1. Introduction
In the field of language teaching and learning we have recently undertaken the examination of philosophical assumptions for conducting research and inter-preting results in order to better understand what we claim as results, interpre-tation, theory, and truth. Although the positivist paradigm has long been the predominant philosophical underpinning of many studies in SLA, there has been an emerging interest in alternative epistemological and ontological paradigms in the last decade. This movement has particularly been influenced by the introduc-tion of qualitative research in the field of SLA (Davis, 1995 ; Lazaraton, 1995). Consequently, this has created two competing camps of research methods and research methodologies. Discussions on the contrast and comparison of these paradigms have been a focus of debates by several scholars ( Davies, 1995 ; Firth & Wagner, 1997 ; Gass, 1998 ; Lantolf, 1996 ; Lazaraton, 1995 ; Norton, 2000 ; Pennycook, 2001). In this paper, I will review the two camps’ po-sitions on the investigation of beliefs, employing a social constructivism perspec-tive. I will then explore how a particular discourse influences what we claim as research results and interpretations. Subsequently, I will also discuss how the discourse contributes to our understanding of beliefs. Finally I will argue the im-portance of conducting and critiquing research with an awareness of philosophical assumptions.
2. Social Constructivism
Researchers formulate questions and select certain methodologies through the lens of a particular paradigm. Lincoln (1994) lists several paradigms such as positivism, postpositivism, constructivism, feminism and critical theories.
S
AKUI, Keiko
Lincoln and Guba (1985) define a paradigm as follows :
Now certain sets of such basic or metaphysical beliefs are sometimes consti-tuted into a system or ideas that “either give us some judgement about the nature of reality, or a reason why we must be content with knowing some-thing less than the nature of reality, along with a method for taking hold of whatever can be known” (Reese, 1980, p. 352). We shall call such a sys-tematic set of beliefs, together with the accompanying methods, a paradigm. (p. 15)
In short, a paradigm determines how a researcher views the phenomenon and how to go about investigating it.
Out of these different paradigms, social constructivism is often used as the philosophical underpinning for conducting educational research. Edge and Richards (1998) argue social constructivism is :
resting on the belief that reality is socially constructed and that any investi-gation of it involves the elucidation of the ways in which meaning is con-structed by those involved in research. Its findings are therefore created in-teractively rather than discovered from a privileged perspective (p. 341). Edge and Richard’s definition depicts several features unique to social construc-tivism. I will examine these features by comparing them to corresponding ele-ments found in positivism, another paradigm which underlines much of the research in the field of language learning and teaching. These features include their respective positions on epistemology and ontology, the influence of social factors, and validity.
One critical difference between the two paradigms is their respective posi-tions on objectifiable truth. The positivist paradigm assumes that truth exists as a real entity somewhere in time and space. The researchers’ ultimate goal, both individually and collectively, is to gradually pursue these truths. Social construc-tivists deny the existence of objectifiable truth, that is realized as independent from the researcher. Instead, constructivists argue that research findings are so-cially constructed through various environmental factors. These factors include researchers’ perceptions, interpretations and even biases. (Schwandt, 1994 ; von Glasersfeld, 1995). Schwandt (1994) argues, “knowledge and truth are created, not discovered by mind” (p. 125).
the existence of such factors as researchers’ biases, previous experiences and perceptions, it presupposes multiple interpretations. It supports multiple mean-ings derived from different interpretations by different researchers who are mo-tivated by multiple perspectives and experiences. This view differs from the positivist paradigm, which attempts to seek and identify a singular truth.
