Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
An investigation into TESOL teachers’ beliefs about
post-method pedagogy
Author’s Name: James Scholl
The University of Edinburgh
British Council ELT Master’s Dissertation Awards: Commendation
THE UNIVERSITY OF EDINBURGH
MORAY HOUSE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
an investigation into TESOL teachers’
beliefs about post-method pedagogy
MATRICULATION NUMBER: S1475894
EXAM NUMBER: BO70685
WORD COUNT: 18,713
This dissertation is presented in part fulfilment of the requirements for the
degree of Master of Science in TESOL
2014-2015
Page 1
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments..........................................................................................................................................5
Abstract..........................................................................................................................................................6
Chapter 1 – Introduction................................................................................................................................7
1.1 – Project Genesis.........................................................................................................................7
1.2 – Project Overview......................................................................................................................7
1.3 – Chapter Orientation.................................................................................................................8
Chapter 2 - Literature Review.........................................................................................................................8
2.1 - Defi i g Method’.....................................................................................................................8
2.1.1 - The Methods Era....................................................................................................10
2.1.2 - The Post-Method Era.............................................................................................11
2.2 - Post-Method Pedagogy..........................................................................................................12
2.2.1 - Strategic Dimensions..............................................................................................13
2.2.2 - Kumaravadiveluvian PMP (KPMP) .........................................................................14
2.2.3 – Bro ’s PMP fra e ork.......................................................................................15
2.2.4 - Ellis’ Pri iples........................................................................................................15
2.2.5 – Lo g’s Proposal......................................................................................................16
2.3 - A Conceptualization of PMP...................................................................................................17
2.3.1 - PMP Aspects...........................................................................................................18
2.4 - Review of Relevant Studies.....................................................................................................21
2.4.1 - Teacher Cognition..................................................................................................21
2.4.2 - Influential Factors on Belief in PMP.......................................................................21
2.4.3 - Knowledge of PMP.................................................................................................22
2.4.4 - Summary................................................................................................................23
Chapter 3 - Methodology.............................................................................................................................24
3.1 - Methodology Overview..........................................................................................................24
3.1.1 - Design.....................................................................................................................25
3.1.2 - Philosophical Stance...............................................................................................26
3.2 - Concept Maps.........................................................................................................................27
3.2.1 - Rationale................................................................................................................27
3.2.2 - Method...................................................................................................................27
3.2.3 - Sampling ................................................................................................................28
3.2.4 - Ethics......................................................................................................................29
3.2.5 - Analysis...................................................................................................................29
3.2.6 - Limitations..............................................................................................................30
3.3 - Survey.....................................................................................................................................31
Page 2
3.3.1 - Overview................................................................................................................31
3.3.2 - Survey Design & Ethics...........................................................................................32
3.3.3 - Survey Section 1.....................................................................................................33
3.3.4 - Survey Section 2.....................................................................................................34
3.3.4.1 - Concept Map Data Summary.................................................................34
3.3.4.2 – Section 2 Design....................................................................................35
3.3.5 - Survey Development..............................................................................................36
3.3.6 - Limitations..............................................................................................................37
3.3.7 - Sampling Strategy...................................................................................................37
3.3.8 - Scoring....................................................................................................................39
3.3.9 - Variable Creation....................................................................................................41
3.3.10 - Data Analysis Procedure.......................................................................................42
Chapter 4 - Results.......................................................................................................................................43
4.1 - Preliminary Findings................................................................................................................43
4.2 - Main Results...........................................................................................................................44
4.3 - Data Validation.......................................................................................................................45
Chapter 5 - Discussion..................................................................................................................................48
5.1 - Descriptive Statistics...............................................................................................................48
5.2 - Contextual Factors and Classroom Experience.......................................................................49
5.3 - Formal SLTE.............................................................................................................................51
5.4 - Schooling.................................................................................................................................53
5.5 - Informal CPD...........................................................................................................................55
Chapter 6 - Conclusion.................................................................................................................................58
6.1 - General Limitations.................................................................................................................58
6.2 - Conclusions ............................................................................................................................58
6.3 – Recommendations.................................................................................................................60
6.4 - Future Research......................................................................................................................60
References....................................................................................................................................................62
Appendices...................................................................................................................................................70
Appendix 1 - Strategic Continua.....................................................................................................70
Appendix 2 – The Parameters of KPMP .........................................................................................71
Appendix 3 – Summary of Post-Method Principled Frameworks...................................................72
Appendix 4 - Methodology Flowchart............................................................................................74
Appendix 5 - Concept Map Participant Profiles..............................................................................75
Appendix 6 - Concept Map Information Sheet...............................................................................76
Appendix 7 - Concept Map Instruction Sheet.................................................................................77
Appendix 8 - Concept Map Consent Form Examples......................................................................78
Page 3
Appendix 9 - Concept Maps............................................................................................................79
Appendix 10 - Summary of Concept Map Results...........................................................................97
Appendix 11 - Survey......................................................................................................................99
Appendix 12 - Survey Pre-Test Feedback Sheet Examples............................................................129
Appendix 13 - Survey Scoring Key.................................................................................................131
Appendix 14 – Estimations of Missing Values...............................................................................143
Appendix 15 - Visual Checks for Normality of Distributions.........................................................144
Appendix 16 - Statistical Tests for Normality of Distributions......................................................156
Appendix 17 - Dummy Variable Coding Scheme...........................................................................157
Appendix 18 - Survey Respondent Progress Data........................................................................158
Appendix 19 - Multiple Regression Models 1-3............................................................................159
Appendix 20 - Design of Informal CPD and Formal SLTE Dummy Variables.................................160
Appendix 21 - Multiple Regression Models 4-6............................................................................161
Appendix 22 - Multiple Regression Models 7-8............................................................................162
Appendix 23 -Non-Parametric Correlations Matrices...................................................................171
Page 4
Acknowledgements
Although I take credit for the work of this paper, I also acknowledge that it has come about with a
great deal of assistance from people who I know well, and also from people I have never met. A large
number of teachers all over the globe have made a substantial contribution to this research by
sacrificing their time to participate, and to them I express my deepest gratitude. I would also like to
thank my fellow students and friends who helped me to develop and pilot the research tools, as their
advice steered me away from a number of pitfalls. Last but not least, it would have been impossible
to complete this project without the patient guidance of my supervisor, Evangelia; the support of my
statistician, Eleni; and the eagle eye of my proof-reader, Hayley; for it is due to their help that this
thesis is complete, the numbers add up, and no leaners are mentioned.
Page 5
Abstract
Post-method pedagogy is a movement which has emerged from discontent with the
language-teaching methods which dominated second language education from the late
19th century to the late 20th century. Since the 1970s and 1980s, the search for a perfect
and universal method of language teaching has been laid to rest from academic thought
and post-method pedagogy has been gaining increased attention in the literature.
Running parallel to the growth of literature surrounding post-method pedagogy in recent
decades is research into teacher cognition, whose recent developments indicate that the
principal factors which shape teacher cognition stem from their schooling, professional
coursework, teaching experience, and contextual factors. With an aim to link the domain
of teacher cognition to post-method pedagogy, the present study investigates which of
these four factors an e used to predi t the strength of a tea hers’ belief in post-method
pedagogy. The results indicate that the only factor which shares a statistical relationship
with belief in PMP is informal professional coursework, a finding which leads to a number
of policy implications for second language teacher education.
Page 6
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1 – Genesis
The inspiration behind the choice to research post-method pedagogy lies in a fascination with the
interrelationship between teacher cognition and methodological principles. The fact that teachers
hold implicit pedagogic principles which can be articulated (c.f. Breen et al., 2001), create an intriguing
opportunity to find out how similar TE“OL tea hers’ pri iples are to those on which PMP (Post-
Method Pedagogy) is based. The root of the curiosity which drives this study, however, is not just to
easure the stre gth of a tea her’s elief i PMP, ut to research what can influence and change its
strength. It is known that the four origins of teacher belief are schooling, professional coursework,
classroom practice and contextual factors (Borg, 2003; 2006); therefore, it seems intriguing to find out
which of these four factors lead teachers toward, or away from, a post-method frame of mind. The
fi di gs, it is hoped, ill ot o ly shed light o tea hers’ ethodologi al fra e orks, ut ill also
provide valuable data which can be used to inform SLTE (Second Language Teacher Education)
program policy with regard to its role in influencing teacher-lear ers’ ethodologi al elief syste s.
1.2 – Project Overview
In order to carry out this research, the present study takes shape as a mixed-method design consisting
of two sequential phases: first concept mapping with a small sample, then an online survey with a
large sample. For the concept mapping phase, data from twelve participants is used to provide
empirical data to both verify current knowledge and explore new knowledge about influences which
impact tea hers’ pedagogi al eliefs. This data then feeds into the section of the survey which
measures the predictor/independent variables, while insight from the literature on PMP feeds into
the section of the survey which measures the outcome/dependent variable (see methodology
flowchart in Appendix 4, p.74). The responses to the survey are then analysed using multiple linear
regression to explore the relationships between each source of teacher cognition a d tea hers’ elief
Page 7
in PMP, after which the results are discussed, conclusions are drawn, and recommendations for policy
are made.
1.3 – Chapter Orientation
In Chapter 2.1 the concept of method is defined after which the transition from the method to the
post-method era is summarized to as to provide an overview of the origin and ethos of post-method
thought. Following this treatment, a number of post-method pedagogic frameworks are summarized
and assessed for their relative compatibility with this ethos and with one another in Chapter 2.2. Next,
these post-method frameworks are crystallized into a working conceptualization of PMP in Chapter
2.3, after which relevant studies in the fields of teacher cognition and beliefs about PMP are reviewed
in Chapter 2.4.
In Chapter 3.1 an overview of the research methodology is provided, the research question is stated,
and the philosophy and design of the project are summarized. Then in Chapter 3.2, the concept
mapping procedure is explained, which leads on to the core method behind the study in Chapter 3.3,
which covers the development, distribution and analysis of the online survey. In Chapter 4, the results
of the statistical analyses are explored and summarized, and additional testing procedures are also
explained. After this, Chapter 5 provides an exploration of the results via inference, logical deduction
and comparison with the literature from Chapter 2.4, and finally Chapter 6 closes the paper with a set
of conclusions and some recommendations of how insights from the study may be used to inform
SLTE.
Chapter 2 – Literature Review
2.1 - Defi i g Method
In recent decades, the term post-method pedagogy has become increasingly common in the academic
literature, and in order to comprehend this phenomenon it is first necessary to clarify the notion of
Page 8
ethod’. Differe t defi itio s of the ter ethod have ee proposed, a d these have ee
contrasted with the concepts of design, approach, principle, technique and procedure (c.f. Anthony,
1963; Kumaravadivelu, 2006b; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; 2014). As illustrated in Table 1 below, there
is o se sus o the ategory of pro edure/te h i ue’, hi h is ge erally agreed to o er ta gi le
strategies and activities practised and orchestrated by teachers e.g. presentation, practice and
feedback activities (Anthony, 1963; Kumaravadivelu, 2006b; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; 2014).
Table 1: Proposed Conceptual Frameworks
Anthony (1963) Kumaravadivelu (2006) Richards & Rodgers (2001; 2014)
approach principles
approach
me
tho
d
method design
technique procedures procedure
Regarding the concept of approach, loose consensus can be assumed between definitions proposed
by Richards & Rodgers (2001; 2014) and Anthony (1963), in that it comprises assumptions and beliefs
about language and learning which are held as theoretical principles. There is less consensus about
the definition of the term method, however, (Anthony (1963) classifying it as a prescription of teaching
practices and materials based on a given approach, while Richards & Rodgers (2001; 2014) position
method as an overarching concept for approach, design (objectives, syllabus, activities and roles) and
procedure.
In order to esta lish a orki g defi itio of ethod to fra e the dis ussio of PMP, e o serve Bell’s
( fi di g that ter ethod’ is used i the literature to o vey three disti t ea i gs: (
method as an array of ideas for classroom procedures and techniques; (2) Method (uppercase) as a
rigidly prescribed body of conventionalized instructional procedures designed to fit all teaching
contexts; and (3) method as a set of organising pedagogic principles in the form of a teaching
approach. The academic discourse which inspired and currently surrounds PMP by and large refers to
Bell’s ( se o d defi itio of Method [upper ase, defi itio ] ( .f. ‘i hards, 8 ; ‘i hards, ;
Page 9
Prabhu, 1990; Pennycook, 1989; Kumaravadivelu, 2003b; Kamali, 2014; Razmjoo et al., 2013; Khatib
& Fathi, 2014), hence this is most amenable to the purposes of this study and is assumed hereafter1.
2.1.1 - The Methods Era
Generally speaking, literature on language teaching tends to associate the concept of Method with
developments in language pedagogy during the 19th and 20th centuries in what can be described as an
era of methodological innovation characterized by the successive rise and fall of a number of
instructional packages (Richards & Rodgers, 2014), typical examples being Audiolingualism, The Direct
Method, Total Physical Response, Silent Way, Community Language Learning and (De)suggestopedia
(c.f. Laarsen-Freeman & Anderson, 2011; Richards & Rodgers, 2014). This turbulent spate of method
innovation subsided during the 1960s and 1970s and by the 1980s, there had been a marked switch
from method to approach (Brown, 1994a; 2002; Stern, 1983), a switch which could be perceived as an
e it fro the ethod paradig ’ hi h had do i ated the o eptualisatio of la guage tea hi g
and whose currency had been sustained by an ongoing cycle of discovery, acceptance and rejection
(Pennycook, 1989). On examination of academic literature from the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, the
direction of academic thought on the subject of method evokes a sense of revolt and revolution, as
the methods ideal was deconstructed, publication by publication, under various charges2.
From a pragmatic point of view, methods were discredited for disenfranchising teachers with their
overly-prescriptive directives, for over-amplifying a narrow range of variables for effective pedagogy,
for their unworkably static and rigid assumptions about teaching, and for their incompatibility with
the dynamicity of the teaching process (c.f. Pennycook, 1989; Richards, 1990; Stern, 1983;
Kumaravadivelu, 1994; Kumaravadivelu, 2003b). Methods were also dismissed on theoretical grounds
due to the fact that none had been empirically verified as more effective than another. There was also
a general consensus that they could not be tested empirically due to myriad variables, such as teacher
1 It is important to note that the concepts of method and methodology are divorced: the former refers to a product of applied
linguistics which forms a static basis for materials, activities and syllabi planning; the latter refers either to actual classroom
practices or the study of methods (Adamson, 2004; Hall, 2011; Thornbury, 2006). 2 Fractures in the single methods concept had in fact emerged much earlier (c.f. Finocchiaro, 1971).
Page 10
enthusiasm, which could confound experimental test results; therefore, the falsely assumed cause-
effect relationship between method and learning was exposed and abolished (c.f. Pennycook, 1989;
Prabhu, 1990; Richards, 1984; Richards, 1990; Kumaravadivelu, 2003b).
From a political and philosophical perspective, the unequal power relationships and epistemology
associated with methods was also brought into question, certain scholars indicating the detrimental
positivist philosophy of methods in which only one objective, quantifiable and generalizable form of
knowledge was validated viz. that from academic institutions in Western/inner-circle nations. In this
view, the concept of method maintained a bias in favour of inner-circle culture and monolingual SLA
research, intellectual and economic exploitation via information/knowledge dependence on Western
theorist-producers by non-Western practitioner-consumers, and an imperialistic, patriarchal
relationship between developed and developing nations (c.f. Pennycook, 1989; Phillipson, 1992;
Kumaravadivelu, 2003a).
Before, during and since the revolutionary period of the 1980s and 1990s, other charges have been
made against methods such as the oversight of contextual factors (c.f. Bax, 2003; Finocchiaro, 1971),
the disregard of other important curricular factors to teaching (Richards, 1984), and the charge that
new methods have in fact been old wine presented in new bottles3 (Kumaravadivelu, 2006b). In
essence, however, the discontent with the method concept during this period gravitated toward three
fundamental themes: marginalization of teacher agency, oversimplification of the teaching and
learning processes, and a lack of empirical basis.
2.1.2 - The Post-Method Era
As shall become evident as we explore post-method thought deeper, a central component of the post-
method era is a gro i g re og itio that tea hers’ o se se of plausi ility should e the ratio ale
for pedagogic decision-making in place of the external directives imposed by methods (Hall, 2011). As
scholars such as Kumaravadivelu (2003b), Pennycook (1989) and Prabhu (1990) argue, mechanical
3 Kelly (1969) observes that this is an observable trend throughout the entire history of language teaching
Page 11
teaching is a primary impediment to pedagogic success, and the antidote is to de-routinize teaching
into an environment-sensitive decision-making process so that teachers can become intellectually
e gaged a d produ tive, there y tra s e di g the role of passive te h i ia ’ to attai higher status
as tra sfor ative i telle tual’ Ku aravadivelu ( . The ra ifi ations of this post-method view
of the tea her is a shift fro a dire tive theory- o trolled pra ti e’ to a ore li eral theory-informed
pra ti e’ (Widdo so , , a d also ore o sideratio for o te tual fa tors, namely of learners
and culture.
From a wider standpoint, the dawn of the post-method era can also be viewed as symptomatic of a
paradigm shift in language teaching, perhaps as an ideological revolution manifest in a switch from a
ediu ’ to a ediatio ’ vie of la guage (Widdo so , , and/or a broader paradigm switch
from positivism to post-positivism4 (Bell, 2003; Britto 2007; Jacobs & Farrell, 2001). Despite the
intangibility of this paradigm switch, it will emerge, along with the more concrete characteristics of
the post-method era mentioned above, in our treatment of post-method pedagogy and post-method
frameworks below.
2.2 - Post-method Pedagogy
During and since the deconstruction of the methods paradigm in language teaching, a number of
pedagogic frameworks have been proposed in the form of pedagogic parameters, principles and
(macro-)strategies in order to address the inadequacies of rigid directives conveyed by 19th and 20th
century methods. As shall become evident, the proposals exhibit different blends and truncations of
context-appropriate methodologies, critical pedagogies, and SLA-based methodologies which have
emerged in the post-method era (Waters, 2012). They share mutual connections, and the merit of
each framework is evaluated with respect to the characteristics of the post-method ethos which was
4 This philosophical shift is posed as movement away from contextual universality, standardization, product-oriented
pedagogies, hierarchy, authority, conformity, and the conservation of social values; and toward acknowledgement of
diversity, focus on meaning/understanding, process-oriented pedagogies, liberalism, autonomy, the endorsement of
dissent, and the right to self-determination (Jacobs & Farrell, 2001; Widdowson, 1990)4.
Page 12
evoked in Chapter 2.1, after which their commonalities will be fused into a working conceptualization
of PMP.
2.2.1 - Strategic Dimensions
One of the first proposals for a post-method pedagogy comes from Stern5 (1983; 1992), who calls for
the abandonment of the notion of fixed method and advocates a conceptualisation of language
teaching as a set of three continua, which serve as pedagogic settings which teachers can adjust (see
Appendix 1, p.70). This framework epitomises the heart of the post-method paradigm owing to the
a se e of a y e ter al dire tives, the hoi e of strategy ei g left e tirely to pra titio ers’ dis retio
in light of learner preferences/styles and contextual considerations (Stern, 1992). Consequently, the
sele tio of strategies, he e also i stru tio al pro edures, i telle tually e gages tea hers’ a d
demands their sense of plausibility, meaning that this framework is highly congruent with the post-
method ethos.
The concept of dimensional continua has also been taken up by other scholars such as Widdowson
(2003), who outlines a further three dimensions of language pedagogy, which take a broader curricular
view by covering the philosophy of education and policy ideology, classroom processes and roles, and
the treatment to language6 (see Appendix 1, p.70). A limitation with these continua, however, is that
some are limited in scope and risk posing false dualities; for instance, the implicit-explicit/e-language
– i-language continua potentially neglect sociocultural theory by posing a choice between behaviourist
and cognitivist views of SLA (c.f. Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Lightbrown & Spada, 2006).
5 This is presumed to be the first in recent history; as scholars such as Kelly (1969) and Musumeci (2011) point out, the
language teaching profession has a short memory and past trends are disposed to reintroduction under a different label
after a period of dormancy. 6 Despite Widdo so ’s ( assertio that the di e sio al fra e ork ot e used as a odel for a alysis, it is argued here that the principles contribute to the body of PMP owing to their non-directive adjustability.
Page 13
2.2.2 - Kumaravadiveluvian PMP (KPMP)
“ter ’s ( di e sio s i spire Ku aravadivelu’s (1994; 1995; 2003a; 2003b; 2006a; 2006b; 2012)
model of PMP, which is by far the most detailed and authoritative framework to date7. As a solution
to the inadequacies of methods, Kumaravadivelu (Ibid) proposes a post-method framework based on
parameters, principles and procedures which evenly blend context-appropriate methodology with
critical and SLA-based pedagogy (c.f. Waters, 2012). The philosophical basis of Kumaravadiveluvian
PMP (hereafter KPMP) is built on a set of three parameters: particularity, practicality, and possibility;
which comprise a form of post-method manifesto (see Appendix 2, p.71)8. To enact this manifesto,
tea hers assu e the role of tra sfor ative i telle tual’ u der the guida e of te a rostrategies
which function as preliminary goals and guidelines for language teaching (Kumaravadivelu, 2003b;
2006b) (see Appendix 3, p.72).
The a rostrategi fra e ork is prese ted as a a alpha et of pedagogi thought
(Kumaravadivelu, 2003b, p.316) which empowers teachers by enabling them to set their own context-
specific methodology by fashioning microstrategies (procedures and techniques), which practitioners
self-generate by theorizing from and for their practice within the three parameters (Kumaravadivelu,
2006b). These microstrategies a tualize KPMP y shapi g the edu atio al e perie e arou d lear ers’
needs, wants and lacks in light of local environmental exigencies, thereby enabling the teacher to bring
the philosophy of KPMP to life by way of principled pragmatism under the direction of their own sense
of plausibility (Kumaravadivelu, 1994; 2006b; 2012).
Indubitably, KPMP is the epitome of PMP in its compatibility with the abovementioned paradigm
switch to process-oriented pedagogy, liberalism, autonomy, the endorsement of dissent, and the right
to self-determination (Jacobs & Farrell, 2001; Widdowson, 1990). Some incongruence does occur,
7 Kumaravadivelu (2006a; 2006b) also acknowledges Exploratory Practice (c.f. Allwright, 2003; Allwright & Hanks, 2009) as
an influence on his model of PMP, yet this is excluded from the present treatment because of its focus on research rather
than pedagogy. 8 The para eters of parti ularity, pra ti ality, a d possi ility are illu i ated i Ku aravadivelu’s ( visio of five interconnected products of globalization: the post-colonial, post-national, post-transmission, post-modern and post-method
conditions, and are set out as an operational framework both for language teaching and second language teacher education
Page 14
however, between the macrostrategies and the strategic frameworks proposed by Stern (1992) and
Widdowson (2003); for instance, Macrostrategies 9 and 10 pull teaching away from an intra-lingual
strategy, which compromises the integrity of a tea hers’ judge e t a d the authority of their own
sense of plausibility.
2.2.3 – Brow s PMP fra ework
The second most comprehensive post-method framework to KPMP is the model proposed by Brown
(1994a; 2002), who lists a total of twelve principles (see Appendix 3, p.72) from a range of disciplines
which are divided into cognitive, affective and linguistic domains. The ethos behind the proposal is
that teachers should autonomously select and adapt instructional procedures to suit learners,
language acquisition and the teaching context; a belief which is congruent with the post-method
rhetoric hitherto exposed (e.g. Stern, 1992; Kumaravadivelu, 2006b).
Further congruence with the post-method ethos is de o strated y Bro ’s (2002) view of PMP as a
phenomenon of the switch from method to approach, dynamic set of energies in the developing
teacher, and source of inspiration for calculated pedagogical decision-making, a standpoint which links
to Pra hu’s ( se se of plausi ility’ a d Ku aravadivelu’s ( o ept of the tra sfor ative
i telle tual’. Bro ’s ( a; fra e ork, ho ever, is ot e tirely alig ed to post-method
thought, as its stance on linguistic focus and the role of the L1 display rigidity: Principles 1, 2 and 10
i di ate a i li atio for “ter ’s ( e perie tial a d i tra-lingual strategies, hence the aversion
to analytic and cross-li gual strategies i ply a ele e t of theory- o trol’ associated with the
methods paradigm.
2.2.4 - Ellis Pri ciples
A pedagogic framework which is grounded more fundamentally in SLA research is proposed by Ellis
(2005), whose ten principles (see Appendix 3, p.72) convey an SLA-based methodology which should
be adjusted according to socio-contextual and socio-relational factors. The principles outline
provisional specifications from current knowledge of SLA theory and are situated on the middle
Page 15
ground between conflicting theories e.g. the Weak Interface Hypothesis (Principle 4) is endorsed
rather than the extremities of either the Non-Interface or Strong Interface Hypotheses (Ellis, 2005).
Conceivably, the framework can be categorized within the post-method paradigm due to the fact that
it is open to interpretation at the procedural stage, and even though it is inclined toward the focus on
form and meaningful production endorsed by Task-Based Learning (Hall, 2011), it is congruent with
the o ept of pri ipled prag atis ’ (c.f. Kumaravadivelu, 1994).
