented from developing his
 52 L. Li and S. Walsh

opening topic (‘on the way home’) by the teacher’s interruption in line 7. Similarly,
in line 12 the same student is unable to retain his turn. After two false starts and the
use of Chinese, the teacher seizes the floor in line 13, preferring to model what L2
should say (‘she had a very good time’), rather than allowing the student to ‘struggle’
and produce his own answer. Student 3 produces the longest, most elaborate response
in lines 21 and 22, but even this is interrupted in line 20 by the teacher’s direct, other-
initiated repair: ‘=on her way home on THEIR way home’.
From the classroom interaction extracts and interview data, it is apparent that the
relationship between Da Xin’s classroom interaction and his interview comments is
more complex and less ‘linear’ than in the case of Li Fang. While his classroom
actions do not always appear to coincide with his stated beliefs, it may be the case that
local contextual factors have a role to play here. Da Xin’s interest in oral communica-
tion is evident, although a more precise definition of what is meant by that would be
needed in order to fully understand his classroom actions.
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

Discussion
In this article we have looked at the beliefs of two teachers, first by analysing inter-
view data and then by looking at their interactions with students. Our findings demon-
strate how the many complex beliefs held by teachers can be studied both by analysing
what they say about their beliefs and by looking at their interactions in class. By focus-
ing on this complex inter-relationship between stated beliefs and actions while teach-
ing, we offer not only finer-grained understandings of teachers’ beliefs, but the
potential to problematise more fully the relationship between professed and attributed
beliefs (cf. Speer 2005).
Rather than there being a single, straightforward and linear relationship between
stated and enacted beliefs, the picture is much more complicated. For both teachers,
this relationship is complex and personal and closely related to contextual factors, a
finding that coincides with other teacher cognition research (Li 2008; Borg 2006; Sato
and Kleinsasser 2004). In the case of Li Fang, some of these contextual factors were
alluded to in the interview data, including students’ attitudes (Excerpt 1); desired
students’ language level and the importance of examinations (Excerpt 2); her under-
standing (maybe experience) of learning English (Excerpt 3); and her observation on
students’ learning (Excerpt 4). Similar phenomena have been widely noted in the liter-
ature (for example, Andrews 2003; Burns and Knox 2005). It is also worth noting that
Li Fang demonstrated a strong sense of the importance of vocabulary in language
learning and teaching, and learning by listening to the teacher – as evidenced by the
fact that she both comments on and practises her need to dominate the discourse while
teaching.
In the case of Da Xin, there is evidence too that his professed beliefs were enacted
in his interactions with students, although in this case more information is needed
concerning what is meant by oral communication. It is apparent that his enacted
beliefs are fine-tuned by the local context and by micro-contexts that bring together
pedagogic goals and the language used to realise them. Again, rather than there being
a one-to-one relationship between stated and enacted beliefs, his interactions with
students appeared to be much more closely guided by local, contextual issues. Da Xin,
while focusing on oral communication with his students, does so in a very controlled
and ‘managed’ way – they respond largely to his prompts and guiding questions. This
could be due to the local context, where large class sizes, shy students who have little
 Classroom Discourse 53

opportunity to practise, examination pressure, and so forth, all play a huge part in
influencing classroom practices.
From the limited data presented here, it is apparent that teachers’ beliefs and their
classroom practices exist in a complex and complicated relationship that can be inves-
tigated. We argue that teacher belief and classroom practice exist in a ‘symbiotic rela-
tionship’: beliefs are both shaped by and shape ensuing interactions (Foss and
Kleinsasser 1996, 441). This is illustrated in both classrooms: Li Fang’s stated beliefs
of the primacy of vocabulary appeared to strongly influence her teaching and the ways
in which she interacted with her students, focusing, for example, on knowing the
meaning, pronunciation and form of new words. Likewise, her practice of going over
new words took up quite a big chunk of her lesson and suggests that she attaches
importance to this activity. Similarly, we can see how Da Xin’s beliefs about the
primacy of ‘oral communication skills’ is reflected in his attempted ‘conversations’
with his students and his ‘control’ in clearly demonstrated IRF patterns. His extensive
use of IRF may reveal something about Da Xin’s beliefs about learning; a suggestion,
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

perhaps, that for him IRF is central to learning.

