The Convergences And Divergences Between Teachers’ Beliefs And Practice

assumed that they perceived themselves as teachers, not materials developers, and thus, feared making mistakes.

However, there are teachers willing to step out of their comfort zone and create their own materials, such as P6 and P8. These teachers emphasized how to elicit ideas from students.

“Usually, when I cannot find any appropriate source of materials, I will write one… I have to consider how to make materials as easily accessible as possible. For example, the questions must be understandable and not misleading.” (Teacher P6, 24/08/2020)

“Usually, when teaching writing, it is necessary to base on a model essay. Therefore, the most important step is to select an adequate model essay that is ranked at band 8.0-9.0 IELTS… When I design hand-out, I often pay attention to how questions can elicit answers from learners and help them mentally form the outline or writing style. Other important parts include how to use vocabulary appropriately, develop ideas and employ discourse makers.” (Teacher P8, 24/08/2020)

Teacher P12 (27/07/2020) claimed, “… next is to see if, at the current level of learners, there are any available materials. In case, student’s need is unique, and there are not any available materials, I will have to write one on my own…”. In this teacher’s viewpoint, under no circumstance should he design supplementary materials from scratch. He rather relies on an available source of material and makes any necessary modifications.

Có thể bạn quan tâm!

Xem toàn bộ 192 trang tài liệu này.

Another common practice among teachers was to keep the tasks or exercises in the order of difficulty. Teachers P1, P3, and P4 shared this point of view which seems to be in line with the notion of “scaffolding.” For instance, teacher P3 reported:

“… about reading passages and questions, I do not normally have the questions alongside the text but separate them… with exercises which can provide hints for learners to answer each question.” (Teacher P3, 08/08/2020)

In addition to the content, the layout of materials is what teachers, especially those who are eager to write materials by themselves, care about. The general subtheme for this practice involves clear presentation. Particularly, teacher P5 has taken affecting factors in language teaching into account by arguing that the font and color should be eye-catching and easy to read.

“It is important that students can read and find the materials eye-catching. As a result, they can internalize knowledge better.” (Teacher P5, 03/08/2020)

Moreover, teacher P11 reported that he often highlighted and underlined vocabularies or phrases, which are crucial in his handouts. Teachers P8 seemed to agree with P4 that there should be no room for redundant languages. Moreover, in handouts, there are spaces for the shake of note-taking.

“… it rather has a clear and intelligible layout. There are not any redundant languages. There are not many words, and there must be spaces for students to take notes…” (Teacher P8, 24/08/2020)

“… images must be clear. The font size is neither too small or large… there must be spaces for learners to take notes…having everything on a page causes confusing…” (Teacher P4, 04/08/2020)

4.2.3.3. Adapting supplementary materials

As discussed in the Literature review, materials adaptation is the bridge between selection and design. After selecting appropriate supplementary material, teachers may either include the original or modified version in their teaching materials. This can be observed in the words of P11, P2, and P3. While the first two merely make photocopies of other books, the latter adds some other tasks so that learners are guided more properly. The reasonable explanation for such discrimination is that teachers may fear making mistakes and thus, believe that the tasks provided in other materials must be intact. For example, teacher P7 contended that “if a supplementary material is no longer appropriate, it will be replaced by another… If I adjust it and make mistakes, my students will internalize false knowledge” (24/08/2020). However, this does not mean that teachers are completely free from material adaptation. They, essentially, conduct particular forms of adaptation unconsciously. In line with the theory, the strategies for adaptation comprise adding, eliminating, modifying, and replacing.

McGrath (2013) contends that it is more straightforward and quicker to include something else in what is available than make new ones. Five out of twelve teachers in the interview reported they had added more tasks or activities in addition to the supplementary materials chosen earlier. The first motivation behind the practice is to guide students step-by-step.

“… I can add some questions similar to stepping stones… The additional questions are indicators for students to answer the main questions in the task…Or I can add other activities… such as word searching… If a topic is too difficult, I will have them watch video clips to enhance knowledge.” (Teacher P8, 24/08/2020)

“For example, if the exercise 1 and 2 can help students can do the main tasks effectively… However, if they still have difficulty in answering the main questions, I will add exercises 3 to help them…” (Teacher P1, 09/08/2020)

Interestingly, as constantly reiterating the beliefs that questions in reading tasks must be immune from any modification, teacher P2 reported promoting the comprehension of the text by further explaining new words.

“… if there are difficult reading passages, it is possible to add more handouts or projected slides to teach vocabulary to students. The questions are kept intact as they cannot be adjusted…” (Teacher P2, 27/08/2020)

As opposed to adding more tasks or exercises, teachers also choose to leave out inappropriate materials. Only two teachers reported on this issue in comparison with other practices of adaptation. However, the practices of these two teachers reflected the notion of adaptation as an integral or additional part of selecting and designing process, which has been mentioned in the Literature review. The first case was depicted in teacher P12’s words.

“…I often shorten the supplementary materials as the supplementary materials at my language center are rather lengthy. For example, an activity is designed to conduct in 30-45 minutes. However, I only have 15 minutes. As a result, I will leave out unnecessary parts and keep what is most crucial…” (Teacher P12, 27/07/2020)

This teacher cut his supplementary materials short prior to lessons since he anticipated the time allotted in a lesson that cannot cover all supplementary materials. Meanwhile, the others omitted redundant parts after a time of experiencing the material in real classrooms, which represents the second case.