Furthermore, the pri iples are largely o pati le ith “ter ’s ( 8 ; strategi tea hi g
framework: principles one and four are well attuned to variation on the explicit-implicit continuum,
and there are no directives regarding the role of the first language and culture. Nevertheless,
presumably due to the influence from Task-Based Learning, the principles do heavily sponsor
experiential rather than analytic learning, which erodes its post-method authority to a certain extent.
2.2.5 – Lo g s Proposal
More than half of the principles outlined by Ellis (2005) run parallel to those proposed by Long (2011),
who lists ten methodological principles (see Appendix 3, p.72) derived from research into SLA and also
from a number of other disciplines. Long (Ibid) demonstrates his post-method stance by clearly stating
that at procedural level, the principles should be interpreted with respect to particularities of the
teaching context, this stance being congruent with the context-sensitive philosophy of the post-
method era (c.f. Bax, 2003; Finocchiaro, 1971; Waters, 2012). Further evidence of the post-method
ethos is fou d i Lo g’s ( all for the i validatio of pri ipled proposals which are empirically
unfounded and are paraded as the final truth viz. methods, a proposition which is remedied by a set
of sta dards y hi h proposals [of pedagogi pri iples] a e judged... a d their validity assessed
(Ibid, p.377). These standards, which are presented as evaluation criteria9, ot o ly validate Lo g’s
9 The evaluation criteria are: ( theoreti al otivatio ; ( e piri al support ; ( lo al argu e tatio ; a d (
o siste y ith a epted theories i other fields (Lo g, , pp. -8)
Page 16
(Ibid) set of principles, but also by and large validate the abovementioned principles and
macrostrategies by Kumaravadivelu, Brown and Ellis.
Nonetheless, despite the general congruence with post-method thought, the principles are presented
as the ethodologi al omponent of Task-Based La guage Tea hi g (Lo g, , p. 8 , a d the
framework suffers from the same discordance as the other strategies, in this case an imbalance
towards the experiential dimension (see Principles 2 and 5).
2.3 - A Conceptualisation of PMP
In summary, then, it would seem that the epitome of PMP is found in the flexibility of choice inherent
in purely context-based methodologies i.e. the strategic continua proposed by Stern (1992) and
Widdowson (2003); nonetheless, there is also consensus that pedagogic theory and practice must be
informed by (SLA) research, the implication being that the tension between the art of the practitioner
and the science of the theoretician hangs in suspension (c.f. Kelly, 1969). Each of the four proposals
by Kumaravadivelu (2006b), Brown (2002), Ellis (2005) and Long (2011) negotiate this tension
relatively well even though they each have elements which are imbalanced one way or the other,
either by small degrees of environmental insensitivity and/or slight inclinations toward theory-control.
Consequently, it is argued that the aspects across the four frameworks which are mutually compatible
and adhere to the ethos of the post-method movement (see Chapter 2.1) constitute post-method
pedagogy.
Therefore, the list of eight aspects in Chapter 2.3.1 has been created to link the commonalities across
the models in order to produce a working definition of PMP for the purposes of the present study. The
three parameters of KPMP comprise the backbone to the conceptualization because of their high
compatibility with the post-method ethos and their general acceptance in post-method discourse (see
Chapter 2.4), and the remaining aspects are framed using the dimensions proposed by Stern (1992)
and Widdowson (2003) owing to their practical use as methodological reference points.
Page 17
2.3.1 - PMP Aspects (see Appendices 1 and 3)
1. The parameter of particularity is the primary maxim: although certain strategy configurations are
endorsed collectively by the PMP frameworks, ultimate judgement of best practice rests entirely
o tea hers’ o se se of plausi ility as per contextual circumstances.
2. Adherence to the parameter of practicality is moderate: post-method teachers generate their
own pedagogic theories from their practice, yet their knowledge is also informed by theory from
SLA and other disciplines as conveyed implicitly or explicitly in strategies, principles and
parameters.
3. The parameter of possibility is an aspect which is context-dependent: critical theory is realized
in PMP via recognition and exploration of power, dominance, ideology, social justice, identity and
ideology within and beyond the classroom. Emancipation is pursued via nurture of new identities
(c.f. Brown, 2002: Principle 6); empowerment is realised via learner autonomy and teacher
agency; and disclosure of interests/the status quo is pursued at linguistic and textual levels (c.f.
Kumaravadivelu, 2003b: Macrostrategy 5) (Gibson, 1986).
4. PMP is learner-centred: teaching is adjusted around learning and pedagogy is geared to foster
autonomy via development of strategies which empower students to learn independently.
“tude ts’ i ter al sylla i are see as a priority a d asset to lear i g, a d great i porta e is
placed on their second-language ego, self-confidence, and motivation (c.f. Brown, 2002: Principles
2, 6, 7 and 11; Kumaravadivelu, 2003b: Macrostrategies 1, 4 and 8; Ellis, 2005: Principle 9; Long,
2011: Principles 8 and 10).
5. PMP defaults moderately toward an experiential strategy10: comprehension, achievement of
meaning and social interaction are largely prioritized across the PMP proposals and learning errs
to ards skill-usi g’, i o trast to de o te tualized skill-getti g’ via la guage rehearsal a d
10 Although this aspect of the principles by Long (2011) and Ellis (2005) could be attributable to their roots in task-based
teaching, it also extends to the frameworks proposed by Kumaravadivelu (1993a; 2006) and Brown (1994a; 2002).
Page 18
display found in an analytic strategy (c.f. Brown, 2002: Principles 1 and 2; Kumaravadivelu, 2003b:
Macrostrategies 2, 5 and 6; Ellis, 2005: Principles 1, 2, 3 and 7; Long, 2011: Principles 2, 5 and 6.
6. PMP defaults moderately toward a cross-lingual strategy: lear ers’ first la guage a d culture are
seen as learning resources which increase social relevance and learning opportunities (c.f. Brown,
1994a; 2002: Principles 9 and 10; Kumaravadivelu, 2003b: Macrostrategies 9 and 10). With regard
to lear ers’ L1, Kumaravadivelu (2003b: Macrostrategy 9) leans toward the extremity of an
optimalist position, yet Brown (1994a: Principle 10) takes a maximalist position while both Ellis
(2005) and Long (2011) avoid taking an overt stance, meaning that an intra-lingual strategy is less
favoured than its cross-lingual counterpart (Stern, 1992).
7. PMP defaults to a central configuration on the implicit – explicit continuum11: none of the PMP
frameworks overtly express a tendency for one strategy or the other; promotion of implicit
strategies is evident in the importance placed on input and output, and the promotion of explicit
strategies can be seen in the principles and macrostrategies which endorse the knowledge and
discovery of language and metalanguage (c.f. Brown, 2002: Principles 1 and 11; Kumaravadivelu,
2003b: Macrostrategies 1, 2, 4 and 5; Long, 2011: Principles 2, 5 and 6; Ellis, 2005: Principles 1 and
4).
8. Communicative competence is a tenet of PMP: stude ts’ o u i ative a ility is a general
pedagogic aim; there is a strong emphasis on integration and practice of receptive and productive
skills via authentic opportunities for input, output and interaction, which indicates that PMP is a
pedagogic approach is a product of current social and practical purposes of language learning
(Kelly, 1969) (c.f. Brown 2002: Principle 12; Ellis, 2005: Principles 2, 6, 7 and 8; Kumaravadivelu,
2003b: Macrostrategies 2 and 7; Long, 2011: Principle 4).
These eight PMP Aspects are intended to illustrate the general trend of a post-method approach to
teaching that can be used as a aseli e for easure e t of tea hers’ elief i PMP. On inspection of
the eight aspects it is apparent that PMP is a multidimensional construct, covering four domains of
11 He e also Widdo so ’s ( I-language – E-language continuum
Page 19
cognition: beliefs about learners/learning, beliefs about teaching, beliefs about subject matter, and
beliefs about the teaching role (Calderhead, 1996). A limitation, however, is that the aspects do not
cover SLTE, Calderhead’s (I id fifth domain of pedagogic belief, and it is also imperative to note that
the list excludes other potentially significant aspects. For instance, PMP is inclined toward a
progressivist educational value system, which is evident from the themes of learner-cooperation,
uniqueness of the tea hi g o te t, gover a e of pedagogi pri iples, fo us o lear ers’ perso al
development, and the conveyance of democratic values (Crookes, 2009; Clark, 1987; Richards &
Rodgers, 2014).
It could also be argued that the eight PMP Aspects are contaminated by the inclusion of principles
from CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) and TBL (Task-Based Learning). In evaluation of this
charge, it is important to heed that PMP is a modified version of CLT (c.f. Bell, 2003; Saengboon, 2013),
and also that CLT has been falsely labelled as a neat package by post-methodologists in order to set
apart their own proposals (Hunter & Smith, 2012). Consider also that TBL is a realization of a CLT
philosophy in its deep form (Nunan, 2004), it becomes apparent that the task of distinguishing PMP
from TBL and CLT is not a straightforward matter. The potential for discussion of the connections
between PMP, CLT and TBL is, however, beyond the scope of this essay; therefore, although the three
are not synonymous, compatibility and overlap between the three approaches is assumed to be high.
A core strength of the conceptualization, however, is that the PMP Aspects are harmonious across the
frameworks of Brown (1994), Ellis (2005), Kumaravadivelu (2006), and Long (2011) and that each of
the aspects are relatively compatible with the philosophy behind the post-method paradigm. Current
resear h i to tea hers’ eliefs i PMP do ot o eptualize PMP i su h a o prehe sive ay,
however, and widely assume KPMP as the default model, as is evident in the following review of the
research literature relevant to teacher cognition and PMP.
Page 20
2.4 - Review of Relevant Studies
Research which has investigated factors that influe e tea hers’ elief i PMP are few in number, the
only ones with this explicit aim being the studies discussed below by Khany & Darabi (2014) and
Razjmoo et al. (2013). As a result of the lack of specific literature, the present chapter widens the
scope to cover the more general fields of teacher cognition (Chapter 2.4.1) and teacher knowledge of
PMP (Chapter . . i order to u over the fou datio s of tea hers’ eliefs a d to supple e t hat
is revealed by the relevant literature (Chapter 2.4.2).
2.4.1 - Teacher Cognition
At the outset, it is important to note that beliefs are more accurately described within the notion of
teacher cognition, as belief appears to be inextricably connected to knowledge and thought (Borg,
; 6; Kaga , . Tea her og itio , he e also tea hers’ elief, is k o to be influenced
by four fundamental factors: schooling, professional coursework, contextual factors and classroom
practice (Borg, 2006). The influence from schooling stems from preconceptions about teaching
derived from positive and negative learning experiences12; influence from professional coursework
originates in SLTE, influence from contextual factors are found in the educational environment where
a teacher works, and influence from classroom practice is manifest in the experience teachers get
from teaching (Borg, 2003; 2006). These four factors are believed to have varying strengths of
influence on teacher cognition in general: professional coursework is thought to be far less influential
than classroom practice, and the beliefs formed during a teachers’ o s hooli g are the most
enduring as they tend to filter and bias new knowledge (Kagan, 1992).
2.4.2 - Influential Factors on Belief in PMP
With respect to the relative strengths of professional coursework, schooling, contextual factors and
classroom practice on teacher cognition of PMP, the research base is sparse yet some insight can be
12 This e uates to Lortie’s ( o ept of the appre ti eship of o servatio ’
Page 21
gained from the literature which is available. For starters, it could be the case that a lack of
professio al ourse ork redu es tea hers’ elief i the feasibility of certain PMP aspects, as was
fou d i Ho ard & Millar’s ( i vestigatio i to the appli a ility of Ellis’ ( pri iples i “outh
Korea. Vice-versa, ore professio al ourse ork ay also i rease the stre gth of tea hers’ elief i
PMP as is suggested by Khany & Darabi13 (2014), who claim that in the Iranian context, teachers with
postgraduate qualifications apply more principle- and PMP-based pedagogy than do their lesser-
qualified counterparts14. There is also evidence to suggest that contextual factors such as large, mixed-
ability classes, time constraints, and product-oriented curricula can erode teacher belief in aspects of
PMP (c.f. Howard & Millar, 2009; Bagheri, 2013) a finding which seems to have been pre-empted by
Akbari (2008), who also argues that external contextual factors such as cultural restrictions may also
have a stro g i pa t o tea hers’ elief i aspe ts of PMP. This argu e t is supported y studies y
Hashemi (2011), Razmjoo et al. (2013), and Khatib & Fathi (2014) which suggest that low degree of
belief in the post-method parameters, especially the parameter of possibility, is due to cultural and
socio-political factors at a national scale which are at odds to the philosophy behind (K)PMP.
An important consideration to bear in mind when comprehending these studies, however, is that
some e.g. Khany & Darabi (2014), only measure practical application of PMP-principles, not cognition.
Borg (2003) and Calderhead (1996) observe that the relatio ship et ee tea hers’ elief a d
classroom practice is not necessarily direct or congruent even though belief has a powerful effect on
practice, which means the inferences from these studies should be adjusted accordingly.
2.4.3 - Knowledge of PMP
Whether teachers understand, or are aware of, PMP explicitly or implicitly is another branch of
research which is relevant to the current paper, given that belief in a concept does not tend to occur
13 This study, however, measured PMP via observation of classroom practi es, yet tea hers’ lassroo pra ti e a d their beliefs are not necessarily congruent (Borg, 2003)
14 They also conclude that male teachers apply more post-method pedagogy than do female, however, the gender variable
is dismissed on the presumption that opportunities are not equal between female and male teachers in Iran
Page 22
without prior knowledge of that concept (Kagan, 1992). I a i vestigatio i to ovi e tea hers’
beliefs about method and post-method, Tekin (2013) found that the majority of participants in his
study were unaware of what PMP was; some believing it equated to eclecticism, and only one being
aware of its key tenet, which Tekin (I id ide tifies as o est ethod’. Tekin (Ibid) does not, however,
provide a clear criteria for (belief in) PMP hence it cannot be ascertained whether or not the
participants demonstrated knowledge of other aspects of PMP, such as the significance of tea hers’
sense of plausibility. I a si ilar li e of e uiry, “ae g oo ( set out to u over 6 EFL le turers’
understanding of PMP in Thailand, and deduced from interview responses that they were aware of
the main concept even though they were unable to arti ulate it dire tly. The results of “ae g oo ’s
(I id study also i di ate that the tea hers’ og itio s ere ased o their o set of pri iples, so e
of which mirrored the principles outlined by Kumaravadivelu (2003b) and Brown (2002), although to
what extent this might have been a result of the Hawthorne Effect in open to question.
Despite the limited insight which these two studies offer, a conclusion which can be drawn is that
tea hers’ k o ledge of PMP ay e o -existent or misinformed as Tekin (2013) discovered, or
unconsciously-held a d/or guessed fro the la el post- ethod’ as “ae g oo ’s ( study
suggests. Give that tea hers’ og itio of PMP see to e i flue ed y the resear h te h i ues a d
taking into account the tacit nature of teacher cognition (Borg, 2006), it appears that decisions of
whether to use post-method terminology explicitly or whether to measure PMP via implicit means
must be made with careful consideration.
2.4.4 – Summary
In summary of the literature, research by Borg (2003; 2006) into teacher cognition in general has
esta lished fir ly that the pote tial fa tors hi h i flue e tea hers’ elief i PMP ste fro four
sources: their schooling, professional coursework, contextual factors, and classroom practice. Of these
origins, politi al, e perie tial a d i stitutio al fa tors see to have a i hi iti g effe t o tea hers’
belief in PMP, higher levels of professional coursework seem to correspond to stronger belief in PMP,
Page 23
and schooling and classroom practice remain anomalies. A fundamental limitation of the papers
specifically to PMP, however, is that either a very loose conceptualization of PMP has been used to
frame the studies, or that KPMP has been licenced uncritically as the established post-method
framework bar the studies by Howard & Millar (2009) and Bagheri (2013). Another limitation of the
urre t resear h is that i vestigatio s i to tea hers’ belief in PMP have been restricted to an
institutional or national scale, which has the potential to over-amplify contextual factors of local socio-
political and cultural origin (c.f. Hashemi, 2011; Razmjoo et al., 2013; Khatib & Fathi, 2014; Khany &
Darabi, 2014), which raises the question of whether there are more generic factors which influence
diversity of belief in PMP.
Lastly, although there are i di atio s of fa tors hi h i flue e tea hers’ elief i PMP, the validity
and relative strength of influence generated by each factor is an empirically unchartered area, which
reveals a potential for research. The current paper seeks to address these research opportunities,
firstly by having defining and clarifying the fundamental aspects of PMP, se o dly y e plori g Borg’s
(2003; 2006) four origins of teacher cognition to ascertain which tend to influence methodological
beliefs, and thirdly by verifying which of these factors most significantly predict the degree to which a
teacher believes in PMP.
Chapter 3 - Methodology
3.1 - Methodology Overview
As a result of the review of current literature in Chapter 2.4, it has been established while the
influences of teacher cognition are known, it is not understood which, if any, of these factors influence
tea her’s elief i post-method pedagogy. Therefore, the following Research Question was
formulated to explore this gap in the literature:
Page 24
Research Question: What are the fa tors whi h influen e the strength of a tea her’s elief in
post-method pedagogy?
In order to answer this question, a pragmatic approach was adopted in a sequential mixed-method
design, the methods employed being concept maps for the first phase, and an online survey for the
second, as shown the flowchart in Appendix 4, p.74 and Table 2 below. The concept maps were used
to gain a greater understanding of factors hi h i flue e tea hers’ ethodological principles, and
this data yield was used to construct the survey, whose data was analysed to answer the Research
Question. Construction of the survey took place using theory of teacher cognition from the literature
as a frame of reference, along with the PMP Aspects from Chapter 2.3.1. The project followed the
ethical guidelines published by BERA, and these specifics are explained below as are details of
sampling strategies and other methodological considerations.
Table 2: Methodology Overview
Purpose Instrument Number of
Participants Data Type
Data Analysis
Technique
Facilitate Survey Design Concept Maps 12 Qualitative Thematic de-clustering
Answer Research Question:
What are the factors which
influence the strength of a
tea her’s elief in PMP?
Online
survey15 189
Quantitative
Multiple regression,
“pear a ’s ‘ho & Ke dall’s Tau
3.1.1 - Design
The design of the study takes shape as a correlational survey in which a relationships are investigated
between the independent/predictor variables of schooling, contextual factors, classroom practice and
professional coursework and the dependent/outcome variable of belief in PMP (Punch & Oancea,
2014; Thomas, 2014). The design is fixed and multi-strategy (Robson, 2011), and can be labelled
spe ifi ally u der Lee h & O ueg uzie’s ( ategory of a partially i ed se ue tial do i a t
15 Although the concept map stage was used to assist with the design of the survey, the results were not used to answer
the research questions directly.
Page 25
status mixed-method design. The mixture of methods is partial owing to the fact that the two data
sets are implemented and analysed separately, and the dominant status aspect is evident from the
instrumental role of the concept mapping tool in contrast to the primary data collection function of
the online survey (Ibid).
The purpose of employing a qual→QUANT sequential design was to refine the psychometric quality,
and thereby the internal validity of the survey instrument using information gained from the concept
mapping data (Cresswell & Plano-Clark; Dornyei, 2007; Hesse-Bi er, , there y usi g a e d-o ’
approach to refine the survey tool by narrowing the scope of the predictor variables (Grbich, 2007).
The nature of project is both exploratory and explanatory (Robson, 2011), the concept mapping stage
functioning as an inductive, exploratory tool for the investigation of teacher cognition, while the
survey serves to dedu tively e plai the o e tio s et ee tea hers’ eliefs a d i flue tial fa tors,
which illustrates the practical blend of theory in the pragmatic philosophy within the design (Robson,
2011; Thomas, 2013).
3.1.2 - Philosophical Stance
Because selection of the research instruments was made purely on the basis of their potential to
answer the research questions rather than on their epistemological or ontological merits, the
philosophy behind the design could be described as pragmatic (Cresswell, 2007; Robson, 2011).
Prag atis is also evide t i the le d of a ore o je tive reality asso iated ith resear h Paradigm
A’ a d the su je tive reality asso iated ith Paradig B’, as de o strated y the i ture of
quantitative and qualitative methods16 (Hughes, 1990; Pring, 2000a; 2000b). Nevertheless, because
the ontology underpinning the project is based on the conceptualization of variables and the
epistemology relies largely on deductive reasoning, the philosophical assumptions do lean toward to
positivis a d e piri is , eve though this is ot i di ative of partiality to Paradig A’ (Gr i h, ;
16 That is to say, the construction of a reality conceptualized as variables is based on the assumption of their existence in an
independent, external reality viz. in composite form as psychological constructs, behaviour, and experiences past and
present (Hughes, 1990; Pring, 2000a; 2000b).
Page 26
Pring, 2000a; 2000b; Thomas, 2014). As for the specifics of the epistemology, while the concept
mapping phase introduces an inductive aspect to the reasoning process, the survey construction and
analysis is chiefly deductive 17 and the reasoning process is based on the realist assumptions of
generative causation (Thomas, 2013). Overall, considering the aversion to philosophical dualities,
blend of methods, and mixture of qualitative and quantitative data, the philosophy underpinning the
study is assumed to be pragmatic.
3.2 - Concept Maps
3.2.1 - Rationale
The role of the concept map tool was to facilitate the design of the survey in two ways: first by verifying
that tea hers’ eliefs related spe ifi ally to ethodologi al pri iples do i fa t origi ate i all four of
the factors outlined by Borg (2006), and secondly for more accurate design of the
predictor/independent variables in the survey. Concept maps are a form of visual representational
tool (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012) which are used to represent ideas and the network of relationships
between them in a pattern of interconnected nodes (Morgan & Guevara, 2008). The rationale for their
choice is found principally in their capacity to provide a visual i sight i to parti ipa ts’ og itive
structures and networks (Morgan & Guevara, 2008; Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012). They are also more
practical, flexible and easy to analyse compared to other qualitative methods such as interviewing
(Daley, 2004; Wheeldon, 2010); and are recognized as a legitimate tool for research into teacher
cognition (c.f. Borg, 2006; Calderhead, 1996), thus they were judged to be fit for purpose.
3.2.2 - Method
The concept mapping phase was prepared by drafting an information sheet, instruction sheet and
consent form (see Appendices 6, 7 and 8), which were sent to potential participants recruited via the
sampling procedure described below. Once participants had returned their consent form and map, a
17 The deductive epistemology risks unwarranted findings in the survey emerging from falsely-based premises derived from
the concept map data and literature (Thomas, 2013), which is a weakness that becomes more prominent in subsequent
chapters.
Page 27
brief Skype interview was carried out to enable participants to corroborate the researchers’
interpretations of each map, this being necessary to avoid the resear her’s extra-textual and inter-
textual frames of reference warping interpretation of the concepts (Grbich, 2007; Miles et al., 2014;
Rossman & Rallis, 2012). Once they had been checked, the finalised concept maps were sent to
participants for approval, then the aps ere a alysed i a dedu tive fashio usi g Borg’s ( 6
quadripartite model of teacher cognition as a frame of reference as explained below. This endeavour
provided a deeper insight into the influences of teacher cognition specific to methodological
principles, and the data yield was used to construct the section of the survey which measures the
predictor variables, the procedure for which is explained in Chapter 3.3.4 below.
3.2.3 - Sampling
Given the exploratory purpose of the concept mapping phase, the principal aim was to maximise
diversity i parti ipa ts’ tea her-profiles so as to avoid a sample from teachers working in a similar
context, due to the risk that they may share a collective set of pedagogic principles (Borg, 2003).
Therefore, a purposive sampling strategy was chosen to maximize heterogeneity of response (Daniel,
a d this as do e y o ta ti g for er olleagues a d stude ts i the resear hers’ perso al
network and asking them to participate or recruit participants on his behalf. This strategy resulted in
a set of participants with a broad range of pedagogic training, length of service, experience in
occupational settings, continent of residence, and first language (see Appendix 5, p75). A drawback of
this sampling tactic, however, was the presence of selection bias, the consequence being that any
would- e parti ipa ts eyo d the rea h of the resear hers’ professio al et ork ere i eligi le for
recruitment (Daniel, 2012) i.e. those working in restricted or remote environments. Regarding sample
size, the target number participants was set at c.10 in light of the exploratory aim and the depth of
detail which was to be sought in the concept mapping phase (Daniel, 2012; Savin-Baden & Major,
2013), hence the actual number obtained (n=12) was satisfactory.
Page 28
3.2.4 - Ethics
In order to attain a high level of ethical conduct, each participant was sent an information sheet,
consent form and task instruction sheet to read in order to make a decision on whether or not they
wished to take part in the study. The information sheet (see Appendix 6, p.76) followed guidelines set
out by Iphofen (2011) by stating the duration and nature of the research, what was expected of
participants, assura es of o fide tiality a d a o y ity a d assura e of parti ipa ts’ right to
withdraw, with the dual aim to invite participation and also to ensure that the consent participants
gave would be fully informed as is required for ethical rigor (Israel & Hay, 2006).
The information sheet did involve a slight degree of deception in that the specific purpose of the study
was not revealed viz. the investigation into PMP, due to a concern that participant expectancy might
impact the nature of the principles that participants created which would have compromised the
validity of the instrument (Thomas, 2013; Turner, 2014). This tint of deception was, however, not
deemed unethical given that the retention of information by researchers is common when
parti ipa ts’ responses may be affected (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012), and the exclusion of
significant information was judged to have little potential for causing participants any harm.