Furthermore, social constructivists regard knowledge construction as being influenced not only by researcher biases, beliefs and perspectives, but also large-ly influenced by social factors, such as discourse, norms, and common practices in a given community (Gergen, 1999). They are also aware that the presentation of meaning plays an important role in knowledge construction. The ways and means researchers present their findings are usually expected to conform to the norms of the community of practice through socially constructed discourses. Gergen (1999) articulates this point as below :
each of these professionals employs a different vocabulary for understanding what I call my desk. Physicists speak of it in terms of atoms, biologists of cellulose, engineers of static properties, art historians in terms of Victorian style, and economists in terms of its market value. None of these vocabular-ies is simply derived from individual observation … scientific truths might be viewed as outgrowths of communities and not observing minds (p. 14). It is important to acknowledge that the discourse itself shapes what we report as truth in our findings and interpretations.
In this sense, in social constructivism, social factors are not peripheral in the study of cognition (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Instead, social features are consid-ered “intrinsic parts of the process by which persons create meaning” (Perret-Clemont, Perret & Bell, 1991, p. 44). In other words, Resnick (1991) argues that we need to address “social processes as cognition” (p. 2). Gee (1992) illus-trates the importance of social factors in the following way :
Psychological entities―memories, beliefs, values, meanings, and so forth ―are like “strikes” in baseball. It takes a specific action of the body or a machine to “throw a strike,” but a strike is not an action of the body or a ma-chine. Rather, a strike is a “thing” (a rather special sort of thing) that re-quires the integration of an action, a ball, various positions of that ball in space, a playing field, a set of rules, and various people playing certain roles (pp. xviii).
Another assumption of constructivism is to dispute the “ illusion of causal-ity” (Crites, 1986, p. 168 in Clandinin & Connelly, 2000). Positivism upholds the tenet of reductionism, which provides an optimal explanation with the minimum number of variables. Unlike researchers of positivist studies, social construc-tivists do not attempt to identify a few variables and explain causality or predict-ability among these variables. Their goal of constructivism is to examine various sources of data, synthesize them and attempt to make sense of a phenomenon through a complex web of factors.
In addition to the above perspectives, one of the most controversial issues between the two paradigms is the notion of validity. Social constructivism’s po-sition on validity differs significantly from that of the positivist paradigm. In par-ticular, the perceived lack of validity in social constructivism studies, is a repeated criticism by proponents of the positivist paradigm. This is because ac-cording to its critics , social constructivism seems to merely reveal the re-searcher’s subjective impressions and experiences. Even social constructivists caution that without standards available to pursue validity, all research claims might lead to relativism (Schwandt, 1994). Olesen (2000) claims that qualita-tive researchers, including social constructivists, also aspire to establish validity, but not under the same assumptions of positivists who claim “the search for va-lidity will involve well-established techniques.” (p. 230).
In order to avoid the rationalistic nuances attached to the concept of validity in the positivism paradigm, the term trustworthiness is used in constructivism (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Social constructivism assumes two criteria for estab-lishing trustworthiness. One is credibility, which is equivalent to internal validity in positivistic discussions and transferability, which is similar to external validity (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). Credibility refers to the believability and plausibility of a study based on its descriptive and interpretive processes (Edgar & Richards, 1998). In other words, the issue is not only the rigor of the researcher’s proce-dures and presentation of findings but also to what extent readers will be able to validate the work.
Transferability, on the other hand, refers to producing “understandings of one situation which someone with knowledge of another situation may well be able to make use of” (Edgar & Richards, 1998, p. 345). In order for a study to demonstrate transferability, the researcher typically employs “thick description”
(Geertz, 1973) so that the readers are equipped with rich contextual information in order to identify the commonalties and differences between the inquirer’s and reader’s respective situations. Based on this knowledge, readers will be able to determine which aspects of the research can be transferred to their familiar con-texts and which cannot.
Also, the notion of transferability in constructivism differs from that of generalizability in the positivist paradigm. If a research design is carefully imple-mented and all variables are controlled, the results obtained in positivist research are assumed to be generalizable to other samples in the population.
In social constructivism, researchers assume the truth is not only in the hands of the author, but readers as well. This means readers also socially con-struct meanings. A researcher in this paradigm aspires to collect authentic data, describes what he observes, and makes interpretations attempting to be as truth-ful and credible as possible. He also needs to state his own biases and limitations clearly. Readers are expected to interpret the texts, judge the credibility and trustworthiness of the claims, and then construct meanings from the texts.
