Abstract
This article
explores the relationship between pedagogical beliefs and classroom practice.
Two Colombian pre-service primary language teachers in the final stage of their
five-year training programme were the research participants. Interview and
classroom observation were the methods used, and content analysis was the analytical
approach. It is argued in this study that by comparing the stated beliefs (as
manifested in interviews) and enacted beliefs (as articulated in classroom
interaction), it is possible to gain a fine-grained understanding of the relationship
between beliefs and teaching practice. The findings suggested that while there were significant cases of
coherence between beliefs and classroom action, there was also evidence of some
incongruent relationships.
Key words: teacher
education, pedagogical beliefs, classroom interaction
1. Introduction
Although the notion of teachers’
beliefs has been explored in the literature of teacher education in the last
three decades, there is no clear explanation of what this term entails. Thompson (1992: 130) proposed
the study of teachers’ conceptions as an alternative field of research that
covers ‘a more general mental structure, encompassing beliefs, meaning,
concepts, propositions, rules, mental images, preferences, and the like’. In
spite of an increasing research interest in the last decade in the field of
teachers’ beliefs (Johnson,
1994; Cabaroglu and Roberts, 2000; Peacock, 2001; Santagata, 2005; Blay and
Ireson, 2009) a consensual definition is still elusive. Pajares
(1992: 316) noted that the term ‘belief’ is complex in nature and
meaning, and he defined it as ‘an individual’s judgement of the truth or
falsity of a proposition, a judgement that can only be inferred from a
collective understanding of what human beings say, intend, and do’.
Over the last decade, the study of teachers’ beliefs has explored
several areas: learning, learners, teaching, decision making, and subject
matter, among others. Although the term ‘beliefs’ prevails in the literature of
teacher education (Pajares, 1993; Johnson, 1994; Cabaroglu & Roberts, 2000;
Peacock, 2001; Santagata, 2005; Gonzalez, 2008), notions such as pre-service
teachers’ knowledge (Viera, 2006), pedagogic thinking (Borg, 2005), pedagogical
beliefs (Allen, 2002), or perceptions
(Fajet et al, 2005; Da Silva, 2005;
Ryan & Healy, 2009) create more than a sense of terminological confusion
since, while some terms appear to overlap, it is problematic to differentiate them
precisely. Under the label of teacher cognition these terms are now generally
defined as ‘what teachers know, believe and think’ (Borg, 2006: 2).
Knowledge and beliefs are considered
to be intertwined, even though some scholars locate the former as more factual
while the latter are regarded as ideological and attitudinal. Nevertheless, ‘In
the mind of the teacher, components of knowledge, beliefs, conceptions, and
intuitions are inextricably intertwined’ (Verloop et al., 2001: 446). This study adopts the label of teachers’
systems of knowledge and beliefs as an inclusive term that implies among
others the connection between teachers’
beliefs and their teaching practices, an area that has been relatively
under-researched (but see, for example, Da Silva, 2005; Garton, 2008; Gonzalez, 2008; Blay and Ireson, 2009; Phipps
and Borg, 2009; Li and Walsh, 2011). On the other hand, this term allows
the dimension of what student teachers know, believe and do in the classroom to
be represented. This article aims to explore pre-service primary school
language teachers’ pedagogical beliefs by investigating whether or not what
they think about teaching and learning (their stated beliefs manifested in
interviews), corresponded to what was observed while teaching young learners in
the classroom (their enacted beliefs articulated in classroom interaction).
It is generally accepted that
prospective teachers come to a teacher education programme with already
well-grounded beliefs about teaching and learning which are resistant to change
(Pajares, 1992). However, Cabaroglu and Roberts (2000: 392) tested this
assumption with twenty students at the University of Reading, UK, and the
findings revealed that ‘only one participant’s beliefs seemed to remain
unchangeable’. This study even introduced the concept of belief reversal, in which
teachers seemed to adopt a new belief that contradicted a former one.
A similar interest was expressed by
Peacock (2001), whose 3-year longitudinal study engaged 146 trainee teachers at
the City University of Hong Kong. The study aimed to investigate if mistaken
ideas about language learning that student teachers brought with them when
entering a teacher education programme would change as a result of studying
teaching methodology. The findings showed non-significant changes in their
pre-existing beliefs, but despite an apparent confirmation of beliefs as
inflexible and resistant to change, Peacock highlighted the need to work on
those mistaken conceptions. This conclusion implicitly empowers the role of
teacher educators not only to encourage change in teachers but to avoid
possible detrimental effects on learning. But if teachers’ beliefs are
inflexible, how do these beliefs correspond to classroom practices?
