Teachers’ Beliefs About Developing Supplementary Materials For Ielts Courses

decide on which was the most pertinent to their class. Results from the current study indicated that more experienced teachers developed supplementary materials for a wide array of purposes compared to novice ones who preferred them only as extra practice. Another important finding was that experienced teachers took little notice of the criteria of “academic language style” and “students’ background and culture.” A positive explanation for such ignorance might be that with years of experience, teachers may develop a better and shaper understanding of materials used in language classrooms. They, thus, took those criteria for granted. This also accorded with other earlier observations, which showed that teachers’ beliefs relate to their years of experience (Amerian & Pouromid, 2018; Berger et al., 2018). Contrary to expectation, experience with IELTS training did not impact teachers’ beliefs of developing supplementary materials. This rather contradictory result may be due to the rooted beliefs which have been established and enhanced as a learner, which was similar to what V. L. Nguyen (2020) recognized in consideration of teachers’ knowledge of TBLT and their beliefs about language pedagogy. It has been evident that the former was outweighed by the latter (p. 161). This, therefore, suggested that teachers might shape their beliefs of teaching and learning even before teacher education and employment.

5.2.3. Other factors

Subordinate affecting elements involve the theoretical knowledge, personalities, and washback effect of the IELTS examination. In terms of theoretical knowledge, this tendency could be anticipated as Kagan (1992), Borg (2003), and Vartuli (2005) asserted that interpreting and employing knowledge from educational research and training rarely impacted the changes of teacher beliefs. Indeed, findings from empirical research conducted by Borg (2011) suggested there were still impact of a teacher education program on their beliefs in a way that strengthens and extends the current belief rather than changing it deeply and radically. Likewise, this echoed the case of the teacher in

Farrell and Guz (2019), who also denied the role of official training and shared a preference for explicit correctness. Surprisingly, not many teachers in the current study had attended a course specialized in materials development and only had the shift in their beliefs regarding taking learners’ levels of language proficiency into account. Some of them, such as teacher P7, even contended the ineffectiveness of materials development courses. This implied an ignorance of teacher training programs towards preparing teachers for materials development.

As for the personality, only three teachers showed their preference in particular types of supplementary materials development, namely topics to trigger critical thinking or to foster language use. The result was also in line with that of Nguyen and Ho (2019) since merely a tiny proportion of teachers reported they used supplementary materials based on personal preference. An implication of this was that teachers were rather reasonable and rational when developing supplementary materials instead of hinging on their preference. This was positive as it shows a student-centered approach to IELTS training.

Có thể bạn quan tâm!

Xem toàn bộ 192 trang tài liệu này.

The final factor is the washback effect of the IELTS examination. Most teachers expressed positive beliefs toward the reliability and accuracy of textbooks published by the Cambridge University Press in IELTS training. Moreover, if the authentic materials or skills practice books were selected, they should be in the academic style. Burns’ framework, once again, was reflected in that at the institutional level, teachers’ beliefs were much governed by the demand of examination. With teachers who have been familiar with the university entrance examination as learners (e.g., P1 and P2), when training for the IELTS test, they recognized more foci on the language skills rather than language areas such as grammar, vocabulary, or pronunciation. It may be because the format of IELTS examinations centers on English language skills, and teachers seemed to count on that as the backbone of their beliefs and practice. This was in good agreement with Nguyen et al. (2020) with respect to the impact of the IELTS examination on

teachers’ perception of what to teach.

5.3. The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practice

5.3.1. Convergences

In language centers, teachers have abundant freedom to develop supplementary materials for their IELTS classrooms. Therefore, it was anticipated that there is a high level of convergence between teachers’ beliefs and practice. The most outstanding subtheme for such convergence can be found in the way they attempt to develop supplementary materials to match with the student's ability and need or with their personal criteria regarding sources and benefits of the material. The similarity between beliefs and practice regarding learners’ needs seemed to be in line with Breen (2001); Basturkmen (2004); and Vartuli (2005). Teachers working in the same environment tend to share identical beliefs and practices. Moreover, the current study also yielded evidence that teachers in different teaching environments shared similar beliefs and practices, as in the case of P6 and P7. These findings were also in agreement with Breen (2001), which showed the distinct similarity between beliefs and practice of teachers working with adults and those working with children; and with Jamalzadeh and Shahsavar (2015), which showed a congruency of beliefs among teachers in different departments of a language institute. This may be attributed to the wider context in which teachers were generally influenced by the examination. For example, Nguyen et al. (2020) found that teachers in different language centers shared common beliefs about the use of IELTS- related materials which varied in terms of sources.