3. Belief studies
Belief studies have gained interest among researchers in the field of lan-guage teaching and learning in the last two decades or so (Freeman & Richards, 1996).
Before examining belief research from a social constructivist perspective, we should note the fact that in spite of a growing interest in the investigation of beliefs, defining beliefs is not a straightforward task (Parajes, 1992). Since it is difficult to define beliefs as an independent construct, theorists and researchers often attempt to define beliefs by comparing them to another construct, knowl-edge. Many theorists assume there is an overlap between these constructs but they differ in several ways (Alexander & Dochy, 1994 ; Calderhead, 1996 ; Parajes, 1992).
Beliefs are thought to be stored as episodic memories, whereas knowledge is stored as semantic networks in our memory system (Nespor, 1987). Further-more, beliefs are idiosyncratic in nature and are held by individuals, whereas knowledge usually consists of facts that are uniformly accepted by the general public. Also beliefs are considered to contain evaluative and affective
compo-nents, which we use to filter incoming messages and information in order to make sense of phenomena and situations. In contrast, knowledge is not usually associated with affective factors and holds a more neutral position in our minds. Because of the evaluative and tenacious nature of beliefs, they are entrenched, and often resist new information that contradicts our existing belief system. In short, beliefs are considered an important part of the process which makes sense of information and world around us.
4. Studies on learner and teacher beliefs
Studies of teacher beliefs and learner beliefs have focused on different is-sues, partly because the understanding teachers’ and learners’ thought processes lead us to separate themes. However, when we examine teacher belief studies and learner belief studies, we also notice they have separate histories and have been constructed through different philosophical paradigms. Most learner belief studies are based on positivism whereas most teacher belief investigations are built upon interpretivist and constructivist theories.
This parallelism reflects the above mentioned paradigm differences. I will briefly review learner beliefs and teacher beliefs respectively first, and then dis-cuss the parallelism from a social constructivist perspective.
Many learner belief studies draw on the disciplinary discourse of social psy-chology and one of its primary research tools, the survey. One of the first and most well known studies of learner beliefs was reported by Horwitz (1988). Horwitz developed and administered the BALLI (Beliefs About Language Learning Inventory) questionnaire, identifying five major categories of learner beliefs. Subsequent studies have replicated the questionnaire with some modifi-cations. Other studies did not replicate BALLI, but followed similar steps to de-vise other questionnaires by including cultural factors (Cotterall, 1999 ; Mori, 1999 ; Sakui & Gaies, 1999 ; Yang, 1999). The importance of modifications and refinements of the research instrument as well as of the research findings imply the philosophical assumptions of positivism. Their goal then would be to con-tinue to refine the research design and the instrument, so that eventually, they will be able to capture an objectifiable, singular truth.
These studies assume that individual learners have beliefs in their minds, and exist separately from the researchers’ preconceptions and biases. In this
sense, the research was conducted from the ontological dualism perspective dis-cussed above. The research measures the individuals’ beliefs using statistical procedures to unveil general objectifiable tendencies of a given population. Of course many studies incorporate cultural and social factors as well in their re-search designs, however, they play a peripheral role.
To illustrate these assumptions, let us look at one study. Sakui and Gaies (1999) investigated Japanese university students’ beliefs by administering a questionnaire to over 1000 Japanese university students. The exploratory factor analysis yielded four factors : 1) traditional language teaching, 2) communica-tive language teaching, 3) quality and sufficiency of English education and 4) language aptitude and difficulty. We attempted to incorporate sociocultural is-sues relevant to Japanese students during the questionnaire development proc-ess. The goal of the research reporting was, however, to identify generalizable factors which transcend individual learners’ sociocultural experiences. The un-derlying philosophical assumption is that with further refinement of the survey, we could identify factors which reflect general beliefs of Japanese university stu-dents.