In the present study, it may be the case that beliefs are strongly determined by
differences in teaching experience, an observation that coincides with previous
research (see, for example, Allen 2002; Flores 2001). Novice teachers are more
concerned with student behaviour and reactions to them rather than with pedagogical
procedures and learning outcomes, while experienced teachers are more concerned
with language management (for example, Gatbonton 2008), which this study does not
fully support.
What our findings demonstrate quite clearly is that there is considerable value in
collecting data from different sources when examining teachers’ beliefs. The value of
collecting both interview and classroom data lies not in the extent to which the two
datasets converge or diverge, but in the ways in which they highlight the complexity
of the relationship between stated beliefs and classroom practices. Had we not
collected both sets of data, we would have had a less clear idea about both teachers’
beliefs and their practices.

Conclusion
This article, focusing on two EFL teachers’ beliefs and classroom practices, offers a
way of trying to access the complexities of teachers’ beliefs through a study of their
classroom interaction in an EFL context. Our study suggests that a research meth-
odology that combines interview and classroom data is more capable of showing
the very important relationship between stated beliefs and interaction. We argue
that beliefs – central as they are to an understanding of professional practice –
cannot be fully understood when considered in isolation by using, for example,
interview or questionnaire data alone. By considering what teachers say along with
what they do, by examining their stated beliefs alongside their interactions, we
propose that it is possible not only to gain a fuller understanding of the relationship
between beliefs and practices, but also to consider the extent to which beliefs and
classroom interactions converge or diverge. By adopting this methodology, we
argue that a teacher’s stated beliefs and classroom practices can be tracked more
easily and more accurately.
This study points to the need for further research that offers insights into the class-
room practices of TESOL teachers and the relationship between those practices and
 54 L. Li and S. Walsh

the teachers’ own beliefs. Given the power of beliefs and their consequence for both
teaching and learning, there is clearly scope for future studies that endeavour to offer
understandings of beliefs from different perspectives by, for example, using interview
and classroom observation data. By comparing statements about beliefs with class-
room practices, it is possible to extend the methodology used in this study to other
areas of beliefs research. For example, it would be possible to consider how different
beliefs interact in the process of teaching and learning, and the extent to which beliefs
shape or influence that process. It would also be possible to address questions like: to
what extent are beliefs shaped and changed by the teaching and learning process and
how far is this a symbiotic relationship? How do interactions with different groups of
students affect what teachers think and believe? And, from a teacher development
perspective, how might teachers’ behaviours be changed by improving understand-
ings of the inter-relationship between beliefs and interactions, interactions and
beliefs?
Finally, if effective teaching is, at least in part, about making good decisions, deci-
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

sions that have a positive impact on learners and learning, then there is a need to help
teachers make good decisions, decisions that are ‘acquisition rich’ (Ellis 1998). Such
decisions, made in the course of teaching, are often based on a teacher’s beliefs. As
such, there is a strong and compelling need to look more closely at the relationship
between stated beliefs and decisions made while teaching (by studying interactions in
class) as a means of promoting fuller, more in-depth understandings about teaching
and learning.

Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the generosity of the EFL teachers and students who took
part in this study and the anonymous reviewers of Classroom Discourse for their constructive
comments on the initial draft.

Notes
1. Government-funded secondary schools in Beijing are categorised as the following types:
City Key School, District Key School and Ordinary School, primarily based on a
school’s history, reputation and student academic achievement as shown in the major
tests; for example, National College Entrance Examination. City Key Schools are
preferred by parents and students for their better resources, more experienced teachers
and so on; it is really competitive to gain a place in these schools. District Key Schools
are not as good as City Key Schools; however, they are well-regarded by parents and
society. These schools enjoy good reputations in academic achievements, facilities,
resources and support. Ordinary Schools are those with average academic results;
students are less competitive in academic work and resources are not as advanced as
City Key Schools. More importantly, usually these schools face difficulties in keeping
really good teachers.
2. There are 19 districts in Beijing and each district has its own local educational author-
ity that is responsible for weekly teacher professional development activities and test
organisation.
3. See note 1.
4. Some very experienced teachers are nominated by their schools to local educational author-
ity as lead teachers based on their merits of academic expertise, their student academic
achievements, their qualifications, experiences and sometimes research profiles. These
teachers are supposed to be innovative and up-to-date with teaching methodology. One of
their designated responsibilities is to support inexperienced teachers by setting a good
example.
 Classroom Discourse 55

Notes on contributors
Li Li is lecturer and director of MEd in TESOL in the Graduate School of Education, Univer-
sity of Exeter. Her research interests include new technologies in language classrooms,
language teacher cognition and identity, classroom discourse and sociocultural theory in
language learning.