5.3.2. Divergences

When it came to the divergence, the mismatch between teachers’ beliefs and practice generally stemmed from internal and external factors. As for the former, teachers could hesitate to use a type of material since they have never had any experience with it before.

That was the case of P5, who was reluctant to employ articles in teaching reading skills for fear that her lack of experience with them may be problematic. Meanwhile, some supplementary materials may be employed in a way that was in direct contradiction with teachers’ stated beliefs. For example, P6 reported using online materials despite her firm preference for materials from reliable publishers. It is difficult to explain these results, but it might be related to the role a belief plays in the belief systems, and hence, even when teachers state and hold a particular belief, other beliefs may impact the actual practice (Fives & Buehl, 2012, p. 481). This was in strong agreement with Basturkmen’s (2004) conclusion that “stated beliefs offered only a partial window on practice” (p. 268).

Although it was evident that these internal factors could cause the inconsistency, their influence was merely insignificant in comparison with external ones. The teaching cultures and policies at some language centers made it difficult for teachers to develop supplementary materials based on their beliefs. As a result, they had to compromise with the context of teaching. For instance, P9 reported her difficulty in employing supplementary materials in her classrooms due to her center’s trade of textbooks and others’ teacher practice. This well supported the idea of contextual factors in inferring teachers’ stated beliefs and practice (Basturkmen, 2012, p. 286). It also reflected previous studies which show the divergence between beliefs and practice due to external elements (Fang, 1996; Borg, 2003; Khader, 2012; Jamalzadeh & Shahsavar, 2015; Nguyen, 2016; Bai & Yuan, 2018; Farrell & Guz, 2019)

CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSION

The last chapter of the thesis first summarized the major findings from the two phases of the research. Then, some suggestions were put forwards for teachers’ reference. Finally, the limitation of the study, as well as some recommendations, was presented.

6.1. Summary of the major findings

This study used a mixed-method approach to investigate the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practice about developing supplementary materials for IELTS classrooms with the research questions as follows:

6.1.1. Teachers’ beliefs about developing supplementary materials for IELTS courses

As for the teachers’ beliefs about developing supplementary materials, this study has shown that teachers generally support the use of supplementary materials with an aim to provide extra practice in classes. Despite the availability of coursebooks’ add- ons, other supplementary materials were preferred as they may add a variety to learners’ practice and fulfill their particular needs. Furthermore, little attention to communicative activities and games indicated a strong washback influence on teaching content. For teachers who prepare learners for the IELTS examination, the more related to the test materials are, the better chances learners have to achieve high band scores.

The two main reasons behind the development of supplementary materials involved compensating for the weakness of the core materials and fulfilling the needs of learners. A possible explanation for this may be that teachers assume ready-made coursebooks are not constantly updated and thus not able to offer good preparation for the test. Another rationalization was related to the impact of learners’ expectations, learning

goals, and learners’ levels of language proficiency on the decision of materials selection. Meanwhile, raising learners’ moods and replacing unsuitable materials in the textbook hardly received agreement among IELTS teachers. The results suggested a tendency toward helping learners achieve excellent grades in the actual test and reluctance to interfere with textbooks for they are “sacred.” One positive outcome to emerge from the current study was that teachers do not prepare supplementary materials merely because of personal preferences or impressive effects. This may be attributed to the recognition of learners’ expectations, learning goals, and learners’ levels of language proficiency.