Studies on teacher beliefs, in contrast, are quite different in several ways. Compared to earlier studies on teachers, which predominantly investigated teacher skills, techniques and behaviors, research on teacher beliefs in recent years views teachers as “people” (Woods, 1996). Many of these recent teacher belief studies have investigated fewer subjects in order to understand their be-liefs in depth. From this viewpoint, studies are not usually conducted from a reductionist approach. Instead, researchers assume that the subjects’ beliefs are embedded in their environments and social contexts. They attempt to reveal teacher beliefs by implicating a wide range of contextual factors. Because of this, recent studies on teacher beliefs tend to focus on narrower topics and revealing their contextual situations in detail. These studies include investigations of teachers’ beliefs of written language use in beginner classrooms (Burns, 1992), of reading instruction (Graden, 1996), in novice teachers’ perceptions during the practicum (Numrich, 1996), and during communicative language teaching in South Korea (Li, 1999). Most of these studies have collected and examined qualitative research data such as interviews, diaries and observations.
participants. Researchers do not assume findings from their research sites are generalizable to other contexts easily. Instead, they assume that readers will in-terpret the results based on their sociocultural and political experiences and con-sequently take whatever “resonates” in them (Stake, 1994).
Unlike learner belief studies, teacher belief studies were not heavily influ-enced by social psychology, but were inspired by anthropology and sociology, whose philosophical assumptions are often drawn from interpretivism and constructivism (Parajes, 1992). Consequently, their styles of reporting results, interpretations and implications differ considerably from learner belief studies.
For example, Graden (1996) interviewed and observed six secondary for-eign language teachers in order to investigate their reading instruction beliefs and practices. The result shows there are some inconsistencies between their beliefs and practices. Teachers constructed their beliefs in part in response to situational constraints. The situational constraints included learners’ proficiency levels, time and lack of materials. In this type of research, cultural and social fac-tors play more central role in research reporting. Furthermore, readers are left to judge whether or which results can be transferred to their own familiar con-texts.
5. Examination of learner and teacher beliefs from a social constructivist perspective
From the social constructivism perspective, we can offer possible explana-tions for the near parallel histories of teacher and learner belief studies. These explanations are 1) the era of these studies have emerged, 2) availability of pre-vious research, and 3) availability of participants.
One influence directing research is the eras when these studies had e-merged. Learner belief studies first appeared in the late seventies when philo-sophical movements such as social constructivism, modernism and post-structuralism were not easily available in the field of language pedagogy. Some years later, teacher belief studies coincided with the introduction of new philo-sophical ideas and qualitative oriented research methodologies.
Another influence was the feasibility and influence of previous studies. Questionnaire-based studies of learner beliefs are easily replicated and lend themselves to other similar studies which constituted the body of learner beliefs
knowledge. Therefore, learner belief studies, as a collective, had contributed to a distinct knowledge construction discourse. Likewise the studies on teacher be-liefs were identified with new philosophical orientations as well as qualitative data collection methods. This has lead to the continuous production of a similar line of studies.
The third factor is the availability of research participants. It is relatively easy to collect a large amount data from a sample of learners simply because of the time required to complete a questionnaire is minimal and poses a modest amount of imposition upon the subjects. Furthermore, subjects can often be found in the researcher’s own classroom (Sakui & Gaies, 1999). In contrast, large numbers of teachers are often more difficult to obtain, not yielding the large number of subjects required for many statistical procedures. The interpretivist tradition which requires fewer participants is conveniently suited to the investi-gation of teachers and yields rich ethnographic data. Researchers can obtain these long-term participants more conveniently in higher-educational institu-tions, where they are enrolled in teacher training programs (Baily et al., 1996 ; Johnson, 1996).
For of a number of reasons, only a small number of studies are available which transcends the boundaries of philosophical orientations and research methods (Barcelos, 1995 ; Ellis, 1998).