In light of the fact that all participants were qualified English teachers, it was assumed that they had
the capacity to fully comprehend the information and to make sound judgement (Israel & Hay, 2006;
Iphofen, 2011), and the opt-in format of the consent form (see Appendix 8, p.78) preserved
parti ipa ts’ freedo a d auto o y (Ha ersley & Traianou, 2012). At practical realisation, ethical
o du t as ai tai ed y a o y izi g the parti ipa ts’ profiles a d o ept aps usi g letters a d
numbers (Ibid), and by maximizing benefit to participants by informing each that they would be sent
a summary email with the results of the study in order to debrief them (Israel & Hay, 2006).
3.2.5 - Analysis
Once the consent forms had been signed and the concept maps had been member-checked, they were
analysed using an unconventional thematic de-clustering technique which was conducted on the
Page 29
outer nodes of the concept maps only18. The analysis was carried out in a deductive manner using
Borg’s ( 6 four ategories of tea her cognition19 as a coding scheme (Newby, 2014), which resulted
in an unconventional reverse of Miles et al.’s ( data a alysis ta ti of lusteri g’. That is to say,
the data was used to un-cluster, expand, and fragment the four factors of teacher cognition with
specific respect to pedagogic principles. For instance, the data obtained was used to split the category
of o te tual fa tors’ (Borg, 6 i to su -fa tors su h as e perie e of lear ers fro differe t
ultural a kgrou ds’, e perie e of urri ular styles/re uire e ts’ a d positive feed a k fro
lear ers’ (see Appe di es a d . Thus, the four road sour es of tea her og itio ere split i to
empirically verifiable sub-factors via a thematic de- or re-coding process, which decompressed the
four origins of teacher cognition and facilitated their articulation as predictor/independent variables
in the survey to enable greater precision of measurement.
3.2.6 - Limitations
A caveat to observe, however, is that due to the reliance on the twelve concept maps for
fragmentation of Borg’s ( 6 sour es of og itio , the evidence is only as good as the sample
provides, which is unlikely to be 100% robust. Another limitation regarding the use of concept maps
is that their graphic format may not have appealed to participants who are not visually-oriented
(Wheeldon & Faubert, 2009), which might explain the wide variation in the number of principles (n=3-
12) featured on the concept maps (see Appendix 9, p.79). A further significant limitation inherent to
concept maps pertains to their power to depict reality (Wheeldon & Ahlberg, 2012), and it should be
heeded that, despite the drive to gain an insider perspective, their creation and analysis depended on
the assumption of language as a neutral tool of thought, which evokes a sense of naïve realism (Scott,
2000) and potentially compromises the validity of the method. Despite these limitations, the concept
map data provided some key insights into the sources of teacher cognition with specific respect to
tea hers’ ethodologi al eliefs. Because the data serves an instrumental role in the survey design,
18 The i er odes ere ot a alysed as they o tai ed the parti ipa ts’ ethodologi al pri iples a d their role as solely i stru e tal i eli iti g the i flue es of parti ipa ts’ pedagogi pri iples. 19 The four factors are schooling, contextual factors, classroom practice and professional coursework (Borg, 2006)
Page 30
the results are not reported separately, and instead are integrated into Chapter 3.3.4 below and
reported in Appendices 9 and 10.
3.3 - Survey
3.3.1 - Overview
As illustrated by the flowchart in Appendix 4 (p.74), insights from the literature from teacher cognition
and the data yield from concept mapping stage were used to design the part of the survey which
measured the predictor/outcome variables (Survey Section 2), while the other part of the survey was
constructed using the PMP Aspects from Chapter 2.3.1 to measure the outcome/dependent variable
viz. belief in PMP (Survey Section 1). As illustrated in Table 3 below, Section 1 of the survey comprises
eight sub-sections which measure the PMP Aspects; meanwhile, Section 2 is made up of three sub-
sections which measure the independent/predictor variables which are thought to influence the
degree to which a teacher believes in PMP (see survey in Appendix 11, p.99). The reason for measuring
tea hers’ o te tual e perie e a d lassroo pra ti e dually i “e tio . as to avoid the risk of
multi-collinearity, an issue relevant to multiple regression analysis whereby predictor/independent
variables overlap and affect the uniqueness of their effect on the outcome/dependent variable (Field,
2009; Punch, 2003).
Table 3: Survey Section Breakdown
Variable Section Sub-section Measurement
outcome /
dependent 1
1.1 PMP Aspect 1: parameter of particularity
1.2 PMP Aspect 2: parameter of practicality
1.3 PMP Aspect 3: parameter of possibility
1.4 PMP Aspect 4: learner centrality aspect
1.5 PMP Aspect 5: experiential - analytic dimension
1.6 PMP Aspect 6: cross-lingual - intra-lingual dimension
1.7 PMP Aspect 7: implicit - explicit dimension
1.8 PMP Aspect 8: communicative aspect
predictor /
independent 2
2.1 Cognition Factors: contextual experience and classroom
practice
2.2 Cognition Factor: schooling
2.3 Cognition Factor: professional coursework
Page 31
3.3.2 - Survey Design & Ethics
During survey construction, the sequence of the questions in the survey was broken down into shorter
sub-sections which contained questions grouped by variables and by topic, to make it clear and easy
to navigate (Anderson & Arsenault, 1998; Cohen et al., 2011). In addition, it was made as cohesive as
possible by placing a simple, non-threatening question at the beginning (Appendix 11, p.102: Question
3), followed by harder and more personal questions in the middle (Section 1) and finally easier factual
questions at the end in Section 2 (Cohen et al., 2011).
A covering letter was also provided at the start of the survey, which was split into two parts to avoid
demotivating potential respondents with a long text to read at the outset. The first page (Appendix
11, p.100: Introduction Page) stated the purpose of the survey, introduced the researcher, and stated
why respondents had been selected (Anderson & Arsenault, 1998), and also screened out respondents
who were not in the sampling frame. The second page (Appendix 11, p.101: Consent Form) continued
the over letter y providi g the resear hers’ o ta t i for atio , stati g ho the results ould e
used, and assuring confidentiality (Anderson & Arsenault, 1998; Cohen et al., 2011). This page also
functioned to offer respondents the ability to refuse to take part in the survey, thereby obtaining
informed consent in an opt-in mode to ensure respondents chose to signal their desire to take part in
an active manner20 (Israel & Hay, 2006; Thomas, 2013). An additional point relevant to ethics is that,
a with the concept maps, the precise purpose of measuring belief in PMP was concealed from
participants in the covering letter. The reason why this information was concealed is that respondents
might have investigated, and hence altered their beliefs about, PMP if they had been unfamiliar with
the concept, which might have exacerbated the issue of social desirability associated with survey
research (Bechhofer & Paterson, 2000).
20 It should be noted that variations in cultural perspective of consent or whose consent must be sought may have deterred
certain potential respondents (Hammersley & Traianou, 2012) which is potentially evident from the 34 respondents who
dropped out of the survey on the page with the consent form (see Appendix 18, p.158)
Page 32
As for the ethical virtues of avoiding harm and doing good (Israel & Hay, 2006), harm from prolonged
mental exertion and sacrifice of time was mitigated by condensing the quantity of scale items to as
few as required (Iphofen, 2011), the average time of completion during pre-testing being 17 minutes
which, it was hoped, balanced convenience with construct validity (DeVellis, 2012; Robson, 2011).
Furthermore, in an effort to provide maximum benefit, survey respondents were given the
opportunity to leave their email address at the end of the survey to receive a summary of the study
findings (see Appendix 11, p.125), which met the need to both debrief respondents and empower
them with potentially usable knowledge (Israel & Hay, 2006), albeit food for thought.
3.3.3 - Survey Section 1
During construction of questions to measure the outcome variable in Survey Section 1, the decision
was made to use rating/Likert scales owing to their capacity to measure attitudes and beliefs
(Anderson & Arsenault, 1998) and to split each PMP Aspect into three scale items to improve the
psychometric rigor of the survey (Peterson, 2000; Punch, 2003). Unipolar and bipolar scales with 3-5
scale points were selected for use (Peterson, 2000), and the majority of scales contained two opposite
anchors21 to avoid a decrease in reliability from requiring respondents to imagine the missing anchors
on unipolar scales (Anderson & Arsenault, 1998). Each of the items in Section 1 had an odd number of
scale options, and although this posed a risk of central tendency, forcing a choice was deemed
unjustifiable as each item had a legitimate middle viewpoint (Cohen et al., 2011).
One of the drawbacks of utilizing bipolar scales, however; is that the two statements require opposite
meanings to attain unidimensionality (Ibid), and it is debatable to what extent the anchors on each
bipolar scale are in fact reversed. Taking Section 1.7 as an example, the contrast between the anchors
in the scales of Questions 22-24 (see Appendix 11, p.112) in measuring PMP Aspect 7, convey the
potentially false duality between cognitivist and behaviourist views of SLA which was identified in
Chapter 2.2.1. Therefore, the potentially poor adequacy of the scales for the measurement of the
21 Anchors refer to the statements on a scale which usually occur at either end
Page 33
phenomenon of PMP poses a risk to the validity of Section 1, although this is unsurprising owing to
the difficulty involved in measuring psychological phenomena such as belief (DeVellis, 2012).
3.3.4 - Survey Section 2
In contrast to the measurement of belief in Section 1, the design of the items in Survey Section 2 was
different due to its measurement of experiences, habits, and behaviour: Section 2.1 measured
contextual experience and classroom practice, Section 2.2 measured schooling, and Section 2.3
measured professional coursework. Because these sections were informed by findings from the
concept mapping stage, this data is summarized first before the construction process is explained.
3.3.4.1 - Concept Map Data Summary
As displayed by the concept maps and synthesis of results in Appendices 9 and 10, the concept maps
successfully fragmented the four origins of teacher cognition into numerous sub-factors, and also
confirmed their influence empirically. While some of the sub-factors are already documented by
current literature e.g. positive and negative prior learning experiences (Borg, 2003), a number of sub-
factors also emerged which were not e.g. inspiration from own self-study strategies and interests. In
addition, a number of sub-fa tors also e erged hi h ould ot e ategorized u der Borg’s ( 6
cognitio fra e ork e.g. o o se se’, a d others ere arti ulated loosely e.g. ‘teaching
e perie e’ (see Appendix 9, p.79: Concept Maps 4, 6 and 10), which illustrate the tacit and sometimes
i a essi le ature of tea hers’ og itions (Kagan, 1992; Borg, 2006)22.
The concept maps did produce some key insights nonetheless, notably the fact that self-study of other
languages and of pedagogic-related literature are origins of teacher cognition which seem to influence
methodological beliefs. Another important insight is that sub-factors identified under classroom
practice overlapped with contextual factors e.g. influence from observation of students with learning
22 That is to say, teachers may not have been able to articulate the influences of their beliefs explicitly because they are
o posite: the otio s of life e perie e’ a d tea hi g e perie e’ i di ate the e iste e of atalogues of s aller influences whose sums are greater than their parts.
Page 34
disabilities’ can arguably be placed in either, which led to the unification of these two factors in the
survey to avoid the risk of multicollinearity (Allison, 1999).
3.3.4.2 - Section 2 Design
Regarding construction of Section 2, the concept map data was used to generate questions and
checkbox options so that the items articulated the sources of cognition as accurately as possible. In
Question 30, for instance, teaching experiences in different cultural scenarios (Checkboxes 7-10), in
contexts with specific constraints (Checkboxes 4-6), and in contexts where students had learning
disabilities (Checkbox 11) are measured as per the findings from Concept Maps 2, 5, 6 and 10 (see
Appendix 10, p.97). Likewise, Sections 2.2 and 2.3 contain items dedicated to measurement of the
quantity of self-study teachers have carried out, both of foreign/second languages and also of
la guage pedagogy, hi h realize the i flue es o tea hers’ ethodological cognitions revealed by
concept maps 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11. Regarding the influences which could not be categorized under
any of the four sources of cognition such as dis ussio s ith other tea hers’ (see Co ept Maps 9 and
10), these were judged to be too intangible for measurement and thus were left out of the survey.
Data from the concept maps was not the only source used for the design of the items, as theory from
the literature was also used to supplement the empirical data to ensure that items were as valid as
possible. For example, Checkboxes 1-3 in Question 30 reflect forward, central and backward
curriculum designs (Richards, 2013) and Checkboxes 5-7 in Question 34 reflect the broad learning-
centred, language-centred and learner-centred methods conceived by Kumaravadivelu (2003b). In
addition, the resear hers’ e perie e a d i fere es made from the concept map data also
contributed to item design; for example, the experience of different class sizes measured by
Checkboxes 12-14 in Question 30 was included due to apparent influence from classroom dynamics
and general teaching evident in the concept map data23.
23 A additio al uestio to ide tify respo de ts’ lo atio (Questio as also added for the purpose of esti ati g the geographical reach of the sampling strategy.
Page 35
It is important to point out that two errors are present in Survey Section 2, however, the first one
being that the intervals between options in Questions 28, 31, 33 and 37 overlap, which incurs a small
risk of measurement error. A more serious error, however, is that quantification of two sources of
teacher cognition identified in Concept Maps 2, 5 and 6 was accidentally omitted (observation
feed a k a d e tors’ o e ts). In hindsight, observation feedback and mentoring programmes
should have been quantified in the same way that Question 38 quantified self-study, or at least should
have featured as checkbox options in a list of different types of professional development list similar
to those under Questions 30 and 34. Although other unknown or unreported sources of belief may
also have evaded measurement, the knowledge of these two omissions poses a threat to the construct
validity of Section 2.3, hence also the variable of professional coursework.
3.3.5 - Survey Development
Owing to the fact that most of the items in both Sections 1 and 2 were created entirely from scratch24,
it was necessary to pre-test the survey to identify any serious problems (Robson, 2011), and this was
carried out iteratively via two methods: direct questioning and observation of behaviour during
completion (Peterson, 2000). Initially, three test respondents were given the test version of the survey
and a feedback form (see Appendix 12, p.129) to identify reactions to the layout, instructions, wording,
format, appearance, completion time, and mental effort required (Cohen et al., 2011) and after each
test this feedback information was used update the survey before the next test session, which led to
most practical issues being resolved. A crucial step in the survey development which was not done,
however, was a pilot test of the instrument with 60+ respondents to evaluate the survey items (Czaja
& Blair, 2005; DeVellis, 2012; Peterson, 2000), this not being possible due to limited access to
respondents and a lack of time.
24 With some inspiration from what appears to be the only other quantitative survey of belief in PMP by Razmjoo et al.
(2013)
Page 36
3.3.6 - Limitations
The decision to use an online survey to identify factors which predict belief in PMP was made given
their suitability for measurement of relationships between variables (Punch, 2003), because they have
the apa ity to eli it data o tea hers’ k o ledge, attitudes a d eliefs, a d e ause they ge erate
large datasets for statistical analysis efficiently (Borg, 2006; Robson, 2011). A caveat which is linked to
the use of an online survey tool, however, is that a degree of response bias is generated unavoidably
in favour of ICT-literate respondents who have access to the internet (Czaja & Blair, 2005). Another
drawback of the use of the survey instrument exists in the threat to validity caused by its conceptual
rigidity: survey ite state e ts represe t the resear hers’ o eptual defi itio s, assu e a o o
perception of the world and limit responses to the scale provided (Bechhofer & Paterson, 2000; Borg,
2006).
Another threat to the validity of the instrument originates in the potential for inaccuracy of response,
whether due to social desirability effects, opaque memory or variance in comprehension of questions
and/or statements (Bechhofer & Paterson, 2000). For instance, it is likely that so e respo de ts’
o ative asso iatio s of theories of effe tive la guage tea hi g’ (see Appendix 11, p.105: Question
7) differed significantly to those assumed by the researcher (Robson, 2011), and responses regarding
experience and credentials may have been overestimated to convey a better professional image
(Bechhofer & Paterson, 2000). In sum, while the use of a survey for the research aims has been
justified, there are a number of threats to the reliability of the instrument as a result of respondent
and measurement error which should be borne in mind as we proceed.
3.3.7 - Sampling Strategy
In order to obtain the quality and quantity of responses which were necessary for the survey, a
strategy was chosen in an attempt to partially meet the assumptions of inferential statistical analyses.
Regarding sample size, Cohen et al. (2011) suggest 30 cases and an additional 30 per variable for
inferential statistical analysis, while Field (2009) advises that for multiple regression the sample size
Page 37
also be adjusted according to the expected effect size. A medium effect size was expected by default
due to the research being exploratory; therefore, a minimum number of n=120 responses was set
given the three predictor variables in the study.
The other main issue was the type of sampling strategy to choose, a probability sample being ideal
because random selection from a population is a prerequisite for inferential statistical analysis (Daniel,
2012; Rowntree, 1981). An unsurmountable obstacle in obtaining a random sample for the present
study, however, was the need to define the units of analysis and also the population boundaries. Even
if the survey had been conducted on a national scale, defining the population of TESOL teachers so as
to generate a sampling frame and calculate the probability of selection would have been a formidable
task (Czaja & Blair, 2005). Hence, a pragmatic solution was found to obtain the sample size required
to perform statistical analysis, which materialized as a convenience and respondent-assisted sampling
coupled with random and purposive sampling (Daniel, 2012).
The convenience sa ple as se ured fro TE“OL tea hers i the resear hers’ so ial et ork hi h
resulted in approximately 50 guaranteed responses, mainly from teachers working at private language
academies. To boost this number, this core group of respondents were asked to chain-refer the survey
link to TESOL teachers in their own social and professional networks in an effort to double the number
of responses to 100. Nevertheless, due to the fact that members of the population (i.e. TESOL teachers
worldwide) had unequal chances of being invited to participate and that the response rate of 100 was
not guaranteed, an attempt to balance and increase the sample was made via a pragmatic fusion of
random, purposive sampling.
To this end, a random city, town or village was chosen in a randomly-selected25 country with Google
Maps®, after hi h the sear h ear y’ function was used to hunt for state schools or universities26.
On identification of a nearby institution, the researcher obtained the telephone number and a call was
25 Using https://www.randomlists.com/random-country 26 State schools and universities were prioritized because the majority of responses from the convenience sample were
expected to be from teachers working in private language academies
Page 38
made to ask for permission to distribute the survey to TESOL teachers. Care was taken not to apply
pressure on gatekeepers when encouraging them to distribute the survey (Iphofen, 2009), and in cases
when the request was accepted, an email was sent to the contact to request the distribution formally.
This sampling campaign lasted for three days during which approximately 70 emails were sent to
gatekeepers in countries and institutions which were highly likely to lie beyond those reachable via
the convenience sampling strategy mentioned above.
Despite the modest success of this endeavour, however, the original paradox of sampling (Rowntree,
1981) was only partially mitigated due to the fact that only TESOL teachers who worked at institutions
which were listed on the web, had telecommunication access, and whose secretaries/gatekeepers
could communicate with the researcher in English were eligible to participate. Moreover, despite
efforts at randomization, the sampling strategy was still non-probabilistic which, despite its advantage
for exploratory research (Daniel, 2012), incurs the consequence that the responses obtained are
biased and the external validity of the findings is diminished (Robson, 2011).
3.3.8 - Survey Scoring Procedure
Once the survey had closed and the data from the survey platform had been exported to a
spreadsheet, the responses were scored using the key in Appendix 13 (p.131). When scoring survey
Section 1 a value of 1-5 was allocated to each question response, with higher scores given to responses
which were closer aligned with the PMP Aspects in Chapter 2.3.1 and vice-versa. Once the scores had
been allocated, they were totalled for each sub-section to produce eight data sets with a score range
of 3-15, which were then added together to form the dependent/outcome variable to represent the
stre gth of respo de ts’ elief i PMP, the eighti g of ea h re ai i g eve to e sure e ual
proportionality of the PMP Aspects. Consequently, the values of the dependent/outcome variable had
a possible range of 24 to 120, those values closer to the minimum representing belief at odds to PMP
and those nearer the maximum representing the strongest belief in PMP.
Page 39
The scoring process for Questions 31-38 in Section 2 was a more challenging task owing to the need
to maintain accuracy of measurement while avoiding distortion of the results by extreme values, an
issue which was magnified by the need to weight the response data27. As an example, the scoring
system for Question 35 (Appendix 13, p.140) aimed to achieve sensitivity of measurement by
allocating as wide a range of scores as possible, while also placing a cap on extreme scores so that
when the data was weighted, the low and high extremes would remain proportional and also
representative.
However, this led to two drawbacks: firstly, the caps placed on the highest scores compromised the
accuracy of measurement i.e. the score of 14 given to a respondent who followed professional
literature constantly does not accurately represent the double of 7, which a respondent who had read
only 60-70 articles in their career would have scored. Secondly, the sensitivity between survey items
was uneven as a result of an error made during survey construction; for instance, the four 5-year
i tervals i Questio easured respo de ts’ s hooli g ith far less a ura y tha did the 6-month
intervals in Question 33. Therefore, while every effort was made to score evenly, low internal validity
may be apparent within and between the predictor variable data sets due to measurement error
(Allison, 1999).
A more general issue with the scoring systems for both Sections 1 and 2 arises from potentially low
internal consistency of the survey instrument because the PMP Aspects collectively comprise a
multidimensional construct, which is also the case for each of the sources of teacher cognition. The
crux of the matter is that as a consequence of measuring multidimensional, rather than
unidimensional, constructs is that it was possible for respondents to score erratically within survey
sub-sections. For example, respondents could indicate strong opposition to student code switching
(Section 1.6, Question 19: high score) while also endorsing teacher code-switching (Section 1.6,
Question 20: low score), or they could report a large amount of teaching experience (Section 2.1,
27 When weighted, extremely high scores in a dataset reduce variance in a variable and in turn covariance between
variables, which weakens the possible effect size (Field, 2009)
Page 40
Question 28: high score) with a limited range of experience in different contexts (Section 2.1, Question
29: low score). Consequently, the internal consistency of the survey could not be checked via statistical
tests such as the coefficient alpha (DeVellis, 2012) 28 , meaning that its validity is not readily
ascertainable.
3.3.9 - Variable Creation
Once scoring had taken place, a total of seven missing values were identified in the data set of Section
229, and these values were estimated and replaced manually by comparing the item means and
estimated figures from the SPSS Missing Value Analysis tool (see Appendix 14, p.143). Once the
missing values had been replaced, the scores from the questions in sub-sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 were
weighted to place roughly equal importance on quality and quantity (see Appendix 13, p.131)30. After
they had been weighted, the results were then totalled to create the variables for use in statistical
analysis as illustrated in Table 4
Table 4: Summary of Variables
VARIABLE SURVEY SECTION SCORE RANGE
MIN -MAX OBSERVED
Dependent /
Outcome Section 1 (PMP) 24 – 120 64 – 107
Independent /
Predictor
Section 2.1 (context & classroom) 9.4 – 100 16.1 – 86.1
Section 2.2 (schooling) 11.1 – 100 13.9 – 73.6
Section 2.3 (professional coursework) 10.8 - 100 14.9 – 71.4
Univariate data checks were then carried out, whereby the normality of the distributions were
checked visually from histograms (see Appendix 15, p.144) and also statistically by calculating
Skewness and Kurtosis z-scores and running the Shapiro-Wilk test of normality, which is suitable for
data sets of 30-200 cases (Field, 2009; Turner, 2014). On analysis of the data (see Appendix 16, p.156),
28 Out of curiosity, the coefficient alphas were calculated and compared to the threshold of >.7 (Devellis, 2012). To prove
the point, the results were: PMP (Q4-Q27) .579, Context & Classroom (Q28-Q30) .404, Schooling (Q31-Q34) .340,
Professional Coursework (Q35-Q38) .523 29 These o prised a iguous a d erro eous respo ses to the Other’ optio s o Questio s , & 8; 30 E.g. for the context and classroo predi tor varia le, the u er of years’ TE“OL tea hi g e perie e ( ua tity as weighted at 50% and the number of teaching settings and contexts (quality) were weighed collectively also at 50%.
Page 41
it was found that all distributions except for Schooling were suffering from abnormality; therefore,
attempts were made to normalise the distributions via data transformations of reflect, Log10 and
square root (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007).
After transformation, normality had been attained in the dependent/outcome variable, however,
normality could not be attained in the independent variables of Professional Coursework; hence the
decision was made to create dummy variables from the predictors by splitting the data into three
groups by the 33rd and 66th percentiles, as is illustrated in Appendix 17 (p.157)31. The advantage of
recoding each predictor into three dummy variables was that fewer bivariate assumptions had to be
checked because a pattern of relationship was no longer assumed viz. linearity and homoscedasticity,
although a drawback was that this conversion also eroded the precision of the regression model
(Allison, 1999).
Normality had been achieved, however, in the dependent/predictor variable after a reflect square
root transformation, so this data set was used for statistical analysis as it met the assumption of
normality required for multiple regression (Field, 2009). It did not, however, meet the assumption
behind multiple regression that data be interval and unconstrained (Field, 2009) because the
magnitude of difference between units of belief in PMP are intangible and indicate a hierarchy rather
than any substantive meaning and therefore constitute ordinal data (Allison, 1999; Siegel & Castellan,
1988), an issue which is addressed below.