With respect to the belief about criteria for developing supplementary materials, the most widely shared criteria were the “learners’ levels of language proficiency” and “course objectives.” These findings concurred well with previous ones regarding the reasons for supplementary materials development, the two most influencing factors of which were learners’ expectations, learning goals, and learners’ levels of language proficiency. What is more, teachers are more in favor of deploying other commercial IELTS textbooks as supplementary materials, especially those from Cambridge University Press. Authentic materials, namely online news, were also preferred as their resemblance to reading texts in the IELTS examination. Besides that, teachers reported using IELTS websites and blogs, as well and their judgment on the reliability of these sources varied based on the belief they hold. Finally, despite their usefulness and strong relation to the demand of the IELTS examination, non-IELTS materials were neglected, which is evidently the sign of a negative washback effect.

6.1.2. The factors affecting teachers’ beliefs about developing supplementary materials for IELTS courses

Furthermore, the results from the survey and interview demonstrate that teachers’ beliefs are derived from the teacher training, experience, theoretical knowledge,

personalities, context, and washback effect of the examination. Among these factors, the experience and context appear to contribute much to the formation of teachers’ beliefs. Teachers’ beliefs developed from their experience as learners and teaching practice. Most teachers reported the impact of former exposure to supplementary materials as learners on their current decisions. This supported the idea that teachers form and enhance their beliefs even before pedagogical training. In the process of teaching, teachers reflected on the suitability of the materials they have incorporated in classrooms. More experienced teachers in the current study deployed supplementary materials for a wider array of purposes as opposed to novice ones who merely use such materials for extra practice. They also took “academic language style” and “students’ background and culture” for granted in terms of criteria for supplementary materials development. An interesting finding in this thesis was that experience with IELTS training barely contributes to belief formation. A possible reason for this was due to their solid and stable beliefs, which has been formed as a learner.

The contextual factors that influence teachers’ beliefs were principally constituted by “learners’ need,” “other teachers’ practices,” and “language center policies.” Although there was evidence in the previous research indicating no relationship between the context and teachers’ beliefs, the impact of the contextual factors in the current study can be explained in terms of the mutual effect of belief and practice. In essence, these factors direct teachers’ practice, and the practice respectively affect beliefs. This cycle can be found in Fives and Buehl (2012). Another explanation may be due to the interaction between beliefs in the belief system. If the contextual factor matches certain beliefs of teachers, it may reinforce them. As a result, this makes any other beliefs in connection with the reinforced prioritized. These contextual factors, additionally, concurred well with Burns’ model illustrating the relationship between the context, beliefs, and practice. At the highest level – the institutional level – is the realization of

“other teachers’ practices” and “language center policies,” and “learners’ need” is pertinent to the next, classroom focus level.

Apart from the major affecting factors, namely experiences and contexts, subordinate elements involved the theoretical knowledge, personalities, and washback effect of the IELTS examination. As for the theoretical knowledge, the findings in the current study indicated that knowledge from teacher training and educational research had little influence on teachers’ beliefs. This, furthermore, confirmed the ideas that teachers formed and enhanced beliefs even before attending pedagogical training courses. There was an unpleasant reality that the field of material development has been seriously neglected in teacher training as well. The following secondary affecting factor was personality, on which only a few teachers reported counting on. This was rather positive as it implies a learner-centered approach to IELTS training. The final factor was the washback effect of the IELTS examination. Evidently, textbooks published by the Cambridge University Press have taken priority over other materials in supplementing the main coursebooks, and teachers tend to rely on the skill-based framework in preparing learners for the actual examination.

6.1.3. Teachers’ actual classroom practices and their beliefs about developing supplementary materials for IELTS courses

As for the relationship between beliefs and practice, there was a high level of convergence since in language centers, teachers, as a rule, have the chance to develop supplementary materials almost without any restrictions. The most outstanding subthemes for the convergence involved the way teachers developed supplementary materials to match with the student's ability and needs or with their personal criteria regarding sources and purposes of the material. Teachers either in the same or different language centers also possessed identical beliefs about IELTS supplementary materials. It seemed that teachers who teach at the same English center have more beliefs in