Social constructivism accepts multiple realities and rejects the notion of an objective, singular truth. Therefore, a social constructivist does not reject either form of knowledge construction of teacher or learner beliefs, nor does he or she evaluates which perspective is closer to reality. This parallel illuminates the fact that scientific research, including social science research, cannot avoid the influ-ence of complex systems composed of various social factors (Fujimura, 1997). Indeed, social constructivism claims that it is these social factors, such as avail-ability of participants and previous research, and the particular discourse of the discipline, which heavily influence reality construction. Thus it is extremely im-portant for researchers to clarify their philosophical assumptions, research meth-odologies, and interpretive processes.
6. Conclusion
constructivism in order to critically examine teacher and learner belief research. I have claimed the research on teacher and learner beliefs has attempted to an-swer different research questions, pursued separate research agendas, employed different research methods, and adopted different reporting styles. This phe-nomenon illustrates how discourse shapes knowledge and the realities that each research camp offers as truth or truths.
I obviously have my own biases and preferences as to how I attempt to view the world. Research based on positivism has traditionally been privileged in the field of applied linguistics. However, as scholars as well as a research commu-nity, we should keep in mind the philosophical assumptions which underlie our work. Keeping this in mind, we can appreciate the many different positions re-searchers hold in our field.
I hope that the field will continue to have constructive discussions from a philosophical stance, in order to broaden our understanding. From this perspec-tive, it will be useful to have more learner belief research from interpretivist and constructivist perspectives and more teacher belief studies from positivist re-searchers to broaden our understanding of beliefs in language education.
References
Alexander, P . A ., & Dochy, F . J . R . C . (1994). Adults’ views about knowing and be-lieving. In R . Garner & P . A . Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 223244). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baily, K . M ., Bergthold, B ., Braunstein, B ., Fleischman, N . J ., Holbrook, M . P ., Tuman, J ., Waissbluth, X ., & Zambo, L . J . (1996). The language learner’s autobiog-raphy : Examining the “apprenticeship of obervation”. In D . Freeman & J . C . Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp. 1129). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barcelos, A . M . F . (1995). The culture of learning a foreign language (English) of language students. Unpublished master’s thesis. UNICAMP, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Calderhead, J . (1996). Teachers : Beliefs and knowledge. In D . C . Berliner & R .
C . Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709725). New York: McMillan.
Clandinin, D . J ., & Connelly, F . M . (2000). Narrative inquiry : Experiences and story in qualitative research. San Francisco : JosseyBass.
Cotterall, S . (1999). Key variables in language learning : What do learners believe about them? System, 27, 493513.
Crites, S . (1986). Storytime : Recollecting the past and projecting the future. In T . R . Sarbin (Ed.), The storied nature of human conduct. New York : Praeger. Davis, K . A . (1995). Qualitative theory and methods in applied linguistics research.
TESOL Quarterly, 29, 427453.
Denzin, N . K ., & Lincoln, Y . S . (1994). Introduction : Entering the field of qualitative research. In N . K . Denzin & Y . S . Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. １17). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.
Edge, J . & Richards, K . (1998). May I see your warrant, please? : Justifying outcomes in qualitative research. Applied Linguistics, 19/３, 334356.
Ellis, R . (1998). Learners’ constructions of grammar and learning. Paper presentd at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics, March, 14 17, Seattle, WA.
Firth, A ., & Wagner, J . (1997). On discourse, communication, and (some) fundamen-tal concepts in SLA research. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 9194.
Freeman, D ., & Richards, J . C . (Eds.). (1996). Teacher learning in language teach-ing. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Fujimura, J . H . (1997). The molecular biological bandwagon in cancer research : Where social worlds meet. In A . Strauss & J . Corbin (Eds.), Grounded theory in pracice (pp. 95130). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gass, S . (1998). Apples and oranges : Or, why apples are not orange and don’t need to be : A response to Firth and Wagner. The Modern Language Journal, 82/１, 8390. Gee, J . P . (1992). The social mind : Language, ideology, and social practice. New York:
Bergin and Garvey.