3.3.10 - Data Analysis Procedure
For the statistical analysis, a standard multiple regression strategy was selected owing to the fact that
sequential multiple regression is suited more to the testing of explicit hypotheses, and the practice of
stepwise multiple regression is somewhat controversial32 (Tabachnik & Fiddell, 2007). The standard
multiple regressions were run by entering two dummy variables for each predictor in all three possible
31 It is important to observe that the range of scores in the low and high dummy variables are wider than those in the
medium, this being due to the large number of outliers which skewed the distributions in the first place. 32 It is also only suitable for use with large, representative samples (Tabachnik & Fiddell, 2007).
Page 42
combinations i.e. low + medium, medium + high, and low + high. This meant that each dummy variable
could be evaluated for its own unique contribution to the model in comparison to the dummy (AKA
reference) variable which had been left out of the model (Pallant, 2013)
However, because the use of a parametric test with measurement scales of an ordinal nature can
u der i e its validity y addi g’ i for atio (Alliso , ; “iegel & Castella , 8 , the non-
para etri tests of “pear a ‘ho a d Ke dall’s Tau, hi h are suited to ordi al/ra ked data (Bur s,
2000; Field, 2009), were also run parallel to cross-validate the findings33.The confidence intervals
selected for the non-parametric and multiple regression models followed the generally accepted
standard of 95% (Johnson & Christensen, 2008), and an alpha level of <.05 was adopted as a threshold
for all the statistical tests to avoid type I and II errors34 (Johnson & Christensen, 2008).
Chapter 4 - Results
4.1 - Preliminary Findings
Once each of the three combinations of dummy variables 1-3 for each predictor variable had been run
with a forced entry multiple regression, a digest of the findings was produced (see Appendix 19,
p.159). The most remarkable finding was the extremely small size of relationship between the dummy
variables and the outcome variable, the R Square figures indicating that the highest proportion of
explained variance is just 3.4% (Field, 2009). Due to the fact that only the models containing
professional coursework dummy variables indicated significant improvement in prediction, as
indicated by the ANOVA F-ratios and significance statistics (Pallant, 2013), it seemed intriguing to
investigate professional coursework further, so the decision was made to split the variable into formal
33 A two-tailed test was run to avoid the greater risk of type I error associated with a one-tailed test (Rowntree, 1981;
Turner, 2014). 34 Owing to the exploratory nature of the research, a lower threshold such as <1.0 could have been used (Turner, 2014);
however, this option was rejected to avoid making a type I error.
Page 43
and informal components to enable variance associated with official SLTE (Second Language Teacher
Education) and voluntary CPD (Continuing Professional Development) to be distinguished.
To this end, scores from survey Questions 35 and 38 were aggregated to form a new informal CPD
variable, while scores from survey Questions 36 and 37 were aggregated into the formal SLTE variable.
The two new variables were then split into three new dummy variables of low, medium and high
scores (see Appendix 20, p.160), and once coded they were entered into a forced multiple regression
which produced the data in Models 4-6 summarized in Appendix 21 (p.161).
4.2 - Main Results
On inspection of the standardised beta coefficients for Models 1-3 and 4-6, it was observed that
negative coefficients were associated with dummy variables which represented high values for
context and classroom experience, formal SLTE and informal CPD, and also the dummy variable which
represented low values for schooling35. Therefore, these four dummy variables were used to create
two hierarchical multiple regression models (Models 7 and 8) which comprised the final data analysis.
In Model 7, the dummy variables with the highest R Square values were entered first to explain the
amount of change each new dummy variable contributed to the model once the variance caused by
the most significant had been accounted for. Model 8 served the opposite purpose, whereby the
dummy variables with the lowest R Square were entered first in order to hold these constant when
assessing the contribution of the most significant dummy variable (Pallant, 2013; Tabachnik & Fidell,
2007). A summary of both models is displayed below in Tables 5 and 6 (see Appendix 22, p.162, for all
statistics).
35 Negative standardised beta coefficients represent an increase in belief in PMP due to the variable having been reflected
during data transformation (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007)
Page 44
Table 5: Regression Model 7
Model 7: Hierarchical Multiple Regression ordered by descending statistical significance for variables with
negative beta coefficients
Dummy
Variables
Entered
Beta†
R
Square
Change Statistics ANOVA
Standardized
Coefficient Sig.*
R Square
Change
F
Change
Sig. F
Change
*
F Sig.*
1 -.204 .005 .042 .042 8.110 .005 8.110 .005
1
2
-.197 .009 .042 .001 .114 .736 4.092 .018
-.025 .736
1
2
3
-.196 .010
.042 .000 .010 .920 2.717 .046 -.024 .755
-.007 .920
1
2
3
4
-.197 .010
.042 .000 .047 .828 2.039 .091 -.024 .754
-.011 .882
-.016 .828
Dummy Variable Key
1. Informal CPD High Scores (Professional coursework)
2. Context & Classroom High Scores
3. Formal SLTE High Scores (Professional coursework)
4. Schooling Low Scores
† Negative betas represent an increase in belief in PMP due to reflection of outcome variable
Depe de t/out o e varia le: Tra sfor ed aggregate of PMP (refle ted s uare root
* Significance level set at the .05 level
Table 6: Regression Model 8
Model 8: Hierarchical Multiple Regression ordered by ascending statistical significance for variables with
negative beta coefficients
Dummy
Variables
Entered
Beta†
R
Square
Change Statistics ANOVA
Standardized
Coefficient Sig.*
R
Square
Change
F
Change
Sig. F
Change
*
F Sig.*
4 .004 .953 .000 .000 .004 .953 .004 .953
4
3
-.005 .948 .001 .001 .240 .625 .122 .885
-.037 .625
4
3
2
-.007 .930
.007 .006 1.048 .307 .430 .731 -.022 .777
-.077 .307
4
3
2
1
-.016 .828
.042 .036 6.825 .010 2.039 .091 -.011 .882
-.024 .754
-.197 .010
Dummy Variable Key
5. Informal CPD High Scores (Professional coursework)
6. Context & Classroom High Scores
7. Formal SLTE High Scores (Professional coursework)
8. Schooling Low Scores
† Negative betas represent an increase in belief in PMP due to reflection of outcome variable
Depe de t/out o e varia le: Tra sfor ed aggregate of PMP (refle ted s uare root
* Significance level set at the .05 level
4.3 - Data Validation
Before inspection of this data, however, Regression Models 7 and 8 were assessed to check if they
met the bivariate assumptions of multiple regression, and the evidence indicates that confidence can
be placed in the results. First, the distribution of residuals are acceptably normal judging by the P-P
Page 45
plots and residual statistics (see Appendix 22, p.162), which show that no residual values exceed the
values of -3.3 or +3.3, which would have indicated that outliers are exerting undue influence on the
data (Tabachnik & Fidell, 2007). Second, the values of each Durbin-Watson test is within the
boundaries of 1 to 3, which reveals that the residuals are independent (Field, 2009); finally, the VIF
and tolerance statistics are less than 10 and greater than .10 respectively, which rules out the
possibility of multi-collinearity (Pallant, 2013).
An assumption behind multiple regression that was broken, however, was the aforementioned use of
the outcome/dependent variable as continuous data despite its ordinal format (Field, 2009)36. With
aim to reverse this decrease of confidence in the multiple regression models, the non-parametric tests
of “pear a ’s ‘ho a d Ke dall’s Tau ere ru to ross-validate the results, and the data produced is
displayed in Table 6 below (see Appendix 23, p.171, for complete matrix).
Table 6: Nonparametric Correlations
Nonpara etric correlation coefficients †
Ke dall’s tau “pear a ’s rho
Rank of Context & Classroom Correlation Coefficient * .071 .104
Sig. (2-tailed) .156 .154
Rank of Schooling Correlation Coefficient * -.005 -.011
Sig. (2-tailed) .926 .884
Rank of Professional
Coursework (formal SLTE)
Correlation Coefficient * .033 .047
Sig. (2-tailed) .530 .521
Rank of Professional
Coursework (informal CPD)
Correlation Coefficient * .168** .242**
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .001
*. Positive coefficients indicate an increase in belief in PMP and vice versa because dependent variable is
untransformed.
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
†. “a ple size is same as for multiple regression models (N=189)
. Depe de t varia le is ‘a ked Aggregate of PMP
The data from the nonparametric correlations serve to cross-validate the multiple regression models:
despite their lower power efficiency (Daniel, 1990), it is evident that the only significant correlation
coefficient is observed between informal CPD and belief in PMP, which confirms the contribution to
36 Even though this is common practice, and notwithstanding the highly normal distribution attained from transformation,
the assumption remains violated (Field, 2009).
Page 46
the variance in the dependent/outcome variable illustrated by the low R Square statistics in the
regression models37. Therefore, owing to the zero change of the R Square statistic in Model 7 while
variables 2, 3 and 4 are entered into the equation, it is evident that high levels of context and
classroom experience and formal SLTE, and low levels of schooling cause no additional variance in
belief in PMP once high levels of informal CPD have been accounted for (Pallant, 2013; Tabachnik &
Fidell, 2007). Furthermore, there is little evidence to suggest that any other dummy variables mediate
the effect which high levels of informal CPD have on belief in PMP, as shown by the decimals in the R
Square change statistics and insignificance of the F-change statistics in Model 8 (Field, 2009).
A word of caution is in order however, before inferences are made: a fundamental weakness of each
of Regression Models 1-8 can be found in the extremely low R Square statistics, which demonstrates
that just 4.2% of the variance in the dependent variable is accounted for by the predictor variables at
best (Punch & Oancea, 2014). While low R Square statistics do not automatically invalidate the
efficiency of a model38, they may indicate measurement error in the variables (Allison, 1999), which
calls into question the capacity of the survey to measure the latent predictor and outcome variables
(DeVellis, 2012; Peterson, 2000).
Notwithstanding this arresting limitation, judging by the nonparametric coefficients and the extremely
low ANOVA significance statistics in the regression models when the High Informal CPD’ du y
variable, the results of the study are now apparent. First, it is evident that quantity of informal CPD is
correlated positively ith tea hers’ elief i PMP, a d this varia e is independent of the factors of
formal SLTE, context and classroom experience, and foreign/second language schooling. Therefore, in
answer to the research question, the results indicate that the only factor which influences the strength
of a tea her’s elief i PMP appears to e the amount of informal CPD they have completed, and the
ramifications of this result shall now be discussed.
37 The full nonparametric correlation matrix in Appendix 23 (p.171) also shows p-values for coefficients between the
predictor variables do not exceed .07, which confirms the absence of multicollinearity (Field, 2009). 38 This is because high R Square values are attainable with incorrectly selected variables (Allison, 1999).
Page 47
Chapter 5 - Discussion
5.1 - Descriptive Statistics
Before discussing the results of the multiple regression, it is worth backtracking to the results of the
descriptive statistical analyses which were carried out to check the normality of the distributions. As
became evident in Chapter 3.3.9 above, the only distribution which could not be transformed to attain
normality was professional coursework, the untransformed curve representing a (relatively) normal
bell curve whose lower values have been cut off neatly at the 40th percentile (see Appendix 15, p.153).
The shape of this distribution was caused by a large number of respondents with a low level and a
small number with a high level of professional coursework, and is a result which has important
ramifications.
One reason for the skew could be due to measurement error in the survey, which could originate in
the failure to quantity observation feedback and mentoring support as mentioned in Chapter 3.3.4.2,
or alternatively it could also originate in the scoring and weighting procedures which were chosen. If
either is the case, the internal validity of the study is likely to be low due to discrepancies between the
statistical results and the construct which they represent (Field, 2009). Another possible reason for
the skew is that it is a result of sampling bias, as was discussed in Chapters 3.3.6 and 3.3.7: if, as
suspected, the data disproportionately represent TESOL teachers who are CELTA-qualified and
employed in the private sector, the survey responses constitute a biased segment of the population
of TESOL teachers worldwide.
It could also be the case, however, that the distributions are relatively accurate representations of the
target population, if it is characteristic of the majority of TESOL teachers to have completed a low,
rather than a medium, quantity of professional development 39 . Although each of these three
39 This might be explained by higher-qualified teachers leaving the profession or switching to managerial positions, for
example.
Page 48
explanations are possible, the actual reason for the abnormality of this distribution is an anomaly, and
so too is the presence of skew, kurtosis and outliers in the other distributions. The crux of the matter
is, however, that the abnormalities, especially in the professional coursework variable, could be a
result of poor construct validity and/or sampling bias, and this limitation should be borne in mind as
we proceed with a discussion of the findings.
5.2 - Contextual Factors and Classroom Experience
I the ase of respo de ts’ o servi e as a la guage tea her, give that o te tual e ige ies a d
their teaching experiences inspire change in their own cognition directly (Borg, 2006), it is surprising
that no relationship seems to exist with the strength of their belief in PMP. To investigate this finding,
we recall the results of Razmjoo et al.’s ( study, hi h suggest that elief i the para eter of
particularity is correlated with quantity of teaching experience, and belief in the parameter of
possibility is inhibited by external contextual factors viz. the socio-political climate40. Comparing the
results of this and the present study, it is possible that the lack of statistical relationship between the
context and classroom variable and belief in PMP is because the influence of external contextual
factors was not quantified in Survey Section 2.1 (see Appendix 11, pp.116-7). Had this been measured,
and the sample been less biased so as to include a representative proportion of respondents working
in political spheres which inhibit the egalitarian ideals behind PMP such as nations in the Middle East
(c.f. Khatib & Fathi, 2014; Razmjoo et al., 2013 Hashemi, 2011), a more significant relationship may
have been observed. As such, it is rational to suspect that in the population of TESOL teachers
worldwide, teaching experience in cultural and political environments where ideologies which are
conveyed by PMP41 are supressed or pro oted ight e a etter predi tor of tea hers’ stre gth of
belief in PMP.
40 It is important to note that the method of statistical analysis and results of Razmjoo et al’s ( resear h are e tre ely
opaque. 41 E.g. critical pedagogy (Aspect 3), democratic decision-making (Aspect 4) and freedom of speech via
ideational communication (Aspect 8)
Page 49
Concerning contextual factors and teaching experience specific to language education establishments,
the results of the statistical analyses do not seem to support conclusions drawn by Howard & Millar
(2009), Bagheri (2013) and Akbari (2008), which point to the limiting effect on PMP from exigencies
such as test washback, large class sizes, and prescribed textbooks. In spite of the fact that Survey
Section 2.1 quantified the number of these pedagogic attributes (see Appendix 11, p.117), the lack of
statistical relationship in the results leads to two interpretations. Firstly, it is possible that
measurement error exists in the predictor variable e.g. the results of Question 30 may be under-
weighted; although this inference is difficult to prove or disprove due to a lack of comparable research.
Alternatively, contextual factors at institutional level may only affect certain PMP Aspects, a possibility
for which Howard & Millar (2009) provide evidence e.g. by a link between the specific contextual
constraint of large, mixed-a ility lasses a d tea hers’ per eived u feasi ility of the o u i ative
aspect of PMP (see Chapter 2.3.1: Aspect 8).
Although investigation of these more specific relationships is beyond the scope of the current paper,
the results might indicate that while contextual factors and classroom experience has a powerful
effe t o tea hers’ pra ti al k o ledge (Borg, 6 i.e. hat is a d is ’t pedagogi ally feasi le, it ay
have less impact on theoretical principles and beliefs. As Pajares (1992) o ludes, tea hers’ elief
systems are established early and are resistant to subsequent experience and reason; consequently,
the lack of relationship between context and classroom experience and belief in PMP might be due to
the te a ity of tea hers’ pedagogic principles. This implies that for the respondents in the present
study either contextual factors and classroom practice have influenced change in beliefs external to
the domain of PMP Aspects, or that their beliefs have remained largely unchanged even though
contextual factors and their classroom practice has had an impact on their teaching practice (Borg,
2006). Both of these threads of deduction lead to the inference that the power of context and
e perie e o tea hers’ ethodologi al eliefs is eak, hence this leads to the assumption that the
sa e applies to respo de ts’ la guage tea hers u der hose i stru tio they gai ed their
apprenticeship of observation, a line of conjecture which will be explored below.
Page 50
5.3 - Formal SLTE
The insight relevant to contextual factors and classroom practice with respect to the tenacity of
tea hers’ eliefs a d their resista e to ha ge also o e ts to the la k of statisti al relatio ship
observed in the results between formal SLTE and belief in PMP. Even though SLTE programs has the
pote tial to i for a d orph tea hers’ eliefs (Borg, , it is suggested that ha ges i og itio
are more likely when courses acknowledge and examine teacher-lear ers’ prior eliefs e pli itly (Borg,
2003; 2006; 2009), this perhaps being because beliefs incorporated into cognition earlier are more
resistant to modification than newer ones (Pajares, 1992). Bearing this in mind, it could be inferred
that the reason for the absence of a relationship between formal SLTE and belief in PMP is because
the survey respondents were not given the opportunity to examine their beliefs regarding pedagogic
principles during their teacher education.
Kumaravadivelu (2012) and , however, would most probably argue for a different explanation for the
lack of relationship, due to his critical view of the knowledge-centred paradigm of SLTE, and his
proposal for humanistic person-centred SLTE based on an internalist epistemology and the
o stru tio of perso al k o i g’ ( .f. ‘o erts, 8 . U der the presumption that the majority of
survey respondents received their teacher education rooted in knowledge-centred paradigm of SLTE
i.e. where the knowledge base was transmitted in a top-down fashion, it is imaginable that their
orientation towards PMP would be markedly different had they taken an SLTE program based on
Ku aravadivelu’s ( holisti KA‘D“42 framework, which is designed specifically to cultivate post-
method practitioners.
In an ideal SLTE program based on the KARDS framework, the teacher-learners would have been
empowered with authority, autonomy and a critical mindset; they would have been taught to become
reflective practitioners, they would have constructed their own teacher-knowledge; and most
importantly, they would have done so in an environment where their thoughts, beliefs and values
42 Knowing, Analyzing, Recognizing, Doing and Seeing (Kumaravadivelu, 2012)
Page 51
were exposed and shared (Kumaravadivelu, 2006b; 2012). Perhaps, then, the lack of variance of belief
in PMP observed in the statistical analyses provides justification that the current philosophy of SLTE is
i ade uate at reshapi g tea hers’ elief a d og itio related to PMP Aspe ts. Nevertheless, the
conclusion that post- ethod thought as ot prese t i respo de ts’ “LTE progra s is ased o the
premise that the SLTE which the respondents took was significantly different to the KARDS philosophy,
and this supposition cannot be proved from the data.
However, even if participants in our present study analysed their beliefs and were taught PMP Aspects
on their SLTE programs, the excess of responsibility and roles PMP places on teachers (c.f. Akbari,
2008; Kamali , 2014), may have generated cognitive dissonance and rejection of PMP. In other words
when they were teacher-lear ers, the respo de ts’ se se of plausi ility of a future post-method-
practitioner identity may have been too weak to assimilate and accommodate the new ideas into their
own belief system (Posner et al., 1982). Furthermore, it is likely that the benefit from a KARDS-style
SLTE program would have only been advantageous for in-service teacher-learners with experience,
give Ak ari’s ( 8 o servatio that PMP is o ly appli a le to tea hers ho, havi g esta lished their
teacher identities and survival strategies, are at a more advanced stage of professional growth43. It
could be imagined, then, that if post-method philosophy was present in the SLTE courses which
respo de ts took, there ould e ist a parallel ith the fi di gs of Teki ’s ( study: that oth
pedagogy based on method and post-method are rendered utopian once teachers face the practical
realities of language teaching.
In an attempt to compare our results with those from the closest existing study by Khany & Darabi
(2014) we encounter a contrast, as Khany & Darabi (Ibid) suggest that higher levels of formal SLTE
correspond to greater application of PMP principles. In evaluation of this contrast, however, it is
imperative to recall the relationship between cognition and action due to the fact that Khany & Darabi
43 Ak ari ( 8 ites Fuller’s ( three stages of professio al gro th:
1. Emphasis on self as ideal, liked practitioner
2. Concern with classroom control and task of teaching
3. Concern with learning and teaching outcomes
Page 52
(Ibid) measured classroom implementation of PMP whereas the present study only measures belief.
Beliefs do affect behaviour significantly (Pajares, 1992), yet cognitive change does not imply
behavioural change (Borg, 2003) and behaviour cannot reliably be used to infer belief (Kagan, 1992),
which makes comparison with Kha y & Dara i’s ( fi di gs diffi ult.
However, absolute incongruence between belief and practice is an option which can be ruled out;
therefore, the contrast is assumed to be due to another cause, possible reasons being measurement
error and sampling bias. On assessing the likelihood of measurement error, it may well have occurred
i Kha y & Dara i’s (I id study o i g to a opa ue s ori g pro edure a d statisti al a alysis,
although it could also have occurred in the present study as per the scoring difficulties of Survey
Section 2.3 identified in Chapter 3.3.8. Regarding sampling bias, this surely confounds the results of
the present study due to the high number of respondents with relatively little teacher-training
observed in the distribution for professional coursework (see Chapter 5.1 and Appendix 16, p.156),
yet it also applies to Kha y & Dara i’s (I id study as their sa ple o sisted o ly of high s hool
teachers in Iran, the ramification being that the populations of both studies are distinct and the
contrast of results is due to internal and external validity issues.
To summarize, the reason for the lack of covariance between belief in PMP and formal SLTE could
either be because that the SLTE courses which survey respondents embarked on did not explore their
beliefs relevant to pedagogic principles within the domain of the PMP Aspects, or because the
programs did do so yet somehow, perhaps from cognitive dissonance during or after the SLTE
programs, cognition related to post-method was not assimilated or accommodated. As was the case
ith e perie e of o te t a d lassroo pra ti e, these i fere es ould also apply to respo de ts’
own language teachers and therefore the factor of schooling, which is the next topic of discussion.
5.4 - Schooling
The reaso hy s hooli g appears ot to have i flue ed respo de ts’ elief i PMP is surprisi g,
given the powerful and enduring effect that it is reported to have on teacher cognition (Borg, 2003;
Page 53
Kagan, 1992). One reason for the lack of statistical relationship observed might be because PMP had
ot i filtrated the og itio of the respo de ts’ la guage tea hers to a sig ifi a t e te t, ea i g
respo de ts did ot lear this ay of tea hi g y studyi g their o la guage tea hers’ perfor a e
(Borg, 2004). The logic behind this possibility lies in the contemporary nature of PMP, given that the
PMP Aspects embody its form in early 21st e tury literature as a develop e t of the ore a ti-
ethod’ se ti e ts hi h e erged i the 8 s a d s. Therefore, its presence might be evident
more in the pedagogy of teachers who have been trained recent decades (i.e. 2000 – present),
assuming that SLTE courses are engaging with teacher-lear ers’ eliefs i a ore pro ess-oriented,
humanistic and post-method philosophy as was detailed above (c.f. Kumaravadivelu, 2006b; 2012;
Roberts, 1998).
Alter atively, it ould e sur ised that PMP had i filtrated the og itio of the respo de ts’ la guage
teachers, past and present, yet this cognition was not conveyed to respondents because their teachers
were incapable of enacting it44. If respo de ts’ tea hers ere i apa le of realizi g PMP, the ost
likely ause ould e the o te tual o strai ts detailed a ove a d if this as the ase, respo de ts’
apprenticeship of observation would have occurred under a pedagogy at odds to PMP. That is to say,
eve though the PMP Aspe ts ight have ee appare t i respo de ts’ tea hers’ og itio , they
were not observable from their practices such as awareness-raising of textual ideologies, devolution
of decision- aki g to stude ts, a d adaptatio to stude ts’ i -built syllabi.
Thus far, the possible reasons why foreign or second language schooling is not a factor that influences
PMP might be due to either PMP not having infiltrated SLTE or contextual factors restricting
enactment of PMP, either scenario creating a reproductive cycle of culturally-established, pedagogic
folk-traditio s ai tai ed via tea hers’ appre ti eship of o servatio (Lortie, . The assu ptio
behind these inferences, however, is that PMP as a set of teaching principles is in fact transmissible
via their experience as a language learner, a premise which Lortie (1975) does not adopt.
44 They may also have been unwilling to enact it, yet the imaginable reasons for this are far less easily deducible.
Page 54
Lortie (1975) concludes that the apprenticeship of observation is not pedagogically informed, hence
what is observed front-stage in class by students does not reveal underlying strategies, cognitions and
rationales, and most likely not cognitive constructs such as pedagogic principles (Borg, 2004; Lortie,
1975). Borg (2009) affirms that in order to understand teachers and teaching, their cognition must be
understood, so it may be the case that the fields of pedagogic belief viz. beliefs about the subject,
learners, learning, teachers, teaching, and SLTE (Calderhead, 1996), can only be learned a kstage’
and are therefore inaccessible via the schooling experience. The implication of this inference is that
the absence of the relationship between schooling and belief in PMP shown by the statistical analyses
might serve as evidence of the fundame tal li itatio of s hooli g as a sour e of future tea hers’
cognition: that it is uninformed and is acquired from inferred, rather than actual, cognitions (Borg,
2004; Lortie, 1975).