The relationship between what
teachers know, believe and do has scarcely been explored. Few studies could be
found which have considered this field of research, and only one has
specifically examined pre-service teachers’ beliefs (Da Silva, 2005). Four
further studies shed some light on this area even though their participants
were in-service teachers (Garton, 2008; Gonzalez, 2008; Blay and Ireson, 2009;
Phipps and Borg, 2009; Li and Walsh, 2011).
Da Silva (2005) investigated how
pre-service language teachers’ perceptions about teaching the four skills
related to their pedagogical practice. This study relates closely to the
present research as it collected data from the teaching practicum – a 144-hour
course in the last semester of the teaching preparation programme. By using a
multi-method approach, data were collected via observation reports, lesson
plans, video-recorded lessons, and recall sessions. It is important to note
here that Da Silva used the concept of perceptions rather than, for example,
beliefs or cognition, although the definition used includes a broad view of
various interchangeable terms common to recent theoretical confusion, as
mentioned previously. The findings suggested two characteristics of pre-service
teachers’ knowledge: theoretical and experiential. While the theoretical
knowledge resulted from their teaching preparation programme, the experiential
knowledge arose from direct and previous participation and observation
experienced throughout their lives as learners.
The levels of coherence found
between what teachers believe and do in the classroom vary widely. While some
research findings indicate that there is a close link, other studies imply a
rather different reality. For example, Garton (2008) indicated a consistent
degree of correspondence between beliefs and classroom practices in two Italian
teachers. Data were collected via semi-structured interviews and classroom
observations, and the study strengthens the widely accepted view that
experiential knowledge informs professional practices more than theoretical
knowledge (Johnson, 1994; Peacock, 2001; Pajares, 2002).
Gonzalez (2008) examined the
connection between teachers’ beliefs about communicative competence and
classroom practice. Two language teachers working in extension language courses
at the National University in Colombia were the research participants, and the
findings suggest that, in spite of their lack of clarity about communicative
competence, there was a coherent connection between their stated beliefs and
what they planned to achieve in the language classroom. Gonzalez’ study is
significant as it was the first to approach this research area in
Colombia.
Phipps and Borg (2009) observed and
interviewed three teachers over a period of 18 months in Turkey. The study
aimed to examine the way they taught grammar and the beliefs that underpinned
their classroom actions. The researchers highlight the fact that research in
this area has adopted various negative terms such as ‘incongruence, mismatch,
inconsistency, and discrepancy’ (ibid:
380), but they suggest instead the term ‘tensions’. This is defined as ‘divergences
among different forces or elements in the teacher’s understanding of the school
context, the subject matter, or the students’ (Freeman, 1993; cited in Phipps
and Borg, 2009: 380). The findings indicate that the teachers’ beliefs about
teaching grammar did not always correspond with their classroom practices, and
that tensions at the level of presenting, practicing, or doing oral work were
identified. Moreover, the researchers highlight the issue that core beliefs
seem more consistently to inform teachers’ classroom practices. They also felt
it important to look at teachers’ beliefs beyond merely understanding their
levels of correspondence with classroom practice. Phipps and Borg (2009: 388)
rather propose the need to ‘explore, acknowledge and understand the underlying
reasons behind such tensions’. This perspective opens new possibilities for
future research in the field of teacher cognition.
Li and Walsh (2011) explored the relationship between beliefs and
classroom interaction in a novice and an experienced secondary school teacher
in China. By using interviews and classroom observation data, the researchers
assessed whether or not the participant teachers’ stated beliefs about language
teaching and learning were in accord with what they did in the classroom. The
findings suggested that beliefs and classroom actions were not always
convergent.
What else, then, can be learnt about
pre-service teachers’ beliefs by looking at classroom practice? What classroom
interaction tells us about pre-service teachers’ beliefs? Several reasons can
be mentioned. Firstly, it is generally accepted that classroom interaction is a
key matter for second language acquisition (van Lier, 1996; Ellis, 2000; Walsh,
2006). At face value, this argument may suggest the study of interaction while
the question of how to use interaction to study beliefs remains unresolved. Nevertheless,
as has been noted in this article, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are vitally
connected to classroom interaction. Put simply, understanding teachers’ beliefs
necessarily entails looking at the interactional tasks that lies at the centre
of foreign language teaching and learning.