Geertz, C . (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York : Basic Books.
Gergen, K . J . (1995). Social construction and the educational process. In L . P . Steffe & J . Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 1740). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gergen, K . J . (1999). An invitation to social construction. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage publications.
Graden, E . C . (1996). How language teachers’ beliefs about reading instruction are mediated by their beliefs about students. Foreign Language Annals, 29/３, 387395. Guba, E ., & Lincoln, Y .S . (1994). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In N . K . Denzin & Y . S . Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 105 117). Thousand Oaks : Sage Publishers.
Horwitz, E . K . (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language students. The Modern Language Journal, 72, 283294.
Janesick . V . (2000). The choreography of qualitative research design : Minuets, im-provisations, and crystallization. In N . K . Denzin & Y . S . Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research (pp. 379399). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Johnson, K . E . (1996). The vision versus the reality. In D . Freeman & J . C .
Richards (Eds.), Teacher Learning in Language Teaching (pp. 3049). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J . P . (1996). Review article : SLA theory building : “Letting all the flowers bloom!”. Language Learning, 46/４, 713749.
Lave, J ., & Wenger, E . (1991). Situated learning : Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Lazaraton, A . (1995). Qualitative research in applied linguistics : A progress report. TESOL Quarterly, 29, 455472.
Li, D . 1998. ‘”You plan and imagine” : Teachers’ perceived difficulties in introducing the communicative approach in South Korea’. TESOL Quarterly 32/４ : 677701. Lincoln, Y . S ., & Guba, E . G . (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA : Sage
Publications.
Mori, Y . (1997). Epistemological beliefs and language learning beliefs : What do lan-guage learners believe about their learning? Department of East Asian Lanlan-guages, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Nespor, J . (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19, 317328.
Norton, B . (2000). Identity and language learning : Gender, ethnicity and educational change. London : Longman.
Numrich, C . (1996). On becoming a language teacher : Insights from diary studies. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 131153.
Parajes, M . F . (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research : Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307332.
Pennycook, A . (2001). Critical applied linguistics : a critical introduction. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
PerretClermont, A ., Perret, J ., & Bell, N . (1991). The social construction of mean-ing and cognitive activity in elementary school children. In L . B . Resnick, J . M . Levine & S . D . Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 41 62). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Reese, W . L . (1980). Dictionary of philosophy and religion. Atlantic highlands, NJ : Humanities.
Resnick, L . B . (1991). Shared cognition : Thinking as social practice. In L . B . Resnick, J . M . Levine & S . D . Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cog-nition (pp. １20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sakui, K ., & Gaies, S . J . (1999). Investigating Japanese learners’ beliefs about lan-guage learning. System, 27, 473492.
Schwandt, T . A . (1994). Constructivist, interpretivist approaches to human inquiry. In N . K . Denzin & Y . S . Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 118 137). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stake, R . E . (1994). Case studies. In N . K . Denzin & Y . S . Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236247). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publishers. von Glasersfeld, E . (1995). A constructivist approach to teaching. In L . P . Steffe &
J . Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. ３16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Woods, D . (1996). Teacher cognition in language teaching : Beliefs, decisionmaking and classroom practice. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Yang, N . (1999). The relationship between EFL learners’ beliefs and learning strategy use. System, 27, 515535. １
In the field of language teaching and learning we have recently undertaken the examination of philosophical assumptions for conducting research and inter-preting results in order to better understand what we claim as results, interpre-tation, theory, and truth. Consequently, this has created competing camps of research methods and research methodologies. In this paper, I will review the different camps’ positions on the investigation of beliefs, employing a social constructivism perspective. I will then explore how a particular discourse influ-ences what we claim as research results and interpretations. I will also discuss how the discourse contributes to our understanding of beliefs. Finally I will argue the importance of conducting and critiquing research with an awareness of philosophical assumptions.
SAKUI, Keiko