In sum, the cause for the lack of relationship exists between schooling and PMP might be the
contextual constraints which disable the conveyance of PMP during schooling, lag/delay in the
infiltration of process-based, post-method models of SLTE into professional practice, or the
inadequacies of the apprenticeship of observation. In evaluation of these inferences, either one seems
plausible so it could be that all three are partially responsible for the absence of statistical relationship
in the present study. On this note, we turn to our final topic of analysis and the only factor included in
the study hi h appears to have a sig ifi a t relatio ship ith tea hers’ elief i PMP.
5.5 - Informal CPD
As reported a ove, a i rease i the level of respo de ts’ volu tary atte da e of orkshops,
seminars and conferences, and their self-motivated study of texts relevant to language teaching was
associated with an increase of belief in PMP. To investigate this relationship, it is worth recalling
Ak ari’s ( 8 lai that PMP is o ly releva t to pra titio ers o e they have tra s e ded stages
one and two of their professional growth; that is, once they have established their identity and have
gained a satisfactory level of control over classroom events and the task of teaching (c.f. Conway &
Page 55
Clark, 2003). Bearing in mind that concern for quality of teaching and learning outcomes comprise the
third stage of professional growth (Ibid), and also that time, motivation, and prioritization of teaching
as a career are factors which affect teachers in-service professional development (Roberts, 1998), the
results of the statisti al a alysis ay support Ak ari’s ( 8 lai .
That is to say, the relationship between informal CPD and belief might indicate that teachers who
prioritize their professional development, have the time and motivation to pursue informal CPD, and
have surpassed the basic and intermediate stages of professional growth are more likely to believe in
PMP Aspe ts. I tur , this leads o to the suppositio that PMP ay i fa t e the pedagogi al
aturity’ lai ed y Bro ( a; 1994b), not at academic or theoretical level, however, but at a
personal level for individual practitioners. There is warrant against this deduction, however, which
gains support from the lack of variance of belief in PMP explained by contextual factors and classroom
experience, presuming that more experienced teachers should be at a more advanced stage of their
professional growth. To dispel this argument, we can make an inference from the nonparametric
correlation matrix in Appendix 23 (p.171) which indicates that even though levels of experience are
not correlated with belief in PMP they are correlated with informal CPD, which supports the
suppositio that stro ger elief i PMP is asso iated ith a tea her’s perso al pedagogical maturity.
As gloss on this proposition, it is pertinent to note the way that post-method discourse tends to
positio tea hers as ualified areer professio als’ (Ak ari, 8 , this perhaps o fir i g that idea
that PMP is associated with personal pedagogic maturity, not for all teachers, but for those teachers
who take professional development seriously. Despite the allure of this supposition, however, it must
be cautioned that cause and effect in the relationship can only be presumed (Reichmann, 1961);
whether stronger belief in PMP might inspire teachers to become more professionally-committed or
vice-versa is a matter of conjecture, so it is assumed by default that the relationship could be
reciprocal.
Page 56
Approaching the findings from a wider angle, it is interesting to surmise why it might be that ideas
conveyed in workshops, seminars, conferences and professional literature appear to provoke an
i rease i elief i PMP hile those i “LTE ourses do ot. Let us first re all Bell’s ( lai that
PMP is a product of postmoder ist thought ove i to CLT, a d “ae g oo ’s ( suggestio that
PMP is a refi ed versio of CLT re o eptualised as est pra ti e’. I light of these o sideratio s a d
the results of the present study, it is possible to deduce that PMP is merely a cutting-edge trend in
TESOL methodology, and the expansion of language teaching into the post-method paradigm is at a
stage where it has gained prominence in professional discourse which has yet to infiltrate formal SLTE.
That is to say, the reason why high levels of informal CPD are related to stronger beliefs in PMP might
be because teachers who keep up-to-date with professional literature receive stronger influence from
current methodological thought, which happens to be post-method oriented.
To develop this inference further, it is important to note that belief and knowledge are interwoven
(Borg, 2003), and that belief can be accurately regarded as choice of knowledge i.e. belief in a concept
cannot occur without (prior) knowledge of that concept (Kagan, 1992). Therefore, the reason why
informal CPD is related to belief in PMP might be because concepts related to PMP Aspects such as
critical pedagogy, learner-centrality and cross-lingual teaching strategies are found predominantly in
contemporary seminars, blogs, conference proceedings etc. This is not to suggest that concepts such
as these are entirely unknown to teachers before they come across them via their informal CPD, but
that they are brought to their attention in such a way that they become explicit knowledge and
therefore a e hose ’ (or realized) as belief (Kagan, Ibid).
Taki g i to o sideratio Borg’s ( state e t that e pli it arti ulatio a d s ruti y of tea hers’
beliefs is an impetus for their transformation, the results of the statistical analyses might suggest that
there are other factors which mediate the relationship between belief in PMP and informal CPD
(Allison, 1999). One potential candidate for status as a mediating factor is discussions with other
teachers, which was identified at the outset during the concept mapping stage (see Chapter 3.3.4.2)
but which was not measured in the survey for practical reasons. Although it may seem unlikely at face
Page 57
value, the rationale for suspecting this has a mediating effect between informal CPD and belief in PMP
is that interaction with other teachers, either written via blog discussion threads or spoken at seminars
a d o fere es; e a les tea hers to voi e a d s ruti ize o e a other’s eliefs. I theory, this ould
catalyse belief assimilation and accommodation (Borg, 2009; 2011), although the time, dedication and
motivation necessary for professional growth would also mediate the amount of informal CPD a
teacher commits to (Roberts, 1998); therefore, the interrelationship between these mediating factors
would be quite complex.
In sum, despite these inferences having been made in isolation due to a lack of comparable existing
studies and despite uncertainty over direction of causation, it appears that teachers who are
professionally committed, have the time, motivation and resources to engage in CPD, and who are at
an advanced stage of their professional growth are more likely to believe in PMP. Nonetheless, in
drawing these inferences we recall the low construct validity of the professional coursework variables
and especially the potential measurement error in formal SLTE (see Chapter 3.3.4.2), for the contrast
between formal SLTE and informal CPD may well have been reduced or eliminated if these issues were
not present.
Chapter 6 - Conclusion
6.1 - General Limitations
Before drawing conclusions from the inferences made from the statistical analyses, we must first recall
the limitations of the research project as a whole. Firstly, there is likely to be a degree of measurement
error both in the predictor variables due to scoring and weighting issues, and also in the outcome
variable due to the use of ordinal-style data for multiple regression. Secondly, despite attempts to
randomize and diversify the sample of responses, there exists a high degree of bias in the survey
sample which undermines the generalizability of the findings. Finally, the most important limitation
to bear in mind is that the deductions made from the statistical analysis rely on the validity of the
Page 58
conceptualization of PMP Aspects from the literature review and the refinement of sub-factors from
the concept mapping stage (Thomas, 2013), each of which have weaknesses. In combination, these
limitations substantially weaken the warrant for the inferences which have been made (6 & Bellamy,
2012), yet it is still possible to draw some tentative conclusions about the respondents in the sample.
6.2 - Conclusions
Firstly, the lack of relationship between belief in PMP and the amount of contextual experience and
classroom practice teachers have had might be due to resistance from (and filtration by) responde ts’
preconceptions, which may have hindered change in their beliefs relating to PMP Aspects. Second,
the la k of relatio ship e isti g et ee respo de ts’ for al “LTE a d elief i PMP could be a result
of SLTE courses not having dissected their beliefs about teaching principles related to PMP Aspects, or
due to a failure to assimilate and/or accommodate new beliefs related to these Aspects. In turn, these
two conclusions could explain the absence of relationship between belief in PMP and schooling; that
is to say, schooling might not be an influential factor on belief in PMP because the aforementioned
s e arios ade PMP u a hieva le for respo de ts’ o la guage tea hers, thus PMP was
unavailable to the respondents in the study via their apprenticeship of observation. Alternatively, if
PMP was present in the cognition of responde ts’ tea hers throughout respo de ts’ schooling, the
conclusion is that the PMP Aspects were inaccessible and/or uninterpretable by the respondents
during their time as language learners.
The implications from these conclusions for SLTE policy are noteworthy, as it would appear that if
teacher-educators wish to cultivate post-method teachers they must recognize that experience,
training and schooling seem to have an insignificant effect on either weakening or strengthening
tea hers’ elief i PMP. What might have to be considered is that tea hers’ elief i PMP is li ked to
a combination of their career stage, professional disposition, and opportunities for CPD. That is to say,
teacher-educators and SLTE policy-makers should be aware that a teacher who has progressed to an
advanced stage of professional growth, who voluntarily makes an effort to develop professionally, and
Page 59
who has the time, motivation and resources to do so is more likely to be disposed to PMP. When
considering the impact of these conclusions on SLTE policy, it is interesting to consider what
recommendations could be made to promote belief in PMP, if that were to be desired.
6.3 - Recommendations
An initial recommendation would be to restructure both pre-service and in-service SLTE program
curricula to incorporate a far greater degree of analysis of the preconceptions that teacher-learners
acquire from their apprenticeship of observation, for instance via a person-centred philosophy such
as Ku aravadivelu’s ( 6 KA‘D“ odel. Ho ever, “LTE ai ed at pro oti g elief i PMP ay o ly
be realistically applicable in-service when teacher-learners are at an advanced stage of their
professional growth, which means it would not be recommended to pursue this as a primary goal for
pre-service SLTE. A further recommendation for SLTE policy is that teacher-educators cultivate their
teacher-lear ers’ o fide e a d otivatio to gro professio ally, a d raise their awareness of CPD
resources, paths and opportunities, as these are tools which might equip them to become post-
method teachers in future. Finally, when considering the appeal of training teacher-learners to believe
in a post-method pedagogy, it is recommended that SLTE policy-makers assess the credibility of the
PMP models45 with a pinch of salt as they appear to be manifestations of pedagogical trends, and as
was the case with methods, their viability depends on how compatible they are with the values of
stakeholders, culture and society (c.f. Adamson, 2004; Kelly, 1969).
6.4 – Future Research
In review of the present study, the conclusions which have been drawn lead to a number of
implications for SLTE policy and practice, and although they may not carry enough warrant for changes
to be made, they have cleared the ground for further research. First, more information is needed
about which other factors might mediate the relationship between informal CPD and increase in belief
of PMP Aspects, as it is not understood what practices facilitate their assimilation and
45 The frameworks by Brown (2002), Kumaravadivelu (2006b), Ellis (2005) and Long (2011)
Page 60
accommodation. Furthermore, it is unclear whether professionalism is a consequence or cause of
belief in PMP, hence research which explains this anomaly would be of use for SLTE policy and practice.
Research is also needed to clarify why formal SLTE does not seem to have an impact o tea hers’
methodological principles relating to PMP Aspects, and there is also scope for research into how
person- and knowledge-centred SLTE programs differ in their potential to generate change in beliefs
relative to PMP Aspects. There is also opportunity to research the relative magnitudes of influence
from contextual factors at institutional and socio-political/cultural levels, as the conclusions of this
study seem to indicate that the former might have a weaker effe t o tea hers’ pedagogic beliefs than
the latter. More research could also be done to uncover the lack of relationship between schooling
and belief in PMP, as it is not clear to what extent PMP Aspects can be conveyed and/or acquired via
the apprenticeship of observation. Prior to any of these avenues of research, however, it would first
be worth verifying the findings of the present study by developing the survey instrument to improve
its validity and reliability, then distributing it to a sample which is more representative of TESOL
teachers worldwide.
Page 61
References
6, P., & Bellamy, C. (2012). Principles of methodology: research design in social science. London: Sage.
Adamson, B. (2004). Fashions in language teaching methodology. In Davies, A., & Elder, C. (Eds). The handbook
of applied linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing
Akbari, R. (2008). Postmethod discourse and practice. TESOL Quarterly, 42(4), 641-652
Allison, P.D. (1999). Multiple regression: a primer. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press
Allwright, D. (2003). Exploratory practice: rethinking practitioner research in language teaching. Language
teaching research, 7(2), 113-141
Allwright, D., & Hanks, J. (2009). The developing language learner: an introduction to exploratory practice.
Palgrave Macmillan.
Anderson, G., & Arsenault, N. (1998). Fundamentals in educational research (2nd edition). London: Routledge
Falmer.
Anthony, (1969). Approach, method, and technique. English language teaching, 17, 63-67
Bagheri, M.“. ( . The appli atio of Ellis’ pri iples for effe tive i stru ted foreig la guage lear i g i
Iranian language institutes and high schools. Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English, 1(3),
139-168.
Bax, S. (2003). The end of ELT: a context approach to language teaching. ELT Journal Volume, 57(3), 278-287
Bechhofer, F., & Paterson, L. (2000). Principles of research design in the social sciences. Abingdon: Routledge.
Bell, D.M. (2003). Method and postmethod: are they really so incompatible? TESOL Quarterly, 37(2), 325-336
Borg, M. (2004). The apprenticeship of observation. ELT Journal, 58(3), 274-276.
Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in language teaching: A review of research on what language teachers think,
know, believe, and do. Language teaching, 36(2), 81-109.
Page 62
Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education. London: Continuum.
Breen, M.P., Hird, B., Milton, M., Oliver, R., & Th aite, A. ( . Maki g se se of la guage tea hi g: tea hers’
principles and classroom practices. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 470-501
Britto, R. (2007). The dissipation of methods in ESL: expanding to fill the void. The Journal of Education, 188(3),
75-84.
Brown, H.D. (1994a). Teaching by principles: an interactive approach to language pedagogy. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Brown, H.D. (1994b). Principles of language teaching and learning. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Brown, D.H. (2002). English language tea hi g i the post- ethod’ era: to ard etter diag osis, treat e t
and assessment. In Richards, J.C., & Renandya, W.A. Methodology in language teaching: an anthology
of current practice. Cambridge University Press.
Burns, R.B. (2000). Introduction to research methods. London: Sage.
Calderhead, J (1996). Teachers: belief and knowledge. In Berliner, D.C., & Calfee, R.C. (eds.) Handbook of
Educational Psychology. New York: Simon & Sinclair Macmillan
Clark, J.L. (1987). Curriculum renewal in school foreign language learning. Oxford University Press.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrision, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th edition). London: Routledge.
Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: a re- examination of Fuller's concerns-
based model of teacher development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 465-482.
Cresswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches (2nd edition).
London: Sage.
Cresswell, J.W., & Plano-Clark, V.L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd edition).
London: Sage.
Crookes, G. (2009). Values, philosophies and beliefs in TESOL: making a statement. Cambridge University Press.
Page 63
Czaja, R. & Blair, J. (2005). Designing surveys: a guide to decisions and procedures (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks:
Pine Forge Press.
Daley, B. (September 2004). Using concept maps in qualitative research. Paper prese ted at Co ept Maps:
Theory, Methodology, Te h ology’. Pa plo a, “pai .
Daniel, J. (2012). Sampling essentials: practical guidelines for making sampling choices. London: Sage.
DeVellis, R.F. (2012). Scale development: theory and applications (3rd edition). London: Sage.
Dornyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press.
Ellis, R. (2005). Principles of instructed language learning. System, 33, 209-224
Finocchiaro, M. (1971). Myth and reality in TESOL: a plea for a broader view. TESOL Quarterly, 5(1), 3-17.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd edition). London: Sage
Fuller, F. (1970). Personalized education for teachers: an introduction for teacher educators (Report No. 001).
Austin: University of Texas, Research and Development Center for Teacher Education.
Gibson, R. (1986). Critical theory and education. London: Hodder & Stoughton
Hu ter, D., & “ ith, ‘. ( . U pa ki g the past: CLT’ though ELTJ key ords. ELT Journal, 66(4), 430-439.
Morgan, D.L., & Guevara, H. (2008). Concept Mapping. In Given, L.M. (Ed). The Sage encyclopaedia of
qualitative research methods. London: Sage Publications
Grbich, C. (2007). Qualitative data analysis: an introduction. London: Sage Publications.
Hall, G. (2011). Exploring language teaching: language in action. Abingdon: Routledge.
Hammersley, M. (2011). Methodology: who needs it? London: Sage.
Hammersley, M., & Trainou, A. (2012). Ethics in qualitative research: controversies and contexts. London: Sage.
Hashemi, S.M.R. (2011). (Post)-methodism: possibility of the impossible? Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 2(1), 137-145.
Page 64
Hawkins, M. & Norton, B. (2009). Critical language teacher education. In Burns, A. & Richards, J.C. (Eds.) The
Cambridge guide to second language teacher education. Cambridge University Press, pp.30-39.
Hesse-Biber, S.N. (2010). Mixed-methods research: merging theory with practice. New York: the Guildford
Press.
Howard, J., & Millar, S. (2009). The applicability of principles for instructed second language learning: a South
Korean perspective. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly, 11(4), 31-57.
Hughes, J. (1990). The philosophy of social research (2nd edition). Harlow: Longman.
Iphofen, R. (2011). Ethical decision-making in social research: a practical guide. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Israel, M., & Hay, I. (2006). Research ethics for social scientists: between ethical conduct and regulatory
compliance. London: Sage.
Jacobs, G.M., & Farrell, T.S.C. (2001). Paradigm shift: understanding and implementing change in second
language education. TESL-EJ, 5(1). Retrieved on 12/5/15 from http://hdl.handle.net/10497/15582
Johnson, B., & Christensen, L. (2008). Educational research: quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches
(3rd edition). London: Sage Publications
Kagan, D.M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational psychologist, 27(1), 65-90
Kamali, J. (2014). Post method survival. Procedia social and behavioural sciences, 98, 824-829
Kelly, L.G. (1969). 25 centuries of language teaching. Newbury House Publishers.
Kelly, A.V. (2009). The curriculum: theory and practice (6th edition). London: Sage.
Khany, R., & Darabi, R. (2014). ELT in Iran: Reflection of the Principles-based and Post-method Pedagogy in
Language Teaching. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 908-916.
Khatib, M., & Fathi, J. (2015). The Investigation of the Perspectives of Iranian EFL Domain Experts on
Postmethod Pedagogy: A Delphi Technique. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 6(3), 89-112.
Page 65
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1994), The postmethod condition: (e)merging strategies for second/foreign language
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 27-48.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (1995). Comments on B. Kumaravadivelu's "the postmethod condition: (e)merging
strategies for second/foreign language teaching": the author responds. TESOL Quarterly, 29(1), 177-
180.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003a). Critical language pedagogy: a postmethod perspective on language teaching.
World Englishes, 22(4), 539-550
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003b). Beyond methods: macrostrategies for language teaching. Yale University Press.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006a). TESOL methods: Changing tracks, challenging trends. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 59-
81.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006b). Understanding language teaching: from method to postmethod. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2012). Language teacher education for a global society: a modular model for knowing,
analysing, recognising, doing and seeing. Abingdon: Routledge.
Laarsen-Freeman, D., & Anderson, M. (2011). Techniques and principles in language teaching. Oxford
University Press.
Lantolf, J.P., & Thorne, S.L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development.
Oxford University Press.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2009). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality & Quantity,
43(2), 265-275.
Lightbrown, P., & Spada, N. (2006). How languages are learned. Oxford University Press.
Long, M.H. (2011). Methodological principles for language teaching. In Long, M.H., & Doughty, C.J. The
handbook of language teaching. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.373-394
Page 66
Lortie, D.C. (1975). Schoolteacher (2nd edition). The University of Chicago Press.
Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: a methods sourcebook (3rd
edition). London: Sage.
Musumeci, D. (2011). History of language teaching. In Long, M.H., & Doughty, C.J. The handbook of language
teaching. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp.42-62
Newby, P. (2014). Research methods for education (2nd edition). London: Routledge.
Nunan, D. (2004). Task-based language teaching. Cambridge University Press.
Pajares, M.F. ( . Tea hers’ eliefs a d edu atio al resear h: lea i g up a essy o stru t. Review of
educational research, 62(3), 307-332
Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using IBM SPSS (5th edition).
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Pennycook, A. (1989). The concept of method, interested knowledge, and the politics of language teaching.
TESOL Quarterly, 23(4), 589-618
Peterson, R.A. (2000). Constructing effective questionnaires. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford University Press.
Posner, G.J., Strike, K.A., Hewson, P.W., & Gertzog, W.A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception:
toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211-227.
Prabhu, N.S. (1990). There is no best method – why? TESOL Quarterly, 24(2), 161-176
Pri g, ‘. ( a . The false dualis ’ of edu atio al resear h. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 34(2), 247-
260.
Pring, R. (2000b). The philosophy of educational research (2nd edition). London: Continuum. Richards, J.C.
(1984). The secret life of methods. TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), 7-23
Page 67
Punch, K.F. (2003). Survey research: the basics. London: Sage.
Punch, K.F., & Oancea, A. (2014). Introduction to research methods in education. London: Sage.
Reichmann, W.J. (1961). Use and abuse of statistics. Middlesex: Penguin
Razmjoo, S.A., Ranjbar, H., & Hoomanfard, M.H. (2013). On the familiarity of Iranian EFL teachers and learners
with post-method and its realization. International Journal of Language Learning and Applied
Linguistics World, 4(1), 6-16.
Richards, J.C. (1984). The secret life of methods. TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), 7-23.
Richards, J.C. (1990). The language teaching matrix. Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. C. (2013). Curriculum approaches in language teaching: Forward, central, and backward design.
RELC Journal, 44(1), 5-33.
Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2001). Approaches and methods in language teaching (2nd edition). Cambridge
University Press.
Richards, J.C., & Rodgers, T.S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching (3rd edition). Cambridge
University Press.
Roberts, J. (1998). Language teacher education. London: Hodder.
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research (3rd edition). Chichester: Wiley.
Rossman, G.B., & Rallis, S.F. (2012). Learning in the Field: An Introduction to Qualitative
Research. London: Sage.
Rowntree, D. (1981). Statistics without tears: an introduction for non-mathematicians. London: Penguin
Scott, D. (2000). Realism and educational research: new perspectives and possibilities. London: Routledge.
“ae g oo , “. ( . Thai E glish tea hers’ u dersta di g of post ethod pedagogy : ase studies of
university lecturers. English language teaching, 6(12), 156-166
Page 68
Savin-Baden, M., & Major, C.H., (2012). Qualitative Research: the Essential Guide to Theory and Practice.
London: Routledge.
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N.J.Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioural sciences (2nd edition).
Singapore: McGraw-Hill
Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Stern, H.H. (1992). Issues and options in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Tabachnik, B.G., & Fidell, L.S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th edition). New York: Pearson Education
Teki , M. ( . A i vestigatio i to ovi e tea hers’ vie s a d eliefs a out ethod a d post-method
pedagogy in Turkish EFL context. Turkish Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 4(4), 55-69
Thomas, G. (2013). How to do your research project. London: Sage.
Thornbury, S. (2006). An A-Z of ELT. Oxford: Macmillan
Turner, J.L. (2014). Using statistics in small-scale language education research: focus on non-parametric data.
Abingdon: Routledge
Waters, A. (2012). Trends and issues in ELT methods and methodology. ELT Journal, 66(4), 440-449.
Wheeldon, J., & Ahlberg, M.K. (2012). Visualizing social science research: maps, methods and meaning.
London: Sage.
Wheeldon, J. (2010). Mapping mixed methods research: methods, measures and meaning. Journal of mixed
methods research, 4(2), 87-102
Wheeldon, J., & Faubert, J. (2009). Framing experience: concept maps, mind maps and data collection in
quantitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 68-83
Widdowson, H.G. (1990). Aspects of language teaching. Oxford University Press
Widdowson, H.G. (2003). Defining issues in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Page 69
Appendix 1: Strategic ContinuaStern (1992)Intra-lingual• Immersion in target language: thought in
L2 is promoted• Coordinate bilingualism: no reference to
the mother tongue• Direct association between L2 and
objects, contexts and situations
Cross-lingual• Comparison of and translation
between first and target languages• Compound bilingualism: the mother
tongue is used as a reference system• Direct association L1 & L2 via
mediation and scaffolding techniques/ resources
Analytic• Focus on linguistic accuracy and
language form• language is practised via pseudo-
communication• atomistic assembly of language• learning based on skill-getting
Experiential• Focus on fluency and meaning• language practice via unrestricted,
genuine communication• language is viewed holistically• learning based on skill-using
Implicit†• Language is acquired automatically via
exposure to the target language• learning is an intuitive process• knowledge and skills are gained
incidentally
Explicit †• Language is learned consciously by
studying the target language• learning is an intellectual endeavour• knowledge and skills are gained
deliberately
Widdowson (2003)E-language†• Language treated as a communicative
medium / social behaviour to beinternalised incidentally.
I-language †• Language treated as a set of encoded
forms to be internalized as explicitknowledge.
Retrospective• Educational purpose is to maintain social
values, reproduce established tradition,and imitate accepted languagenorms/needs.
Prospective• Educational purpose is to prepare for
unpredictable circumstances byanticipating change in languagenorms/needs
Teacher authority• Pedagogic process is directed by teacher
and knowledge/skills are transmitted• Learning is adjusted around teaching.
Learner autonomy• Pedagogic process is divergent for
each individual and knowledge/skillsare discovered
• Teaching is adjusted around learning. Note the parallel between the implicit explicit and e-language i-language dimensions
Page 70
�pp����x �� The parameters of KPMP(Kumaravadivelu, 2006a; 2006b; 2012).