Secondly, if interaction
lies at the heart of classroom action,
the way a teacher keeps the flow of the conversation, creates opportunities for
language learning, provides feedback or plans the achievement of learning goals
entails making decisions which have to be based upon her/his pedagogical
beliefs. The
foreign language classroom is, without any doubt, a scene where interaction regulates most of its functions. The features that characterise its
complex structure and organisation open a door to conceptualise the correspondence
between beliefs and classroom practice, which goes perfectly in line with the
interest of this study.
Finally, the language classroom
becomes the natural professional scenario for understanding the nature of
pre-service teachers’ pedagogical beliefs. Although theories, beliefs, or
attitudes seem rooted in a person’s mind, or even biologically in nature, they
are inextricably connected to context. Consequently, the meanings of teacher
and teaching are significantly mediated in the institution or the classroom
where the teacher works on a daily basis. Put simply, a way to explain beliefs
is by describing and explaining some of the actions undertaken in the language
classroom.
In summary,
there are at least three reasons for exploring the correspondence between
pedagogical beliefs and classroom practice. First, pedagogical beliefs could be
mirrored through classroom interaction; second, as interaction rules most of
the actions taken in the language classroom, it is constructed upon beliefs;
third, the language classroom becomes the natural scenario to explain
pedagogical beliefs.
2. The Study
2.1. Context
The study was
conducted with two Colombian pre-service teachers. The group of participants
were two female final year students in the foreign language programme (FLP) at Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica
de Colombia (UPTC). The research participants were prospective primary school
foreign language teachers in their final training stage – the teaching
practicum. They were teaching in public primary schools, each with comparable
groups of students. Pseudonyms have been assigned to protect their identities:
Laura Palacios and Susan Caicedo.
Laura Palacios was 23.
She taught a mixed class of year 4 and 5 in a
public school. She had
four classes with over 130 students in total. The classroom was barely equipped,
with only a white board.
Susan Caicedo was 22. She taught a mixed class
of year 4 and 5 in a public school. She had four classes with over 140 students
in total. She had previous teaching experience with children and adolescents. She
spent a year in the USA as a Spanish language assistant.
2.2. Aim and research questions
The overall aim
of this exploratory study is:
·
To interpret the connection
between pre-service teachers’ beliefs and their teaching practices.
To recap, the
focus of this study is to look at the correspondence between pre-service
teachers’ beliefs and their classroom practices. To do this, the study addresses
the following research questions:
·
What are Colombian pre-service primary
school language teachers’ beliefs?
·
To what extent are pre-service
teachers’ beliefs manifested in their classroom interaction with young
learners?
2.3. Data collection
A qualitative case study was chosen to
investigate the connection between beliefs and classroom practice. The data
used in this study were collected over a fourth-month period in 2010, during
the final year of the participants’ five-year primary language teaching degree
in Colombia. Two methods of data collection were used: interview and classroom observation.
A
semi structured interview was scheduled two weeks before the teaching practicum
started. It lasted 45 minutes. The conversation was carried out in Spanish,
since this was believed to promote the flow of the conversation and to
represent a spontaneous tool for the expression of meaning. Interviews were
chosen as the best tool for exploring the research participants’ pedagogical
beliefs. This decision was supported by the assumption that knowledge is
socially constructed, and that it is ‘generated between humans, often through
conversation’ (Kvale, 1996: 11).
To investigate this, interviews were deemed the most suitable tool. The
dialogues were audio-recorded and later transcribed verbatim. Lesson
observation was also used as a research method. Each student teacher was
video-recorded twice: one during the third week teaching and the second during
the tenth week. Each lasted 60 minutes. These
recordings were then transcribed (see appendix A for transcription
conventions).
2.4. Data analysis
The data gathered were analysed following the
methodological procedures of content analysis. This approach has developed
fundamental theoretical foundations and applications in qualitative research (Neuendorf, 2002; Krippendorff, 2004).
The process of data analysis focused on themes that were manifested in the
data, being fundamentally concerned with what the text said and described – its
visible and obvious components (Kondracki,
et al,. 2002). The resulting
texts were read several times to gain a sense of them as a whole unit. The
transcripts were returned to the research participants for data authentication
prior to data analysis, and any changes suggested were incorporated. The
analysis followed the principle of letting the text talk and not attributing
meaning that was not reflected in the data. Interpretation was then supported
with textual evidence.