“…about the speaking skill, if the supplementary materials I have prepared in advance are no longer effective, I will eliminate unnecessary parts…” (Teacher P7, 24/08/2020)

As for modification in existing supplementary material, the teachers reported an overall student-centered approach. They, essentially, based on what learners need and then made the necessary adjustment. For example, teachers P9 and P10 said that they followed the students’ preferences. Between these teachers, P10 had a tendency toward a teacher-center approach as he modified the material based on his own beliefs of what is motivational.

“There are students who do not like learning too many vocabularies but prefer practicing developing ideas. Then, I will include more parts related to critical thinking. On the other hand, some students do not have good reasoning ability but want to use lexical resources as a tool to increase their scores. Then I need to include more parts emphasizing vocabulary.” (Teacher P9, 29/07/2020)

“I often modify supplementary materials with respect to the timelines of events. Those events that both teachers and students know are included to motivate learners.” (Teacher P10, 24/08/2020)

Meanwhile, other teachers (P5, P8, and P1) put their attention to learners’ ability and decided to increase or diminish the level of difficulty in the materials. In case the students’ current competence is not in line with the materials. The questions can be simplified to more transparent ones or vice versa.

“Usually, I preserve the theory and only edit the exercise section. In low-level classes, I rewrite the available questions to easy ones.” (Teacher P5, 03/08/2020)

“…to simplify the language in the questions…” (Teacher P8, 24/08/2020)

“In case the supplementary materials are too straightforward, I can improvise by increasing their difficulty levels. For instance, I can create more difficult questions for students to think more…” (Teacher P1, 09/08/2020)

The interview data also revealed that teachers do not always make modifications in the process of planning lessons. They sometimes have particular online decisions. That is, if they realize there is no sufficient correspondence between learners’ ability and the supplementary materials, they will modify them orally. As in the cases of teachers P1 and P2 below:

“… in case the materials are too difficult, I will give extra instruction… I can

show them the methods or strategies to do the task…” (Teacher P1, 09/08/2020)

“…In case the materials are too difficult, I will clarify the meaning of questions. Thus, learners can understand them better...” (Teacher P2, 27/08/2020)

4.2.4. The convergences and divergences between teachers’ beliefs and practice

The relationship between beliefs and practice can both be idiosyncratic and standard among teachers. On analyzing teachers' answers in the interview, there were some convergences and overt divergences between teachers’ beliefs and practice about developing supplementary materials for IELTS classrooms. Interestingly, data from the interview displayed little qualitative difference as there is hardly any restriction on extra materials that teachers put in to use in their classrooms in language centers. Teachers appear to exhibit an identical interplay between beliefs and practice.

4.2.4.1. Convergences

Convergences between teachers’ beliefs and practice were discovered in three areas: the teaching context (learners’ needs), sources, and benefits of supplementary materials.

P1’s beliefs of IELTS supplementary materials were that they should be aligned with learners’ competence and need. This notion was consistent with her selection and design of this type of material. She chose materials that matched her students’ levels of proficiency and had an interesting layout. She also reported designing some kinds of games in supplementary materials to draw attention from learners. P6 shared her beliefs and practice with those of P1. This teacher also emphasized the vital role of learners’ needs and developed supplementary materials based on that. She, in addition, stressed that unsuitable materials were often omitted in her IELTS classrooms. In a similar vein, learners’ need was what P7 recognized in developing IELTS supplementary materials. Moreover, she believed that each material comprised particular applicable tasks and exercises, and thus, she merely extracted and incorporated them into projected slides. Also, P9’s firm beliefs of supplementary materials, which were more relevant to learners’ needs, were consistent with her excessive use of such materials as opposed to textbooks and her dependence on the IELTS band descriptors to design supplementary materials.

In the second area, there was a similarity between P3’s positive beliefs toward online reading materials and her actual deployment of them in IELTS classrooms. She claimed to use reading text on the social network the most often. Meanwhile, P11 believed that IELTS supplementary materials must be deployed from reliable sources, which aligned with his selection of newspapers such as BBC News or CNN News.

Also related to the sources of supplementary materials, teacher P5 only trusted books published by the Cambridge University Press. This aligned closely with her selection of the “Cambridge Vocabulary for IELTS” book as supplementary materials. Besides, there

was consistency between P2’s beliefs of selecting supplementary materials from well- known publishers and her actual use of textbooks such as “Cambridge Actual Practice Tests.”

Regarding the third area – benefits of supplementary materials, P5 accepted that supplementary materials could be employed to enhance learners’ lexical resources, and she actually used “Cambridge Vocabulary for IELTS” in her class. From another perspective, P8 believed that supplementary materials should be updated in terms of social events and more practical than the main core books. This was evident in her selection of supplementary materials which were strictly relevant to reality and whose topics must be widely cared about. This practice also manifested her beliefs of critical thinking in language teaching. P12, on the other hand, assumed language learning should be interesting and inspiring. His beliefs partly aligned with practice in terms of using authentic materials in order to enhance learners’ motivation.

4.2.4.2. Divergences

In spite of numerous convergences, vital divergences are recognized in terms of internal and external factors. The internal factors refer to the inconsistency of teachers’ stated beliefs and their practice that is not relevant to contextual impact. For example, although P5 claimed that authentic materials such as articles could be used to enhance reading competence, she, in fact, treated them as means to promote lexical resources of learners. Looking from a different angle, while P6 believes IELTS supplementary materials must come from reliable publishers, she also used model essays from IELTS blogs. P7 stressed the criteria of selecting supplementary materials from standard native speakers’ sources. She argued that some accents might be problematics for learners. However, materials created by the Vietnamese were still employed in her actual practice.