Particularity is posed as the most important parameter as it rejects the notion of a perfectmethod and instead emphasizes that local teaching exigencies should be the primary considerationfor language pedagogy. This parameter is grounded in the idea that teachers should have a criticalawareness of the environmental factors where they happen to work, chiefly sociocultural factors,so that their practice is context-sensitive and grounded in reality.
Practicality is presented as a way for teachers to move forward and develop in their practiceby theorizing from their practice and practicing what they theorize, for example via actionresearch, instead of relying on external ( Western ) sources of knowledge. This parametercultivates a post-transmission philosophy whereby knowledge consumerism is replaced bypractitioners self-generated knowledge which emerges by way of teacher reflexivity and theendeavour of making sense of the ramifications of their profession viz. teacher beliefs, contextualconstraints, the nature of their teacher education etc.
Possibility draws heavily on critical pedagogy and outlines how the pedagogical setting is a sitewhere socio-political consciousness-raising can take place; the essence of this principle is thatpedagogical settings have the potential to be shaped by, yet also expose, hidden structures ofpower in society. It emphasises that, in the language classroom, social inequality can be exposed,the status quo can be questioned, individuals have the possibility to re(form) their identities, andsocial transformation can take place.
Page 71
Appendix 3: Summary of Postmethod PrincipledFrameworks
# Kumaravadivelu (2003b; 2006b) Brown (1994a; 2002) Ellis (2005) Long (2011)
1
Maximize learning opportunities: syllabi and coursebooks should serve as a starting point only; learnerscontributions and questions should be prioritized.
Prioritize meaning to aid automaticity: focusshould be on purposeful and meaningful languageuse; overt attention to form(s) is justifiable, yetover-analysis should be avoided
Develop rich repertoire of formulaic expressionsand a rule-based competence: formulaicexpressions for fluency and rule-based competencefor accuracy
Use task, not text, as theunit of analysis
2
Facilitate negotiated interaction: there should be afocus on productive communication which engageslearners in textual, interpersonal and ideationalinteraction with an aim to achieve mutualcomprehension.
Make learning meaningful: abstract theory andexplanation and mechanical rote overlearning offorms should be avoided; teachers should capitalizeon students interests
Ensure learners focus predominantly on meaning:both semantic and pragmatic meaning (especiallythe latter) are crucial to learning; the L2 should be atool for communication rather than an object ofstudy
Promote learning by doing
3
Minimize perceptual mismatches: teachers goals,thoughts, strategies, procedures, intentions andknowledge should be aligned to attain optimuminterpretation by learners to avoid problems whichresult from perceptual mismatches.
Motivate students extrinsically: students should bemotivated with praise and encouragement.However, teachers should avoid cultivatingdependence on teacher rewards and should ensurepeer support and encouragement is also fostered.
Ensure learners focus on form: instruction needs toincorporate two approaches, an intensive focus onforms in syllabus and an incidental focus on form viafeedback and correction
Elaborate input (do notsimplify; do not rely solelyon authentic texts )
4
Activate intuitive heuristics: teachers should aimfor discovery learning by providing learners withsufficient data to make inferences about languageand construct their own grammar rules.
Stimulate students intrinsic motivation: intrinsic ismore powerful, hence more important, thanextrinsic motivation so the curriculum should bedesigned around students intrinsic drive.
Develop implicit knowledge but don t neglectexplicit knowledge: implicit (procedural) knowledgeshould be antecedent to explicit (declarative)knowledge due to its rapid access andinstrumentality for fluent communication
Provide rich (notimpoverished) input
5
Foster language awareness: teachers shoulddevelop language awareness strategies, encouragelearners to notice form, and cultivate a criticalawareness of language and the ideologies itconveys.
Invest in learner strategies: teachers shouldempower students by training them in the use oflearning strategies.
Take into account the learner s built-in syllabus :cater to learners developmental paths by adjustingthe degree of explicit / implicit instruction deemednecessary and by ensuring that learners aredevelopmentally ready to acquire the targetlanguage
Encourage inductive( chunk ) learning
6
Contextualize linguistic input: teachers have theresponsibility to set the amount of contextnecessary for meaning emerge, and should avoiddiscrete language items.
Be sensitive to language ego: learners should betreated with empathy and patience and their L2identity/ego should be handled sensitively; studentsshould be challenged, but not overwhelmed.
Ensure extensive L2 input: maximise classroom useof the L2, and encourage and set up opportunitiesout of class where learners can receive L2 input
Focus on form
Page 72
Appendix 3: Summary of Postmethod PrincipledFrameworks
# Kumaravadivelu (2003b; 2006b) Brown (1994a; 2002) Ellis (2005) Long (2011)
7Integrate language skills: the four skills arerarely enacted in isolation, thus they should beintegrated in lessons.
Cultivate self-confidence: teachers should buildstudent s belief in their own abilities, encourage themto self-assess, and build their self-confidence bygrading tasks appropriately to their abilities.
Create opportunities for output: oral and writtentasks should be set up which offer opportunity forproduction of substantial length/quantity andsufficient complexity.
Provide negativefeedback
8
Promote learner autonomy: teachers shouldpass responsibility to their students byempowering them with learning strategies andby liberating them from their preconceivednotions of effective language pedagogy.
Encourage risk-taking: teachers should promotecalculated risk-taking (not haphazard guessing) byavoiding overemphasis on correctness and byproviding opportunities for students to ventureresponses.
Create opportunities to interact in the L2:interaction between students should be facilitatedso as to ensure meaning is negotiated and theconditions for acquisition are fostered
Respect learnersyllabuses /developmental processes
9
Ensure social relevance: learning purposes andlanguage use must be relevant to students, andmust be sensitive to all aspect of the culturalenvironment.
Maintain language-culture connection: theimportance of cultural pluralism and cross culturalunderstanding should be emphasized; teachers shoulddemonstrate cultural sensitivity.
Take into account individual learner differences:analytical and experiential strategies to learningmay be more favoured depending on the learnersor context; learner-training should be given if usingnew or unfamiliar strategies.
Promote cooperative /collaborative learning
10
Raise cultural consciousness: multiculturalawareness should be raised in which teachersand learners are mutual and equal culturalinformants; cultural stereotypes should bedispelled.
Work with learners L1: teachers should raiseawareness and provide appropriate feedback forpositive and negative transfer from the L1; the L1should be used tactically yet reliance should bediscouraged.
Assess free and controlled production forproficiency: free production will be stimulated bytasks; performance should be assessed either viadiscourse analysis, external rating scales or byassessment of task outcome (the latter being themost feasible)
Individualize instruction(psycholinguistically andaccording tocommunicative needs)
11
Attend to interlanguage: teachers should exercisetolerance for interlanguage errors; affective andcognitive feedback should be given for systematicinterlanguage errors and attention should be drawnto correct interlanguage developments.
12
Aim for communicative competence: teachersshould balance focus on language usage and accuracywith language use and fluency; subtle pragmaticsshould be taught and make procedures should beauthentic to prepare students for real-life situations.
Page 73
Refinedconceptualization
of PMP
Refined conceptualization offactors which influence cognition
of pedagogic principles
ConceptMap Data
AcademicLiterature
AcademicLiterature
Measurement:strength of belief
in PMP
Measurement:factors which
influence cognition
Data analysis:outcome variable
Data analysis:predictor variables
Survey Section 1 Survey Section 2
� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
Page 74
PARTICIPANT A B C D E F G H I J K L
� � � � � � ! " �
# � $ % & # 1-16 22 1-30 1-20 1-70 1-32 1-12 1-32 1-35 1-18 8-36 6-25
' ( ) " � * +
, - % � � & # � $ % & #
GE, BE,ESP,
examGE GE, ESP,
examGE, ESP,exam,
academic
GE, ESP,BE, exam,academic
GE, BE,exam
GE, BE,ESP
GE, BE,ESP GE, BE GE, BE,
examsGE, BE,exams
GE,exams
. % " � # � $ % & # YL &adult YL YL &
adult adult YL &adult
YL &adult adult YL &
adultYL &adult
YL &adult adult YL &
adultYears
experience 1 2 5 18 14 8 20 4 40 5 5 10
Number ofcompanies /
schoolsworked for
1 1 6 10 8 5 8 7 20 5 5 1
TESOLteaching level CELTA
Postgrad.diploma ineducation
CELTAPhD
appliedlinguistics
CELTATESOL
certificate& DELTAmodule 1
CELTAPostgrad.degree in
foreignlanguageteaching
PGCE DELTA TESOLcertificate ICELT
First language English Other Other Other Other English Other Other English Other Other Other
Residence Central Asia, East Asia, Middle East, Europe, Central America, South America
Appendix 5: Concept Map Participant Profiles
Page 75
Appendix 6: Concept Map Information Sheet
Research Project Information Sheet | May 27th 2015
Dear Potential Participant,
Thank you for your interest in this research project; the aim of the project is to collect information from 10
TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) teachers on their beliefs about teaching English. To
display this information, you are asked to spend 20-30 minutes creating a concept map (see example below)
to show what you believe the core principles of TESOL are, and where you think these beliefs originate.
Once completed, you will be asked to give/send your
concept map to the researcher and then spend roughly
10 minutes communicating with the researcher (by
internet chat or Skype) to explain the concept map. At
this time, you will also be asked to confirm what level of
TESOL qualification you have, how many year’s work
experience you have, whether you a native or non-
native speaker, and in what type of establishment you
work.
Once this has been done, the researcher will create a
final version of the concept map and send it to you so
that you can check that it is correct. After this, your help will no longer be needed.
To make sure that the information you provide remains confidential, your personal details will not be
published in the report. If you include identifiable information (e.g. countries you have worked in or schools
you have worked for) this information will be changed in the published report so that you remain
anonymous.
If you wish to withdraw from the project, you may do so at any time by contacting the researcher, who will
electronically shred all the information you have provided. When the research project is finished by the end
of August 2015, the researcher will send an email to all participants with a short summary of the research
findings and a copy of the research paper as an attachment so that you can see the results.
If you have any queries or questions about the project, please do not hesitate to contact the researcher
using the contact information below. If you agree to participate, please complete the attached consent
form and email it to the researcher using the email address below.
Researcher Information
James Scholl
Postgraduate Student
Moray House School of Education
Holyrood Road
Edinburgh
EH8 8AQ
Tel: (+44) 07454 686 486
Skype: scholl.james
Email: [email protected]
Page 76
Appendix 7: Concept Map Instruction Sheet
Thank you for agreeing to take part in this research project. For this task, you are asked to spend 20-30 minutes
creating a concept map (spidergram) to illustrate:
(1) What you believe should be the core principles of TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages).
(2) What influenced your beliefs in these core principles.
For example, a concept map about the core principles of cookery might look like this:
Your concept map might look similar to the one above, or it might look more like these:
Important!
Please limit your concept map to a maximum of 12 principles
Please write notes or short sentences in the bubbles
The concept map should represent what you believe about teaching, which might be different to how you
actually teach!
Hand-drawn and digital concept maps are both fine. You can use PowerPoint or https://bubbl.us/mindmap
to make a digital concept map. If you decide to draw the concept map by hand, you can send it as a scanned
document or photo.
If you are not sure what to do or have any questions, please ask the researcher before you start!
Page 77
/0012345 8 Concept Map Consent Form Examples
Page 78
Appendix 9: Concept Maps
Page 79
Appendix 9:
Concept Map 1
Summary of Influences
1.1 Theory from pre-service courses
(Spanish & English)
1.2 Workshops
1.3 Seminars
1.4 Conferences
1.5 Theory from postgraduate study of
TESOL
1.6 Secondary school teaching
experience
1.7 Experience teaching English and
Spanish as foreign languages
Page 80
Appendix 9: Concept Map 2Summary of Influences
2.1 Formal in-service SLTE (IHCYL)
2.2 Informal in-service CPD (workshops)
2.3 Formal observation feedback
2.4 (Aspects of) current popular methodology
2.5 TEFL literature
2.6 Experience specific to teaching under certain constraints
2.7 Incidental / accidental discovery from twist of fate
2.8 (Advice from) initial SLTE
2.9 Experience of learners with unique characteristics
(disabilities)
2.10 (Negative) experiences as a language learner
Page 81
TESOL Principles
Collaboration: Teaching should involve collaboration and promote good relationships among teachers,
students and their parents. Supportive school policies and education system would foster a better learning
environment for ESL students. I got this idea from a website about TESOL
Relevance: Teaching should relate to students' daily lives and bring language to life to build up
students learning incentives and motivate them.
I learned this from teaching experience -my students inspired me
Alignment: when preparing the teaching materials, it is important to align the
syllabus with other colleagues' classes and the exam objectives.
This is the way we work at my school
Adequate support: teachers needs to be provided adequate support to develop an encouraging learning atmosphere for ESL
kids.
From my experience as a teacher, I now recognise this to be important
Reinforcement: ESL students need extra time to reinforce their understanding of the language items taught. Time and effort are required to
learn a second language.
I learned this from listening to what my students have said about their learning
experience and needs
Appendix 9: Concept
Map 3
Summary of Influences
3.1 Experience of school
curricular system
3.2 Online TESOL-related
resources & information
3.3 Feedback from students
about their needs and learning
experience
3.4 Inspiration from students
Page 82
PRINCIPLES OF TESOL
Student motivation = key to success
Personal experience and observation
Both native and non-native speakers play important and
distinct roles in TESOL instruction
Personal experience as a life-long learner
Consistency is one of the keys to success. Teachers should make students keep studying and
e ploy as a y ha els’ as possi le ( ooks, movies, theatre, videos, travel, memorization,
drills, translation) likely little for a long time
Personal experience, reading, teacher training, conferences
Teaching should be preceded and decided by needs analysis
Students = clients
Teachers should reinvent themselves a d should get a oost’ every fe
years
Experience as a teacher trainer and trainee
The tea her’s role is to uild stude ts’ self-confidence, not to
kill itPersonal experience
A good textbook is crucial. Sometimes, however, you have
to let go’Personal teaching experience
Teachers should be both serious and entertaining – tea hers’ hu our should vary ased o stude ts’ level a d age
Personal teaching experience
English instruction should respect stude ts’ ultural a kgrou d
Study of literature about linguistic and cultural imperialism e.g. Phillipson
Teachers should be informed about World Englishes and English as a
Lingua Franca
My PhD thesis study (influences from authors such as Kirkpatrick,
Canagarajah, Seidlhofer, Jenkins, Dewey)
Appendix 9: Concept Map 4
Summary of Influences
4.1 Professional observations
4.2 Experience as a language learner
4.3 Personal experience
4.4 Teacher-training experience
4.5 Teaching experience
4.6 Conferences
4.7 Readings in TESOL/pedagogy literature
4.8 Postgraduate study in TESOL
4.9 Logical deduction
Page 83
PRINCIPLES OF TESOL
Principle: ensure that students are able to develop and
progress irrespective of their relative level i.e. in mixed level
classes
Influence: an early teaching mentor commented favourably on my
encouragement of slower learners and reminded me also to nourish
high-flyers
Principle: respe t the lear er’s first language and culture – beware of
potential value judgements, but do provide a window on the L2/target
culture(s)
Influence: experience from life in countries where national pride is strong and enjoyed the exchanges and learning process when cultures meet; also influence from TESOL
postgraduate degree
Principle: help learners to become independent i.e. teach
strategies
Influence: from peer observation feedback in X-land, a colleague pointed out to me that learners spend very little time in class so
learning (must) also take place outside of class
Principle: reate a fu ’ environment
Influence: I personally learn better when I have fun in class so I believe
that an element of enjoyment makes learning easier
Principle: If there is any opportunity to develop your
own materials, do
Influence: having lived in countries with scant access to the latest good’ aterials a d havi g used off the peg’
materials which may have been convenient / professional, ut ot e essarily targeted’ or appropriate. Ge erally
positive experience from learner input, creativity and fun when I use my own materials.
Principle: make lessons learner-centred
Influence: this was drilled into me on the CELTA and reinforced by
subsequent CPD (Continuing Professional Development)
Appendix 9: Concept Map 5
Summary of Influences
5.1 Mentor comments
5.2 Experience specific to particular
cultural contexts
5.3 Peer observation feedback
5.4 Own language learning
preferences
5.5 Experience of teaching
environments with specific
constraints
5.6 Input/contributions from
learners
5.7 CPD
5.8 Pre-service teacher training
Page 84
Appendix 9: Concept Map 6
(map on following page)
Summary of Influences
6.1 SLTE course exam preparation
6.2 Pre-service SLTE
6. K o ledge, i tuitio , og itio of stude ts’
needs, desires & reactions
6.4 University study of education
6.5 Personal learning preference / style
6.6 Observation of student reactions in class
6.7 Student contributions / input
6.8 Formal observation feedback during SLTE
6.9 Teaching experience
6.10 Own learning strategies as student
6.11 Own language learning experience
6.12 Observation of language learning in everyday life
6.13 CPD
6.14 Seminars
6.15 Experience of learners with different cultural
backgroundsPage 85
PRINCIPLES OF
TESOL
Principle: teachers should
have sensitivity &
a are ess of stude ts’ affective filter
Influence: learnt about it
while studying for DELTA
module 1
Principle: the use of
visuals is essential to
add context and
support learning
Influence: I am a visual learner and
visuals have helped me greatly when I
was a language student. Images are
heavily used in every-day
communication (emoticons, social
networks) and dominate mass media.
Principle: plan
lessons to push and
challenge students
beyond their level (a
sort of i+1 principle)
Influence: learnt through teaching
experience (a couple of
unsuccessful lessons with higher-
level students). CPD sessions at a
school I used to work for.
Principle: personalisation
a) personalising the lessons so that
students get to know the teacher
b) Perso alisi g stude ts’ a tivities i order to maximise retention
Influences:
a) Learnt though teaching
experience
b) made aware during
delta observation
feedback
Principle: contextualisation
language does not exist in a
vacuum; language must be
presented in context
Influence: teacher training
courses (CELTA & DELTA)
experience
Principle: teachers should guide
students in their learning - balance
students needs and wants
Influences: CELTA training; knowing
stude ts’ eeds a d a ts; university studies (especially R.S.
Peter’s Essays o Edu ators’ ; knowing how learning takes place;
DELTA training
Principle: full immersion -
the first language should be
used for everything
Influences: observing its positive effects
during my personal experience as a
language student; a perceived need from
the students I teach (faster retention
observed in language students through
full-immersion); noticing (as a parent) the
positive effects of total immersion on
toddlers learning EAL
Principle: cultural awareness
a) being aware that students may
not necessarily be used to the
student-centred approach we
are trained to have
b) Being aware that students may
not be willing to talk about
certain topics
Influences:
a) experience teaching a
majority of students
who are used to or
expect a teacher-
centred approach
b) Experience teaching
students of different
cultural backgrounds
Principle: collocations
and chunks are the core
aspect of the language
and should be
prioritized
Influence: CELTA
and DELTA
training;
observation of
toddlers learning
EAL
Principle: ta ti al use of stude ts’ L to• clarify obscure meanings
• Compare the two languages
• Facilitate understanding of how
languages work
• Help understanding at very low levels
Influences: teaching
experience – observing
stude ts’ positive reaction to translation;
stude ts’ i put a d desire for translation
Principle: pronunciation - teaching
of the sounds that will help the
students fully understand the
language is an important part of
every lesson.
Influence: CELTA & DELTA training,
CPD sessions, seminars and
teaching experience; personal
experience as a language student
Principle: material used in the lessons
should link to UK/US culture: use of
authentic material should be prioritised as
it introduces/exposes students to issues
relating to UK/US culture/customs
Influence: students often request
material like this; watching British TV
programmes helped me develop my
listening skills and understanding British
culture when I was a language student.
Page 86
Appendix 9: Concept Map 7
(map on following page)
Summary of Influences
7.1 Trial and error in class – classroom experience
7.2 Life / personal experience
7.3 Readings of pedagogic literature
7.4 Seminars
7.5 Workshops
7.6 SLTE courses
Page 87
Beliefs about TESOL
Principle 1: Learner Interest.
Everyone is eager to learn the
things interesting for him.
Choosing appropriate topics will
satisfy learner needs
Influence: Classroom experience:
when students get bored, they lose
the motivation to learn
Principle 2: Motivation.
Motivation is a key point to a
successful learning process. It is
important to provide a vision of
how English can be useful to
students in future.
Influence: From readings an
motivation and inspiration from
students’ questions about the usefulness and purpose of
learning the subject
Principle 3: Instructor Flexibility.
Sometimes not everything goes
on according to the plan. The
instructor needs to be ready to
any change: change of activities
used, methods, even exercises
Influence: experience of the
sometimes large differences
between lesson plans and the
lesson reality
Principle 4: Planning. Planning
gives a map to a teacher to
conduct the lesson. A good plan is
necessary but not everything will
be perfect – the plan is a guide.
Influence: teacher training
courses, seminars and
workshops during my career
Principle 5: Positive
Encouragement. Encouraging
the students will make their
language skills better and not
be shy and afraid of using the
second language freely
Influence: personal, life and
work experience
Principle 6: Appropriate
Method. Methods should be
chosen carefully: whether to use
direct method or audio-lingual
etc. It is like choosing the most
appropriate transportation for
getting to your destination
Influence: my experience trying
out different methods and
seeing when they work best
Page 88
My Principles of TESOL
Groups and materials should be level-appropriate and the topics need to engage the (age) group
From experience, it is a problem he a stude t’s level is too
low/high for a class or when the materials are inappropriate (like adults course books with young
learners)
Students should be on the same path
Students seem to work better when they have the same goals
The teacher should personalize and differentiate learning for people with different learning styles, problems and interests.
I learned this from observing lear ers’ diffi ulties, disa ilities
and differences
Use a variety of skills and activities to give students the
right balance of language practice they need
When studying at school and in foreign language classes,
noticed that too much of one skill was negative and a mixture
was positive for my learning.
Classes should have a friendly atmosphere and be fun because students are more likely to get motivated, learn better and be
more focused
At school I liked (language) classes like this. My students
also react well to a friendly atmosphere and lessons which
are fun.
Identify, target and prioritize reoccurring mistakes. Avoid
overcorrection.
Whe I as a lear er, I did ’t like being corrected all the time.
In and out of class, my friends and students appreciate it when I correct reoccurring mistakes.
The teacher should be a facilitator and provide students
with plenty of practice opportunities (homework etc.) The only way to improve is by
practice, practice, practice
I learned best this way when I study (studied) languages (at
school)
Learning should not be old-fashioned. It should be relevant
and up-to-date by use of communication technology and
modern resources
While doing self-study of Spanish on the internet, I
started using more e-learning resources and up-to-date
materials in my classes and they work well
Appendix 9: Concept Map 8
Summary of Influences
8.1 Memorable teaching experiences
8.2 Observation of classroom dynamics
8. O servatio of lear ers’ diffi ulties,
disabilities and differences
8.4 Positive & negative learning experiences
as a language learner
8.5 Personal language learning preferences
8.6 Personal self-study strategies / interests
Page 89
PRINCIPLE: English is now the most
used means of communication
worldwide and should be taught as
a lingua franca.
INFLUENCE: over the years in
seminars and in conversations with
colleagues, I have repeatedly
heard/had discussions about the
fact that English is spoken by most
people around the world and non-
native speakers outnumber native
speakers
PRINCIPLE: English is a dominating
language in global pop-culture and has
a worldwide audience.
teachers should take advantage of the
global popular culture which students
are exposed to outside of class
INFLUENCE: a feeling I got from
teaching - students get motivated and
enjoy global pop-culture. For
example, I successfully used a
Wikipedia article about K-Pop with a
class of girls.
PRINCIPLE: English should be
taught in a communicative way
to help learners deal with real-
life situations
INFLUENCE: almost all the job
adverts I see advertised in my
country seek bilingual applicants -
there are better job and study
opportunities for those who know
English as a second language
Principles of
TESOL
Appendix 9: Concept Map 9
Summary of Influences
9.1 influence / inspiration from specific socioeconomic dynamic in
country
9.2 Gut feeling from teaching
9.3 Seminars
9.4 Discussions with colleagues
Page 90
Appendix 9: Concept Map 10
(map on following page)
Summary of Influences
10.1 Online blogs and videos
10.2 Experience teaching in environment with specific
(material) constraints
10.3 Teaching experience
. Co trast ith other tea hers’ eliefs
10.5 Memorable phenomena observed when learning and
teaching languages
Page 91
Principles of Teaching a Second Language
Principle 1: Speak only the language you’re tea hi g;
students will be able to understand you, and use it as well
Influence: I learned this
as a language teacher and
student from watching
elementary level students
dealing with the language
they were taught without
thinking about their first
language, since they
knew what the situation
was through pictures and
props.
Principle 2:
Pay
attention
to your
stude ts’ needs
Influence: teaching experience in a context where there were
no materials available and the need arose to base lessons on
stude ts’ i ediate eeds. Also o li e logs a d videos about Dogme have changed the way I approach teaching
structure in class. I believe it has somehow opened my mind
and allowed me to be more attentive to what students require
during class interaction, instead of following a rigid class
structure based on textbooks. Principle 3:
Have a clear
and well-
developed
lesson plan
Influence: I learned this from experience as
a teacher. Although some people,
including myself, might think that the best
way of teaching a second language is by
taking advantage of stude ts’ errors in
class, and consequently based a lesson on
them, you should always come prepared to
class, providing students with the
necessary learning tools and resources to
progress in the language learning.