Steve Walsh is senior lecturer in applied linguistics and TESOL and postgraduate research
director in the School of Education, Communication and Language Sciences at Newcastle
University. He has been involved in English language teaching for more than 20 years and has
worked in a range of overseas contexts, including Hong Kong, Spain, Hungary, Poland and
China. His research interests include classroom discourse, teacher development, second
language teacher education, educational linguistics and analysing spoken interaction. He has
published extensively in these areas and is the editor of the journal Classroom Discourse
published by Routledge.

References
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

Allen, L.Q. 2002. Teachers’ pedagogical beliefs and the standards for foreign language learn-
ing. Foreign Language Annuls 35, no. 5: 518–29.
Andrews, S. 2003. Just like Instant Noodles: L2 teachers and their beliefs about grammar
pedagogy. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice 9, no. 4: 351–75.
Borg, S. 1998. Teachers’ pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study.
TESOL Quarterly 32, no. 1: 9–38.
Borg, S. 1999a. Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal 53, no. 3: 157–67.
Borg, S. 1999b. The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: A qual-
itative study of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics 20, no. 1: 95–126.
Borg, S. 2003. Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what
language teachers think, know, believe, and do. Language Teaching 36: 81–109.
Borg, S. 2006. Teacher education and language education: Research and practice. London
and New York: Continuum.
Breen, M.P., B. Hird, M. Milton, R. Oliver, and A. Thwaite. 2001. Making sense of language
teaching: Teachers’ principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics 22, no. 4:
470–501.
Burns, A., and J. Knox. 2005. Realisation(s): Systemic-functional linguistics and the language
classroom. In Applied linguistics and language teacher education, ed. N. Bartels, 235–59.
New York: Springer.
Calderhead, J. 1995. Teachers as clinicians. In International encyclopedia of teaching and
teacher education, ed. L.W. Anderson, 9–11. 2nd ed. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Calderhead, J. 1996. Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In Handbook of educational Psychology,
ed. D. Berliner and R. Calfee. New York: Macmillan Library Reference.
Clark, C.M., and P.L. Peterson. 1986. Teachers’ thought processes. In Handbook of research
on teaching, ed. M.C. Wittrock, 255–96. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan.
Clark, C.M., and R. Yinger. 1987. Teacher planning. In Exploring teachers’ thinking, ed. J.
Calderhead, 84–103. London: Cassell Publications.
Davis, A. 2003. Teachers’ and students’ beliefs regarding aspects of language learning.
Evaluation and research in education 17, no. 4: 207–22.
Donaghue, H. 2003. An instrument to elicit teachers’ beliefs and assumptions. ELT Journal
57, no. 4: 344–51.
Ellis, R. 1998. Discourse control and the acquisition-rich classroom. In Learners and
language learning, ed. W.A. Renandya and G.M. Jacobs. Anthology Series 39. Singapore:
SEAMO Regional Language Centre.
Ellis, R. 2000. Task-based research and language pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 49:
193–220.
Farrell, T.S.C., and S.T.K. Kun. 2008. Language policy, language teachers’ beliefs, and class-
room practices. Applied Linguistics 29, no. 3: 381–403.
Flores, B.B. 2001. Bilingual education teachers’ beliefs and their relation to self- reported
practices. Bilingual Research Journal 25, no. 3: 251–75.
 56 L. Li and S. Walsh

Foss, D.H., and R.C. Kleinsasser. 1996. Pre-service elementary teachers’ views of pedagogi-
cal and mathematical content knowledge. Teaching and Teacher Education 12, no. 4:
429–42.
Gatbonton, E. 2008. Looking beyond teachers’ classroom behaviour: Novice and experi-
enced ESL teachers’ pedagogical knowledge. Language Teaching Research 12, no. 2:
161–82.
Horwitz, E.K. 1985. Surveying student beliefs about language learning and teaching in the
foreign language methods course. Foreign Language Annals 18, no. 4: 333–40.
Kane, R., S. Sandetto, and C. Heath. 2002. Telling half the story: A critical review of research
on the teaching beliefs and practices of university academics. Review of Educational
Research 72: 177–228.
Kern, R. 1995. Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on
quantity and quality of language production. Modern Language Journal 79, no. 4: 457–
76.
Lamb, M. 1995. The consequences of INSET. ELT Journal 49, no. 1: 72–80.
Li, L 2008. EFL teachers’ beliefs about ICT integration in Chinese secondary schools. Unpub-
lished PhD thesis, Queen’s University, Belfast.
Lightbown, P., and N. Spada. 1993. How languages are learned. Oxford: Oxford University
Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