Page 92
Appendix 9: Concept Map 11
(map on following page)
Summary of Influences
11.1 Personal language learning experiences
11.2 Self-discovery as a language learner
11.3 Confirmation of beliefs via teaching experience
11.4 Influence from pre-service SLTE tutors
11.5 Evidence witnessed in and out of class
Page 93
Principle
Speaking is always the
priority skill
Principle
Influence
In order to learn a language I
always reached a point in which
I had to explore my own
motivations. Teaching
experience has also confirmed
that motivation is essential for
learning to take place.
Influence
My CELTA tutors always heavily
insisted on this principle and my
experience confirmed its
importance.
Influence
From observation of language
learners (myself included) in and
out of class, I have seen how
being able to communicate face
to face is the most powerful
motivation factor for most
students.
Influence
When I studied language at
school this was the way I
preferred to learn
Influence
From my own teaching experience, I
have become aware of how
different these two can be
Page 94
Appendix 9: Concept Map 12
(map on following page)
Summary of Influences
12.1 (Positive) feedback from students
12.2 Common sense / normal psychology
12.3 Evidence observable in lessons
12.4 General teacher preparation courses
12.5 Non-TESOL educational work experience
12.6 Experience of variety of curricular requirements / types
Page 95
Principle: teaching should be student-
oriented: students should do what they
want (or believe they are doing what
they want); teach the student, not the
language.
Principle: lessons should be
interactive and cooperative:
group work is important
especially for YLs and mixed
ability classes
Influence: philosophy from general
education teacher preparation
course (university level)
Principle: teachers should motivate
students and avoid compounding lack of
self-esteem. Praise should be given for
weaknesses (even though untrue) to
improve confidence. Good rapport,
respect and praise are requisites for
student happiness.
Influence: normal
psychology/common sense;
observably works in lessons
Influence: knowledge that sincere
students want to be autonomous
and from positive feedback from
students who felt empowered with
learning strategies
Influence: from general educational
experience in state schools; from
experience in different language
teaching posts with different
curriculum requirements
PRINCIPLES
OF TESOL
Principle: teaching approach should
adapt to stude ts’ lear i g style a d needs: fun, games, teacher
orientation, classroom setup etc.
must be adjusted to context e.g.
commercial, professional, traditional
Principle: teachers should
make learners autonomous and
empower them with learning
techniques; teachers should
uild lear ers’ self-esteem,
confidence and abilities
Page 96
67789:;< =>? @ABBCDE FG HF9I87J KC7 L8MANJMSOURCE OF TEACHER
COGNITION (BORG 2003;2006)
INFLUENCES SPECIFIC TO COGNITIONOF PEDAGOGIC PRINCIPLES ASIDENTIFIED IN CONCEPT MAPS
CONCEPT MAPSOURCES
Schooling:critical incidents;
positive and negativelearning experiences;
apprenticeship ofobservation
Personal language learning preferences/ style 11.1, 8.5, 6.5, 5.4Self-discovery as a language learner 11.2Memorable phenomena observed whenlearning a language 10.5(Positive & negative) experiences as alanguage learner 8.4, 6.11, 4.2, 2.10Inspiration from own self-studystrategies / interests 8.6, 6.10
ProfessionalCoursework:
impact on teachercognition is unique;
developmentalpathways are highly
individualised
General teacher preparation courses 12.4Influence from pre-service SLTE tutors 11.4Self-study of online blogs, videos,webpages etc. 10.1, 3.2
Informal CPD: seminars & workshops9.3, 7.6, 7.4, 6.2,6.13, 6.14, 5.7, 2.2,1.2, 1.3
Readings of pedagogic-related literature 7.3, 4.7, 2.5Conferences 5.6, 1.4Formal initial/pre-service teacher-training courses (e.g. TKT, CELTA, ICELT) 7.6, 6.2, 5.8, 2.8, 1.1Formal additional/in-service teachertraining courses (e.g DELTA, IHCYL) 6.1, 2.1University study of education/pedagogy 6.4Formal observation feedback 6.8, 2.3Mentors comments 5.1Peer observation feedback 5.3Academic / postgraduate study oflanguage education 4.8, 1.5
Contextual Factors:institutional,
instructional, socialand physical factorsinfluential; context
may inspire change inteacher cognition
Positive feedback from learners 12.1Non-language educational workexperience 12.5, 1.6Experience of (variety of) curricularstyles / requirements 12.6, 3.1Experience of teaching environmentswith specific constraints / characteristics(e.g. lack of materials)
10.2, 5.5, 2.6
Teaching experience 10.3, 6.9, 1.7
Page 97
Onfluence / inspiration from country -specific socioeconomic factors 9.1Experience of learners with differentcultural backgrounds 6.15Experience specific to particular culturalcontexts 5.2Experience teaching learners withunique characteristics (learningdisabilities)
2.9
Classroom Practice:interaction between
cognitions & contextprinciples emerge
from diverse practices
Evidence observable in lessons /observation of classroom dynamics
12.3, 11.5, 8.2, 6.6,4.1
Confirmation of beliefs via teachingexperience 11.3Teaching experience 10.3, 6.9, 4.5Gut feeling from teaching 9.2Memorable teaching experiences 8.1Feedback from students about theirlearning needs & experience 3.3Observation of learners difficulties,disabilities & differences 8.3Trial & error in class 7.1Intuition / knowledge of studentsneeds, desires & expectations 6.3Student contributions / input fromlearners / inspiration from students 6.7, 5.6, 3.4Incidental discovery via twist of fate &observation of effects 2.7
Other
Common sense / normal psychology /logical 12.2, 4.9
Discussions with colleagues / contrastswith other teachers beliefs 10.4, 9.4
Life / personal experience 7.2, 4.3Observation of language learning ineveryday life 6.12(Aspects of) current / popularmethodology 2.4
Experience as a teacher-trainer 4.4
Page 98
PQQRSTUV WWX
YZ[vR\
Page 99
Beliefs about TESOL
Introduction
1 Welcome! This survey is part of a researchproject run by James Schollat the
University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom. The purpose of this survey is to collect information
fromteachers around the world on their beliefs about language- teaching methodology. If you teach, or
have taught, English to speakers of other languages (TESOL, TEFL, EFL, ESOL etc.) you are invited to
take part in this survey. Are you a teacher of English to speakers of other languages?
Yes
No
Page 100
Consent Form
2 If youagree to take part in this survey, you will be directed to the start of theonline survey, which will take approximately 15-20 minutes to complete. Yourparticipation in this survey is completely voluntary so you can withdraw at anytime.All of the answers you provide in this survey will be converted into statistics so youwill remain anonymous,and the information you provide will be used only for thisresearch project. If you have questions about the project, you may contact theresearcher by email [email protected] by phone on (+44) 07454 686
486. By clicking “I agree” below you are indicating that you have readand understood this consent form and agree to participate in thisresearch study.
I agree
I do not wish to participate in this study
Page 101
Instruction Page
Welcome to the survey!There are two sections to this survey:Section 1 is about
your beliefs of language teaching andSection 2 has questions about your own experience as a teacher
and student.
Some of the questions will havea scale of options and two opposing
statements like the one below. When marking your answer on these,the more you agree with one
statement, the less you agree with the other. If you agree equally with both statements or think
both are equally (un)important, mark the middle box.
Please try this out on the demonstration question below.
3 Is language teaching more art or science?
You are now ready to begin the survey.Pleasecontinue!
Language teaching is anart
Language teaching is ascience
Page 102
Section 1.1
4 Where do you believe a teacher'smethodologyshould come from?
5 Teachers and their local context.
6 Theories of language learning and teachingshould...
AgreePartiallyagree
Neitheragree ordisagree
Partiallydisagree Disagree
Language teachersshouldmodify/change/adapthow and what theyteach according tothe culture andsociety in thecountry/regionwhere they work.
It should grow from their ownexperimentation and observation of
what does and doesn’t work in theirlessons.
It should beregulated anddirected byamethod orcombination ofmethods whichhave beenpublished.
Page 103
<< <
INFORMwhat
teachersdo in
practice
> >>
CONTROLwhat
teachers doin practice
NOTINFLUENCEwhatteachersdo inpractice
Page 104
Section 1.2
7 In your opinion, who is most able to producetheories of effective language teaching?
8 In your belief, which form of knowledge is worthmore?
9 In your view, what is the best way to treat
discoveries about language teaching made by scholars?
Teachers should should modify,adjust, and reshape them.
Teachers shouldkeep them in theiroriginal/pure form.
Knowledge from professional andacademic researchers about
language teaching
The knowledgethat teachers getfrom experienceand their owninvestigations
Practitioners (teachers, teacher-trainers and teacher-educators).
Scholars(academics,professors andapplied linguists )
Page 105
Section 1.3
10 Your belief about the role of the teacher (1)
11 Your belief about the role of the teacher (2)
DisagreePartiallydisagree
Neitheragree nordisagree
Partiallyagree Agree
DisagreePartiallydisagree
Neitheragree nordisagree
Partiallyagree Agree
As part oflanguageeducation,teachers shouldraise students'awareness of theidentities (e.g.identities ofrace/ethnicity,gender, and socialclass) which aremaintained by thecommunities,cultures andsocieties that theylive in.
Page 106
12 Your belief about the role of the teacher (3)
DisagreePartiallydisagree
Neitheragree nordisagree
Partiallyagree Agree
As part oflanguageeducation,teachers shouldraise students’awareness of theideologies (e.g.ideologies of truth,justice, genderroles, race, politicalsystems etc.) thatare conveyedbylanguage.
As part oflanguageeducation,teachers shouldraise students'awareness ofsocial inequalities(e.g. racial, class,wealth, genderinequalities) sothat studentsbecome able toseek social justicewithin and beyondthe classroom.
Page 107
Section 1.4
13 Which type of language teaching do you think ismost effective?
14 The content and objectives of a language course...
15 Your belief about the paths of language study.
Students should adapt and workaroundthe path of study which is in
the coursematerials.
Teachingshould beadapted tostudents’individuallanguagelearning paths.
...should be negotiated betweenstudents and teachers; learnersshould havea role in pedagogic
decision-making.
...should bechosen byteachers oradministrators;students shouldnothave a role inpedagogicdecision-making.
When students are taught strategiesto help them discover the facts,rules and meaning of language
independently.
When teachersdirectly pointout and explainthe facts, rulesand meaning oflanguage totheir students.
Page 108
Section 1.5
16 Which type of learning do you think is best?
17 The teaching of language should be...
18 Which do you believe is more importantin language lessons?
Accuracy and language form: focuson the structure, formand function
of language.
Fluency andmeaning: focuson usinglanguage to 'geta messageacross'.
... structured, systematic anddeliberate; teachers should treatlanguage as an abstract‘code’
... realistic,authentic andgenuine;teachers shouldtreat language asa realistic‘message’
‘Learning by doing’: studentsimprove their language
knowledge and skills by usingEnglish in real-life tasks and
situations.
‘Learning by getting’:students improvetheir languageknowledge and skillsby practising specificparts of English infocussed/controlledpractice activities.
Page 109
Section 1.6
19 During lessons, it is best forteachers andstudents...
20 During lessons, it is best forteachers to...
21 English language courses should aim to...
... create direct associationsbetween English and the students’
first language so that the languagescan be compared, contrasted and
translated.
... create directassociationsbetween Englishand objects,contexts andsituations sothat studentsare encouragedto think entirelyin English.
... to be prohibited from switchingbetween students' first language
and English.
... to be allowedto switchbetweenstudents' firstlanguage andEnglish.
Page 110
... develop students'awarenessof many world cultures, whetheror not English is associated with
the culture.
... developstudents’awareness of thecultures associatedwith nativespeakers of Englishe.g. USA, Ireland,New Z ealand.
Page 111
Section 1.7
22 How should students approacha foreign / secondlanguage?
23 How do you believe the grammatical, lexical andphonological patterns of language are best taught?
24 Your belief about language learning processes.
Through exposure to languagepatterns while students are in a
receptive state of mind so that theymemorize, mimic and reproduce
them.
By givingstudentsexplanationsand simple 'rulesof thumb' andby guiding themto notice anddiscoverlanguagepatterns forthemselves.
Students should consciously payattention to the features of thelanguage; they should analyse it
Studentsshould notthink about thelanguage; theyshould get ageneral‘feel’for it
Page 112
Foreign and second languagesshould be learned / studied
consciously and deliberately
Foreign andsecond languagesshould beabsorbed /acquiredincidentally andautomatically
Page 113
Section 1.8
25 Your belief about 'input' and 'output'duringlanguage lessons.
26 Which kind of interaction is most important duringlanguage lessons?
27 How do you believespeaking, writing, listeningand reading skills should be taught in lessons?
The four skills should beintegrated and taught together
The four skills shouldbe separated andtaught individually
Interaction wherestudents expressexperiences and ideas, engage with
each other socially, and discussunderstandings of language.
Interactionwhich is used todisplay languagecompetence,demonstratehow languageshould be used,and explainlanguage rules.
Lowpriority
Mediumpriority
Highpriority
Opportunities for language‘input’ fromreading and listening tasks are a...
Opportunities for language‘output’withspeaking and writing tasks are a...
Page 114
Section 2
You are now over halfway through the survey. Thefinal set of questions are about your education and
teaching career.
Please continue!
Page 115
Section 2.1 - Context & Classroom
28 Please indicate how much full-time (approximately20 or more hours of lessons per week) language
teaching experience you have had.
More info
28.a If you selected Other, please specify:
29 Please indicate in which settings you havetaughta
foreign / second language[select as many options as you wish]
Nursery & primary school (ages 3 - 11)
Secondary & high school (ages 12 - 18)
University
Cultural centre / institute
Private language academy
Summer school
Online courses (including blended learning)
Less than 5 years
5 - 10 years
10 - 15 years
15 - 20 years
Other
Page 116
18 / 29
Other
29.a If you selected Other, please specify:
30 In yourcareer as a language teacher, which of thefollowing work situations have you experienced?
[select as many options as you wish]
One where I had to strictly followthe syllabus, teaching methodology, andassessment which the school administration controlled
One where I had a large amount of freedom; I was in control and made myown decisions about the syllabus, methodology, and assessment
Onewhere the learners had very specific needs which meant that mydecisions about syllabus, methodology and assessment were limited bystudents ' learning goals
Onewhere the course materials (text/course books etc.) were unsuitable
One which had very modern teaching equipment (e.g. interactivewhiteboards, digital projectors, laptops for students)
Onewhere there was a lack of (or no) course materials and equipment
One in my own cultural environment
One in a very different cultural environment to my own
Onewhere the students all had the same first language and culture
Onewhere the students had different first languages and cultures
One where some of the students had learning disabilities
Small class sizes (1 - 10 students)
Medium class sizes (10 - 40 students)
Large class sizes (more than 40 students)
Page 117
Page 118
20 / 29
Section 2.2 - Schooling
31 Since you were a child, how many years of yourlife have youspentas a student taking second /
foreign language classes (studying at least 1 - 2 hours
per week)?
More info
31.a If you selected Other, please specify:
32 Please indicate in which settings you havebeena
student of foreign / second languages.[select as many
options as you wish]
Nursery & primary school (ages 3 - 11)
Secondary & high school (ages 12 - 18)
University
Private language academy
Cultural centre / institute
Summer school
Less than 5 years
5 - 10 years
10 - 15 years
15 - 20 years
Other
Page 119
21 / 29
Online course (including blended learning)
33 To date, how much time have you spentteaching
yourself (any self-study NOT connected to a languagecourse) a foreign or second language (studying at least 1 - 2hours per week)?
33.a If you selected Other, please specify:
34 Which of the followingsituations have you
experiencedas a language student? [select as many options
as you wish]
Onewhere we (the students) were given some control over the coursecontent, course goals, and methodology
Onewhere we (the students) had no control over the coursecontent, course goals, and
methodology (these werecontrolled entirely by the teacher / administration)
Less than 6 months
6 months - 1 year
1 - 1.5 years
1.5 - 2 years
Other
Self-study (teaching yourself with dictionaries, books, internet, CDs, films,videos, music, etc.)
Page 120
Onewhere we and our teacher used our first language for learning purposes
Onewhere we and our teacher never (or almost never) used our firstlanguage for learning purposes
A coursewherewemastered the language by way of meaningful interaction -the focus was on fluency
A coursewherewemastered the language by focussing on grammar,vocabulary and pronunciation structures - the focus was on accuracy
A course which had a balanced focus on the structures and functions oflanguage - the focus was on both fluency and accuracy
A course in my own cultural environment
A course in a different cultural environment
Small class sizes (1 - 10 students)
Medium class sizes (10 - 40 students)
Large class sizes (more than 40 students)
Page 121
23 / 29
Section 2.3 - Professional Coursework
35 How many workshops, lectures and seminarsabout language teaching have you attended in the workplace,atconferences or onlinewhich were NOT part of a trainingcourse?
35.a If you selected Other, please specify:
36 Please indicate type of course you have taken
which aredirectly related to language teaching. [select as
many options as you wish]
Bachelor's / undergraduatedegree in language education, applied linguisticsor general education
Graduate / postgraduate degree in language education, applied linguistics orgeneral education
Doctorate / PhD degree in language education, applied linguistics or generaleducation
Postdoctoral study in language education, applied linguistics or generaleducation
Less than 10
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
Other
Page 122
Basic language teacher training course (usually 1 month of intensive study)
36.a If you selected Other, please specify:
37 How long have youspent as a student onfull-
time teacher-training courses which resulted in a professional
certificate or academic qualification?
37.a If you selected Other, please specify:
38 Approximately how many blogs, book chapters,journal articles, magazine articles, radio programs
0 - 6 months
6 months - 1 year
1 - 1.5 years
1.5 - 2 years
Other
Advanced language teacher training course (usually 4-6 months of full-timestudy)
Other
Page 123
and podcasts about language teaching have you read/ listened to in your own free time?(self-study about language teaching whichis NOTpart of a course)
38.a If you selected Other, please specify:
Less than 50
50 - 100
100 - 150
150 - 200
Other
Page 124
Section 2.4 - Geographic Location
39 In which area of the world are youcurrently resident or working?
40 If you would like to be informed of the results ofthis research project, please write your email address in the boxbelow and you will receive a summary of the results inAugust/September 2015.
Antarctica
Africa
Asia
Australia
Carribbean
CentralAmerica
Europe
Middle East
North America
Oceania
South America
Page 125
Non-eligibles Page
Sorry, this survey is only for teachers of English to speakers of other languages
(TESOL, EFL, TEFL, ESOL etc.). Please share the link of this survey with any English teachers you
know.
Thank you for your interest!
Page 126
Consent Refusal Page
If you have questions about this project, you may contact the researcher on
[email protected] (+44) 07454 686 486. If you have any questions concerning your rights asa
researchparticipant, you may contact the University of Edinburgh [email protected] +44
(0)131651 6138.
Thank you for taking the time to look at this survey.
Page 127
Survey Complete
The survey is now complete and your responses havebeen submitted.
If you know of any other English teachers who mightbe willing to complete this survey, please forward
this link to them:
https://edinburgh.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/beliefs-about-tesol-survey
Thank you for taking part in this project!
Page 128
]^^_`abc def ghij_k li_mt_nt o__apqrs gt__tuxqv^w_n
Page 129
xyyz{|}~ ��� ����z� ��z�tz�t �zz|���� ��zzt�x��y�z�
Page 130
�PPENDIX �� : SURVEYSCOR ING KEY
Section 1.14 Wh ere do you believe a teacher�s methodology should come from?It should grow fromtheir ownexperimentation andobservation of whatdoes and doesnt worki n their lessons.
It should be regulatedand directed by amethod orcombination ofmethods which havebeen published.
Response score 5 4 3 2 1
5 Teachers and their local context.
Agree Partiallyagree
Neitheragree ordisagree
Partiallydisagree Disagree
Language teachersshould modify �change � adapt howand what they teachaccording to theculture and society inthe country � regionwhere they work.
Response score 5 4 3 2 1
9(6�) In your view� what is the best way to treat discoveries about languageteaching made by scholars?Teachers shouldmodify� adjust� andreshape them.
Teachers should keepthem in theirorigin���pure form.
Response score 5 4 3 2 1
� Questions � and 9 were switched due to having been placed in the wrong sub �sections during survey design
Page 131
Section 1.27 In your opinion who is most able to produce theories of effective languageteaching?Practitioners¡teachers¢ teacher £trainers and teacher £educators¤.
Scholars ¡academics¢professors andapplied linguists ¤
Response score 4 5 3 2 1
8 In your belief which form of knowledge is worth more?Knowledge fromprofessional andacademic researchersabout languageteaching
The knowledge thatteachers get fromexperience and theirown investigations
Response score 1 2 3 5 4
6(9¥) Theories of language learning and teaching should...
<< <
INFORMwhat
teachersdo in
practice
> >>
CONTROLwhat teachersdo in practice
NOT INFLUENCEwhat teachersdo in practice
Response score 1 2 5 4 3
Section 1.310 Your belief about the role of the teacher ¦§¨
Disagree Partiallydisagree
Neitheragree ordisagree
Partiallyagree Agree
As part of languageeducation¢ teachersshould raise students©awareness of theidentities ¡e.g. identitiesof ag eª ethnicity¢gender¢ and social class¤« See footnote ¬
Page 132
which are maintained bythe communitiescultures and societiesthat they live in.
Response score 1 2 3 4 5
11. Your belief about the role of the teacher ®¯°Disagree Partially
disagreeNeitheragree ordisagree
Partiallyagree Agree
As part of languageeducation teachers shouldraise students± awareness ofsocial inequalities ²e.g. rac³´µclass wealth genderinequalities¶ so that studentsbecome able to seek socialjustice within and beyond theclassroom.
Response score 1 2 3 4 5
12 Your belief about the role of the teacher ®·°Disagree Partially
disagreeNeitheragree ordisagree
Partiallyagree Agree
As part of languageeducation teachers shouldraise students awareness ofthe ideologies ²e.g. ideologiesof truth justice gender rolesrace political systems etc.¶that are conveyed bylanguage.
Response score 1 2 3 4 5
Section 1.413 Which type of language teaching do you think is most effective?When students aretaught strategies tohelp them discover thefacts rules and
When teachersdirectly point outand explain the factsrules and meaning of
Page 133
meaning of languageindependently.
language to theirstudents.
Response score 5 4 3 2 1
14 The content and objectives of a language course......should benegotiated betweenstudents andteachers; learnersshould have a role inpedagogic decision¸making.
...should be chosen byteachers oradministrators;students should nothave a role inpedagogic decision¸making.
Response score 5 4 3 2 1
15 Your belief about the paths of language study.Students shouldadapt and workaround the path ofstudy which is in thecourse materials.
Teaching should beadapted to studentsindividual languagelearning paths.
Response score 1 2 3 4 5
Section 1.516 Which type of learning do you think is best?
Learning by doing :students improvetheir languageknowledge and skillsby usingEnglish in real ¸lifetasks and situations.
Learning by getting :students improvetheir languageknowledge and skills bypractising specific partsof English infocussed¹controlledpractice activities.
Response score 3 5 4 2 1
17 The teaching of language should be...... structuredºsystematic anddeliberate; teachersshould treat languageas an abstract code
... realisticº authenticand genuine;teachers should treatlanguage as a realistic
messageResponse score 1 2 4 5 3
Page 134
18 Which do you believe is more important in language lessons?Accuracy andlanguage form: focuson the structure»form and function oflanguage.
Fluency and meaning:focus on usinglanguage to ¼½¾t amessage across¼¿
Response score 1 2 4 5 3
Section 1.619 During lessonsÀ it is best for teachers and students...... to be prohibitedfrom switchingbetween students¼first language andEnglish.
... to be allowed toswitch betweenstudents¼ firstlanguage and English.
Response score 1 2 4 5 3
20 During lessonsÀ it is best for teachers to...... create directassociations betweenEnglish and thestudents firstlanguage so that thelanguages can becompared»contrasted andtranslated.
... create directassociations betweenEnglish and objects»contexts andsituations so thatstudents areencouraged to thinkentirely in English.
Response score 3 5 4 2 1
21 English language courses should aim to...... develop students¼awareness of manyworld cultures»whether or notEnglish is associatedwith the culture.
... develop studentsawareness of thecultures associatedwith native speakersof English e.g. USA»Ireland» New Zealand.
Response score 3 5 4 2 1
Section 1.722 How should students approach a foreign Á second language?
Page 135
Students shouldconsciously payattention to thefeatures of thelanguage; they shouldanalyse it
Students should notthink about thelanguage; theyshould get a general
feel for it
Response score 1 3 5 3 1
23 How do you believe the grammatical lexical and phonological patterns oflanguage are best taught?Through exposure tolanguage patternswhile students are ina receptive state ofmind so that theymemorizeà mimic andreproduce them.
By giving studentsexplanations andsimple ÄÅules of thumbÄand by guiding them tonotice and discoverlanguage patterns forthemselves.
Response score 1 3 5 3 1
24 Your belief about language learning processes.Foreign and secondlanguages should belearned Æ studiedconsciously anddeliberately
Foreign and secondlanguages should beabsorbed Æ acquiredincidentally andautomatically
Response score 1 3 5 3 1
Section 1.825 Your belief about ÇinputÇ and ÇoutputÇ during language lessons.
Low Priority Medium Priority High PriorityOpportunities forlanguage input fromreading and listeningtasks are a...Opportunities forlanguage outputfrom speaking andwriting tasks are a...
ResponsesScore
Low Priority Medium Priority High PriorityInput x È
Page 136
Output xInput x
ÉOutput xInput xOutput xInput xOutput xInput x
Ê
Output xInput xOutput xInput xOutput xInput xOutput xInput x ËOutput x
ÌÍ Which kind of interaction is most important during language lessons?Interaction wherestudents expressexperiences and ideasÎengage with each othersociallyÎ and discussunderstandings oflanguage.
Interaction which isused to displaylanguage competenceÎdemonstrate howlanguage should beusedÎ and explainlanguage rules.
Response score 5 4 3 2 1
27 How do you believe speakinÏÐ writinÏÐ listening and reading skills shouldbe taught in lessons?The four skills shouldbe integrated andtaught together
The four skills shouldbe separated andtaught individually
Response score 5 4 3 2 1
Page 137
SECTION Ñ
Section 2.1 - Context & Classroom28 Please indicate how much fullÒtime Óapproximately ÔÕ or more hours oflessons per weekÖ language teaching experience you have had.
Years ScoreLess than × Ø× Ù ØÚ ÛØÚ Ù Ø× ÜØ× Ù ÛÚ ÝÛÚ Ù Û× ×Û× Ù ÜÚ ÞÜÚ Ù Ü× ßÜ× Ù ÝÚ 840 - 45 945 - 50 10
29 Please indicate in which settings you have taught a foreign / secondlanguage [select as many options as you wish]
Scoring system: 1 point base score plus one point for eachbox selected (one point minimum introduced due to enablezero response scores to be weighted)
30 In your career as a language teacher, which of the following work situationshave you experienced? [select as many options as you wish]
Scoring system: 1 point base score plus one point for eachbox selected (one point minimum introduced due toenable zero response scores to be weighted)
Section 2.2 Schooling31 Since you were a child, how many years of your life have you spent as astudent taking second / foreign language classes (studying at least 1 - 2 hoursper week)?
Page 138
Years ScoreLess than à áà â áã äáã â áà åáà â äã æäã â äà àäà â åã ç
32 Please indicate in which settings you have been a student of foreign èsecond languages [select as many options as you wish].
Scoring system: á point base score plus one point for each boxselected éone point minimum introduced due to enable zeroresponse scores to be weightedê
33 To dateë how much time have you spent teaching yourself (any self-studyNOT connected to a language course) a foreign or second language ìstudyingat least í î ï hours per weekð?
Years Score< á áá â ä ää â å åå â æ ææ â à àà â ç çç â ñ ññ 8 88 9 99 - 10 10
Ongoing / 10+ 12
34 Which of the following situations have you experienced as a languagestudent? [select as many options as you wish]
Scoring system: one point per box selected (no zero valuesrecorded so minimum score of 1 unnecessary for weighting)
Page 139
Section 2.3: Professional Coursework35 How many workshopsò lectures and seminars about language teaching haveyou attended in the workplaceò at conferences or online which were NOT partof a training course?
Response ScoreLess than óô óóô õô õõô öô ööô ÷ô ÷÷ô øô øøô ùô ùùô úô úúô 80 880 - 90 9
90 100 10100+ 12
constant 14
36 Please indicate type of course you have taken which are directly related tolanguage teaching [select as many options as you wish]
Scoring system: 1 point plus one point for each box selected (onepoint minimum introduced due to enable zero scores to beweighted)
37 How long have you spent as a student on full-time teacher-training courseswhich resulted in a professional certificate or academic qualification?
Years Score0 - 6 months 1
6 months 1 year 21 1.5 years 31.5 2 years 42 2.5 years 52.5 3 years 63 3.5 years 73.5 4 years 84 4.5 years 94.5 - 5 years 105 - 5.5 years 115.5 - 6 years 12
Page 140
38 ûpproximately how many blogsü book chaptersü journal articlesü magazinearticlesü radio programs and podcasts about language teaching have you read ýlistened to in your own free time? (self-study about language teaching whichis NOT part of a course)
SCORE WEIGHTING(SECTION 2 ONLY)
Section 2.1: Context & Classroom
Survey Question WeightingRecorded Maximum
Score[actual max.]
Score MultiplicationFigure
þ8. (experience: time) 50% 10[10]
5(50 ÷ 10)
29. (experience: settings) 25% 9[~9]
2.777777777777778(25 ÷ 9)
30. (experience: contexts) 25% 15[15]
1.666666666666667(25 ÷ 15)
Number ScoreLess than 50 1
50 100 2100 150 3150 200 4
200+ / innumerable /hundreds 6
thousands / constant 9
Page 141
Section 2.2: Schooling
Survey Question WeightingRecorded Maximum
Score[actual max.]
Score MultiplicationFigure
ÿ� �schooling: time� ����
[�]�.���������������
(25 ÷ 6)ÿ�. �schooling : settings� ���
8[9]
2.777777777777778(25 ÷ 9)
33. (schooling: self-study) 25% 12[12]
2.083333333333333(25 ÷ 12)
34. (schooling: situations) 25% 12[12]
2.083333333333333(25 ÷ 12)
Section 2.3: Professional Coursework
Survey Question WeightingRecorded
Maximum Score[actual max.]
Score Multiplication Figure
35. (informal CPD e.g.workshops, seminars etc.) 25% 14
[~14]1.785714285714286
(25 ÷ 14)36. (formal SLTE: types ofcourse) 25% 6
[~6]4.166666666666667
(25 ÷ 6)37. (formal SLTE: time oncourses) 25% 12
[~12]2.083333333333333
(25 ÷ 12)38. (informal CPD: self-study) 25% 9
[~9]2.777777777777778
(25 ÷ 9)
Page 142
Question 34 (Schooling)URN # estimated missing
value (SPSS)mean
(median)estimate
(weighted)146692-146686-8737866 7.4
7.03(7)
7(14.58)
146692-146686-8749263 6.7 7(14.58)
5(10.42)146692-146686-8760359 4.6
Question 37 (Professional Coursework)URN # estimated missing
value (SPSS)Mean
(median)estimate
(weighted)146692-146686-8753289 2
2.65(2)
2(4.16)
146692-146686-8724052 2 2(4.16)
146692-146686-8723605 3 3(6.25)
Question 38 (Professional Coursework)URN # estimated missing
value (SPSS)mean
(median)estimate
(weighted)146692-146686-8753669 3.9 2.50
(2)3
(8.33)
Appendix 14:Estimationsof Missing Values
Page 143
Appendix 15: Visual Checks for
Normality in Untransformed and
Transformed Data Sets
Aggregate of PMP (Q4 - Q27)
Page 144
Transformed Aggregate of PMP (reflected Log10)
Page 145
Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root)
Page 146
Aggregate of context & classroom (Q28 - Q30)
Page 147
Transformed aggregate of context & classroom (Log10)
Page 148
Transformed aggregate of context & classroom (square
root)
Page 149
Aggregate of schooling (Q31 - Q34)
Page 150
Transformed aggregate of schooling (Log10)
Page 151
Transformed aggregate of schooling (square root)
Page 152
Aggregate of professional coursework (Q35 - Q38)
Page 153
Transformed aggregate of professional coursework
(Log10)
Page 154
Transformed aggregate of professional coursework
(square root)
Page 155
TESTS OF NORMALITYShapiro-Wilk
Skewness
Std. error
of
Skewness
Skewness
z-score† KurtosisStd. error
of Kurtosis
Kurtosis z-
score†Statistic df Sig.**
Sum of PMP (Q4 - Q27) .968 189 .000 -.676 .177 -3.82 .414 .352 1.176
Transformed Sum of PMP
(reflected Log10).928 189 .000 -1.205 .177 -6.808 2.479 .352 7.043
Transformed Sum of PMP
(reflected square root).993 189 .500 -.107 .177 -.604 .083 .352 .235
Sum of context & classroom (Q28 -
Q30).977 189 .003 .506 .177 2.859 1.101 .352 3.128
Transformed sum of context &
classroom (Log 10).971 189 .001 -.580 .177 -3.277 .696 .352 1.977
Transformed sum of context &
classroom (square root).988 189 .104 -.046 .177 -.260 .483 .352 1.372
Sum of schooling (Q31 - Q34) .991 189 .289 .136 .177 .768 -.500 .352 -1.420
Transformed sum of schooling
(square root).991 189 .256 -.211 .177 -1.192 -.387 .352 -1.099
Transformed sum of schooling
(Log10).972 189 .001 -.608 .177 -3.435 .223 .352 .633
Sum of professional coursework
(Q35 - Q38).900 189 .000 1.215 .177 6.864 1.450 .352 4.119
Transformed sum of professional
coursework (Log10).973 189 .001 .270 .177 1.525 -.326 .352 -.926
Transformed sum of professional
coursework (square root).949 189 .000 .732 .177 4.136 .315 .352 .895
*. This is a lower bound of the true significance.
**. Difference between ideal and actual distributions is significant at <.05 (Field, 2009)
a. Lilliefors Significance Correction
†.Skewness and Kurtosis z-scores at <1.96 indicate a p-value of <.05 which enables the null hypotheses that there is Skew or Kurtosis to be rejected (Field, 2009)
Ap
pe
nd
ix 16
: Sta
tistical Te
sts for N
orm
ality
Page 156
Ap
pe
nd
ix 17
: Du
mm
y V
aria
ble
Co
din
g S
che
me
Recoded Independent / Predictor Variables
Low (Dummy 1) Medium (Dummy 2) High (Dummy 3)
Score range
Quantity of
responses
(%)
Score range
Quantity of
responses
(%)
Score range
Quantity of
responses
(%)
Context &
Classroom16 – 37 65 (34.4) 37.1 – 46.2 62 (32.8) 46.3 – 86 62 (32.8)
Schooling 14 – 35 64 (33.9) 35.1 – 49 61 (32.2) 49.1 – 74 64 (33.9)
Professional
Coursework15 – 24 63 (33.3) 24.1 – 31.7 63 (33.3) 31.8 – 71 63 (33.3)
Page 157
Appendix 18: Survey Respondent
Progress Data
Page 158
MULTIPLE
REGRESSION
STRATEGY:
FORCED ENTRY
Context & Classroom Schooling Professional Coursework
R
Square
ANOVA Beta
R
Square
ANOVA Beta
R
Square
ANOVA Beta
F Sig.Standardized
Coefficient† Sig. F Sig.Standardized
Coefficient† Sig. F Sig.Standardized
Coefficient† Sig.
Model
#1
Low
(Dummy 1)
.019 1.755 .176
.144 .090
.001 .084 .920
-.013 .882
.034 3.250 .041*
.183 .029*
Medium
(Dummy 2).016 .847 -.034 .686 .184 .028*
Model
#2
Low
(Dummy 1)
.019 1.755 .176
.127 .133
.001 .084 .920
.022 .797
.034 3.250 .041*
-.001 .988
High
(Dummy 3)-.016 .847 .035 .686 -.184 .028*
Model
#3
Medium
(Dummy 2)
.019 1.755 .176
-.126 .133
.001 .084 .920
-.022 .797
.034 3.250 .041*
.001 .988
High
(Dummy 3)-.142 .090 .013 .882 -.183 .029*
†Negative oeffi ie ts represe t a i rease i elief i PMP e ause the out o e varia le is tra sfor ed (refle ted s uare root)
* Significance lower than p <.05 threshold
Ap
pe
nd
ix 19
: Mu
ltiple
Re
gre
ssion
Mo
de
ls 1-3
Page 159
Recoded Independent / Predictor Variables
Low (Dummy 1) Medium (Dummy 2) High (Dummy 3)
Score range
Quantity of
responses
(%)
Score range
Quantity of
responses
(%)
Score range
Quantity of
responses
(%)
Formal SLTE
(Questions 36 +
37)
10 - 13 56 (29.6) 13.1 – 19 76 (40.2) 19 – 46 57 (30.2)
Informal CPD
(Questions 34 +
35)
4 - 7 55 (29.1) 7.1 – 13 80 (42.3) 13.1 - 47 54 (28.6)
Ap
pe
nd
ix 20
: De
sign
of In
form
al C
PD
an
d Fo
rma
l SLT
E D
um
my
Va
riab
les
Page 160
MULTIPLE REGRESSION
STRATEGY: FORCED
ENTRY
Professional Coursework (formal SLTE) Professional Coursework (informal CPD)
R
Square
ANOVA Beta
R
Square
ANOVA Beta
F Sig.Standardized
Coeffi ie t† Sig. F Sig.Standardized
Coeffi ie t† Sig.
Model #4
Low
(Dummy 1).018 1.676 .190
.117 .174
.046 4.481 .013*
.248 .004*
Medium
(Dummy 2)-.026 .760 .191 .027*
Model #5
Low
(Dummy 1).018 1.676 .190
.142 .079
.046 4.481 .013*
.073 .355
High
(Dummy 3).025 .760 -.174 .027*
Model #6
Medium
(Dummy 2).018 1.676 .190
-.152 .079
.046 4.481 .013*
-.079 .355
High
(Dummy 3)-.118 .174 -.247 .004*
†Negative oeffi ie ts represe t a i rease i elief i PMP e ause the out o e varia le is tra sfor ed (refle ted s uare root)
* Significance lower than p <.05 threshold
Ap
pe
nd
ix 21
: Mu
ltiple
Re
gre
ssion
Mo
de
ls 4-6
Page 161
Appendix 22: Multiple Regression Models 7-8
Regression Model 8
Model 7 Descriptive Statistics
Mean Std.
Deviation N
Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root) 3.8653 1.02410 189
Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92) .2857 .45295 189
Context & classroom high scores (>46.3) .3280 .47075 189
Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20) .3016 .46017 189
Schooling low scores (<35) .3386 .47450 189
Model 7 Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Entered Variables
Removed
Method
1 Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92)b . Enter
2 Context & classroom high scores (>46.3)b . Enter
3 Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20)b . Enter
4 Schooling low scores (<35)b . Enter
a. Dependent Variable: Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root)
b. All requested variables entered.
Model 7 Summarye
Mode
l R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change
1 .204a .042 .036 1.00527 .042 8.110
2 .205b .042 .032 1.00766 .001 .114
3 .205c .042 .027 1.01035 .000 .010
4 .206d .042 .022 1.01296 .000 .047
Page 162
Model 7* Summarye
Model Change Statistics
Durbin-Watson df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 1a 187 .005
2 1b 186 .736
3 1c 185 .920
4 1d 184 .828 1.925
a. Predictors: (Constant), Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92)
b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92), Context & classroom
high scores (>46.3)
c. Predictors: (Constant), Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92), Context & classroom
high scores (>46.3), Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20)
d. Predictors: (Constant), Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92), Context & classroom
high scores (>46.3), Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20), Schooling low scores (<35)
e. Dependent Variable: Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root)
Model 7: ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1
Regression 8.195 1 8.195 8.110 .005b
Residual 188.975 187 1.011
Total 197.170 188
2
Regression 8.311 2 4.155 4.092 .018c
Residual 188.860 186 1.015
Total 197.170 188
3
Regression 8.321 3 2.774 2.717 .046d
Residual 188.850 185 1.021
Total 197.170 188
4
Regression 8.369 4 2.092 2.039 .091e
Residual 188.801 184 1.026
Total 197.170 188
a. Dependent Variable: Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root)
b. Predictors: (Constant), Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92)
c. Predictors: (Constant), Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92), Context & classroom
high scores (>46.3)
d. Predictors: (Constant), Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92), Context & classroom
high scores (>46.3), Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20)
e. Predictors: (Constant), Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92), Context & classroom
high scores (>46.3), Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20), Schooling low scores (<35)
Page 163
Model 7: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients
t
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.997 .087 46.198
Professional coursework informal
CPD high scores (>12.92)
-.461 .162 -.204 -2.848
2 (Constant) 4.010 .095 42.034
Professional coursework informal
CPD high scores (>12.92)
-.445 .169 -.197 -2.631
Context & classroom high scores
(>46.3)
-.055 .163 -.025 -.337
3 (Constant) 4.014 .102 39.206
Professional coursework informal
CPD high scores (>12.92)
-.444 .170 -.196 -2.612
Context & classroom high scores
(>46.3)
-.052 .166 -.024 -.313
Professional coursework formal SLTE
high scores (>20)
-.016 .164 -.007 -.100
4 (Constant) 4.029 .124 32.496
Professional coursework informal
CPD high scores (>12.92)
-.446 .171 -.197 -2.612
Context & classroom high scores
(>46.3)
-.052 .166 -.024 -.314
Professional coursework formal SLTE
high scores (>20)
-.025 .169 -.011 -.149
Schooling low scores (<35) -.035 .161 -.016 -.218
Model 7: Coefficientsa
Model Sig. Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) .000
Professional coursework informal CPD
high scores (>12.92)
.005 1.000 1.000
2 (Constant) .000
Professional coursework informal CPD
high scores (>12.92)
.009 .921 1.086
Context & classroom high scores
(>46.3)
.736 .921 1.086
3 (Constant) .000
Page 164
Professional coursework informal CPD
high scores (>12.92)
.010 .917 1.091
Context & classroom high scores
(>46.3)
.755 .891 1.122
Professional coursework formal SLTE
high scores (>20)
.920 .954 1.048
4 (Constant) .000
Professional coursework informal CPD
high scores (>12.92)
.010 .914 1.094
Context & classroom high scores
(>46.3)
.754 .891 1.122
Professional coursework formal SLTE
high scores (>20)
.882 .900 1.111
Schooling low scores (<35) .828 .934 1.070
a. Dependent Variable: Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root)
Model 7: Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 3.4712 4.0292 3.8653 .21099 189
Residual -3.00401 2.63906 .00000 1.00213 189
Std. Predicted Value -1.868 .777 .000 1.000 189
Std. Residual -2.966 2.605 .000 .989 189
a. Dependent Variable: Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root)
Page 165
P-P plot of residuals for Regression Model 7
Regression Model 8
Model 8 Descriptive Statistics Mean Std.
Deviation
N
Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root) 3.8653 1.02410 189
Schooling low scores (<35) .3386 .47450 189
Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20) .3016 .46017 189
Context & classroom high scores (>46.3) .3280 .47075 189
Professional coursework informal CPD high scores
(>12.92)
.2857 .45295 189
Page 166
Model 8: Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Entered Variables
Removed Method
1 Schooling low scores (<35)b . Enter
2 Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20)b . Enter
3 Context & classroom high scores (>46.3)b . Enter
4 Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92)b . Enter
a. Dependent Variable: Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root)
b. All requested variables entered.
Model 8 Summarye
Mode
l R R Square
Adjusted R
Square
Std. Error of
the Estimate
Change Statistics
R Square
Change F Change
1 .004a .000 -.005 1.02682 .000 .004
2 .036b .001 -.009 1.02892 .001 .240
3 .083c .007 -.009 1.02878 .006 1.048
4 .206d .042 .022 1.01296 .036 6.825
Model 8 Summarye
Model Change Statistics
Durbin-Watson df1 df2 Sig. F Change
1 1a 187 .953
2 1b 186 .625
3 1c 185 .307
4 1d 184 .010 1.925
a. Predictors: (Constant), Schooling low scores (<35)
b. Predictors: (Constant), Schooling low scores (<35), Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores
(>20)
c. Predictors: (Constant), Schooling low scores (<35), Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores
(>20), Context & classroom high scores (>46.3)
d. Predictors: (Constant), Schooling low scores (<35), Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores
(>20), Context & classroom high scores (>46.3), Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92)
e. Dependent Variable: Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root)
Page 167
Model 8: ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean
Square F Sig.
1
Regression .004 1 .004 .004 .953b
Residual 197.167 187 1.054
Total 197.170 188
2
Regression .258 2 .129 .122 .885c
Residual 196.912 186 1.059
Total 197.170 188
3
Regression 1.367 3 .456 .430 .731d
Residual 195.804 185 1.058
Total 197.170 188
4
Regression 8.369 4 2.092 2.039 .091e
Residual 188.801 184 1.026
Total 197.170 188
a. Dependent Variable: Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root)
b. Predictors: (Constant), Schooling low scores (<35)
c. Predictors: (Constant), Schooling low scores (<35), Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20)
d. Predictors: (Constant), Schooling low scores (<35), Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20),
Context & classroom high scores (>46.3)
e. Predictors: (Constant), Schooling low scores (<35), Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20),
Context & classroom high scores (>46.3), Professional coursework informal CPD high scores (>12.92)
Model 8: Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized
Coefficients
Standardized
Coefficients t
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.862 .092 42.052
Schooling low scores (<35) .009 .158 .004 .059
2 (Constant) 3.894 .112 34.615
Schooling low scores (<35) -.011 .163 -.005 -.066
Professional coursework formal SLTE
high scores (>20) -.083 .168 -.037 -.490
3 (Constant) 3.940 .121 32.557
Schooling low scores (<35) -.014 .163 -.007 -.087
Professional coursework formal SLTE
high scores (>20) -.049 .172 -.022 -.284
Context & classroom high scores (>46.3) -.167 .163 -.077 -1.023
4 (Constant) 4.029 .124 32.496
Schooling low scores (<35) -.035 .161 -.016 -.218
Page 168
Professional coursework formal SLTE
high scores (>20) -.025 .169 -.011 -.149
Context & classroom high scores (>46.3) -.052 .166 -.024 -.314
Professional coursework informal CPD
high scores (>12.92) -.446 .171 -.197 -2.612
Model 8: Coefficientsa
Model Sig. Collinearity Statistics
Tolerance VIF
1 (Constant) .000
Schooling low scores (<35) .953 1.000 1.000
2 (Constant) .000
Schooling low scores (<35) .948 .937 1.067
Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20) .625 .937 1.067
3 (Constant) .000
Schooling low scores (<35) .930 .937 1.068
Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20) .777 .902 1.108
Context & classroom high scores (>46.3) .307 .958 1.044
4 (Constant) .000
Schooling low scores (<35) .828 .934 1.070
Professional coursework formal SLTE high scores (>20) .882 .900 1.111
Context & classroom high scores (>46.3) .754 .891 1.122
Professional coursework informal CPD high scores
(>12.92)
.010 .914 1.094
a. Dependent Variable: Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root)
Model 8: Residuals Statisticsa
Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation N
Predicted Value 3.4712 4.0292 3.8653 .21099 189
Residual -3.00401 2.63906 .00000 1.00213 189
Std. Predicted Value -1.868 .777 .000 1.000 189
Std. Residual -2.966 2.605 .000 .989 189
a. Dependent Variable: Transformed aggregate of PMP (reflected square root)
Page 169
P-P plot of residuals for Regression Model 8
Page 170
KENDALL’S TAU-B
PMP KPMP†Context &
ClassroomSchooling
Professional
Coursework
(formal SLTE)
Professional
Coursework
(informal CPD)
PMP
Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .525** .071 -.005 .033 .168**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .156 .926 .530 .001
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
KPMP
Correlation Coefficient .525** 1.000 .000 -.020 -.035 .005
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .993 .687 .513 .931
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
Context & Classroom
Correlation Coefficient .071 .000 1.000 .109* .176** .313**
Sig. (2-tailed) .156 .993 . .028 .001 .000
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
Schooling
Correlation Coefficient -.005 -.020 .109* 1.000 .144** .136**
Sig. (2-tailed) .926 .687 .028 . .006 .008
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
Professional
Coursework (formal
SLTE)
Correlation Coefficient .033 -.035 .176** .144** 1.000 .175**
Sig. (2-tailed) .530 .513 .001 .006 . .001
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
Professional
Coursework (informal
CPD)
Correlation Coefficient .168** .005 .313** .136** .175** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .931 .000 .008 .001 .
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
†. KPMP is the ra ked su of the para eters of parti ularity, pra ti ality a d possi ility
Ap
pe
nd
ix 23
: No
np
ara
me
tric
Co
rrela
tion
Ma
trices
Page 171
SPEARMAN’S RHO
PMP KPMP† Context &
ClassroomSchooling
Professional
Coursework
(formal SLTE)
Professional
Coursework
(informal CPD)
PMP
Correlation Coefficient 1.000 .694** .104 -.011 .047 .242**
Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .154 .884 .521 .001
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
KPMP
Correlation Coefficient .694** 1.000 -.001 -.028 -.047 .001
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .992 .699 .525 .989
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
Context & Classroom
Correlation Coefficient .104 -.001 1.000 .156* .233** .440**
Sig. (2-tailed) .154 .992 . .032 .001 .000
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
Schooling
Correlation Coefficient -.011 -.028 .156* 1.000 .196** .190**
Sig. (2-tailed) .884 .699 .032 . .007 .009
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
Professional Coursework
(formal SLTE)
Correlation Coefficient .047 -.047 .233** .196** 1.000 .237**
Sig. (2-tailed) .521 .525 .001 .007 . .001
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
Professional Coursework
(informal CPD)
Correlation Coefficient .242** .001 .440** .190** .237** 1.000
Sig. (2-tailed) .001 .989 .000 .009 .001 .
N 189 189 189 189 189 189
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
†. KPMP is the ra ked su of the para eters of parti ularity, pra ti ality a d possi ility
Ap
pe
nd
ix 23
: No
np
ara
me
tric
Co
rrela
tion
Ma
trices
Page 172