Press.
Lincoln, Y.S., and E.G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Mangubhai, F., P. Marland, A. Dashwood, and J.-B. Son. 2004. Teaching a foreign language:
One teacher’s practical theory. Teaching and Teacher Education 20, no. 3: 291–311.
Mansour, N. 2009. Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research
agenda. International Journal of Environmental & Science Education 4, no. 1: 25–48.
Mehan, H. 1979. Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Ng, E.K.J., and T.S.C. Farrell. 2003. Do teachers’ beliefs of grammar teaching match their
classroom practices? A Singapore case study. In English in Singapore: research on gram-
mar, ed. D. Deterding, A. Brown, and E. L. Brown, 128–37. Singapore: McGraw Hill.
Pajares, M.F. 1992. Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research 62, no. 3: 307–32.
Phipps, S., and S. Borg. 2009. Exploring tensions between teachers’ grammar teaching beliefs
and practices. System 37, no. 3: 380–90.
Richards, J. 1996. Teachers’ maxims in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 30, no. 2: 281–
96.
Sato, K., and R.C. Kleinsasser. 2004. Beliefs, practices, and interactions of teachers in a Japanese
high school English department. Teaching and Teacher Education 20: 797–816.
Sinclair, J., and Coulthard, M. 1975. Towards an analysis of discourse. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Speer, N. 2005. Issues of methods and theory in the study of mathematics teachers’ professed
and attributed beliefs. Educational Studies in Mathematics 58, no. 3: 361–91.
Tillema, H.H. 2000. Belief change towards self-directed learning in student teachers: Immersion
in practice or reflection on action. Teaching and Teacher Education 16: 575–91.
van Lier, L. 1996. Interaction in the language curriculum: Awareness, autonomy and authen-
ticity. New York: Longman.
Walsh, S. 2006. Investigating classroom discourse. London: Routledge.
Williams, M., and R. Burden. 1997. Psychology for language teachers. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Woods, D. 1996. Teacher cognition in language teaching: Beliefs, decision-making and class-
room practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Yang, N. 2000. Teachers’ beliefs about language learning and teaching: a cross-cultural
comparison. Paper presented at the Texas Foreign Language Education Conference 2000
(TexFLEC 2000), 31 March–April, in University of Texas at Austin. 1,2000.http://
www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1a/5d/
44.pdf (accessed March, 29 2008).
Yin, R., and D. Davis. 2007. Adding new dimensions to case study evaluations: The case of
evaluating comprehensive reforms. New Directions for Evaluation 113: 75–93.
 Classroom Discourse 57

Appendix 1. Interview guidelines

1. General reflection upon the session (student levels, materials, textbooks, any comments
teachers would like to make on their teaching)
2. Guidelines to teaching (how and why a certain activity was planned and organised; what
factors affect their teaching planning and activity design; any particular principles they
follow)
3. Understanding about EFL teaching in China (policy, curriculum, testing system, text-
books)
4. Class organisation (teacher/learner role) (how pair work, group work, individual work are
organised)
5. A good language teacher (knowledge, skills, personality)
6. Important and difficult parts in teaching (e.g. grammar, language points, skills for commu-
nication)

Appendix 2. Transcription conventions

Downloaded by [89.205.59.75] at 05:18 05 August 2014

T: – teacher
L: – learner (not identified)
L1: L2: etc, – identified learner
LL: – several learners at once or the whole class
/ok/ok/ok/ – overlapping or simultaneous utterances
by more than one learner
[do you understand?]
[I see] – overlap between teacher and learner
= – turn latching: one turn follows
another without any pause.
… – pause of one second or less marked by
three periods.
(4.0/0.4) – silence; length given in seconds
or micro-seconds
? – rising intonation – question or other
WHAT – emphatic speech: falling intonation
((xxx)) – a stretch of unintelligible speech with the
length given in seconds
Paul, Peter, Mary – capitals are only used for proper nouns
((T organises groups)) – editor’s comments
°said quietly° – soft speech, said more quietly than usual.