Excerpts
were coded to fit into a set of categories identified from the research
questions. Each theme was coded using NVIVO 8. By comparing the participating
teachers’ stated beliefs from the interview data, the present author assumes
that a more fine-grained understanding of the relationship between beliefs and
classroom practice can be gained. Put simply, what the student teachers
manifested as pedagogical beliefs before the teaching practicum was then
contrasted with what was observed in the video-recorded lessons. At the same
time the study might help to explore whether classroom interaction data can enhance
understanding of pedagogical beliefs.
3. Findings
The comparison between the pre-service teachers’ beliefs, as expressed
in interviews, and the description and analysis one extract each of their video-recorded
lessons are presented in this section. Although beliefs and classroom
interaction are not necessarily interconnected, the main interest in this study
lies on tracing whether or not beliefs and classroom practice coincide. To do
this, data for each teacher are presented in turn.
3.1. Teacher A, Laura Palacios
In excerpt 1 (a) below from data the interview data, Laura Palacios
commented on her beliefs about foreign language learning. She argued that learning
a language is a matter of making meaning (constructing
meaningful ideas). She went on to support her pedagogical beliefs with
reference to learners’ exposure to complex linguistic structures rather than
isolated vocabulary (that is what is normally
taught in primary school). Although it is not known how
she could assess what primary language teachers were formerly or are currently
doing, Laura did exhibit pedagogical awareness about doing more than teaching
vocabulary (I don’t like teaching vocabulary). She not only underlined
the principles of language learning but explained how these could be achieved (by taking active part in
the class). Laura’s pedagogical knowledge also
informed her understanding of the positive impact of peer work on language learning
and an emphasis on learners’ responsibility for their own learning (because that is their learning). When she
was challenged about her understanding of classroom management and organisation
(and what about if this causes noisy
disturbances?), she exhibited a well-grounded pedagogical awareness of the
need to gain control of the classroom and emphasised that learning entails
active interaction and communication (moving
around talking to each other arguing with each other). She appeared to have
a clear idea of the role of a teacher beyond assuring discipline and control of
learners’ behaviour (that kind of a mess
does not bother me). The data here show clearly that, despite her situation
as a pre-service teacher, Laura exhibited a deep understanding of the meaning
and function of foreign language teaching and learning. However, were these beliefs
reflected in her language classroom? Excerpt 1 (b) sheds some light on this.
Excerpt 1 (a):
R: Researcher
LP: Laura Palacios
167. R: What is the best way to
learn a foreign language?
168. LP: The
idea is by constructing meaningful ideas;
by (pause) using complex structures, complete sentences, because we cannot expect learning through
vocabulary and vocabulary only,
which is what is
normally taught in primary school.
I
don’t like teaching vocabulary.
169. R: And how can pupils achieve
it?
170. LP: By taking active part in the
class. By peer and team working.
I mean doing things by
themselves,
because that is their
learning.
171. R: And what about if this
causes noisy disturbances?
172. LP:
There should be an
organisation obviously.
I am not
against having control. All I am saying is
that
learning a language is a question of moving around,
talking
to each other, arguing with each other.
That
kind of a mess does not bother me=
173. R: It
does not bother you=
174. LP: =No, not at all
(Interview: 00:
12’:11”).
Laura’s classroom practice offers an
interesting opportunity to explore whether or not beliefs about promoting meaningful
communication matches with classroom interaction in practice. In excerpt 1 (b)
from data in the video-recording of lesson 1, Laura used the first 17 turns in the
vignette of the lesson observed to make sure that students understood the
meaning of ‘happy’ and ‘sad’. She used flash cards to ensure this;
despite assuming that the pupils already knew the meaning (I am sure you have all heard this word before). Laura went on to repeat
the word ‘happy’ (turns 11 and 16), asking
if they knew its meaning (turn 03). This was first confirmed by S1 (turn 04)
and then by S2 (turn 05). Laura then went through the same pedagogical move
with the word ‘sad’ (turns 07 to 10),
also reinforcing pronunciation (turns 11 & 17). She then judged that the
pedagogical goal had been accomplished ‘OK’
(turn 18) and embarked upon a new pedagogical and interactive mode. It is
apparent from the limited data presented here that, in the first part of this
vignette of her class, Laura emphasised learning vocabulary over interaction,
which appears to contradict her stated beliefs in the interview.
The second part of the vignette of
the class reveals a more interactive manoeuvre. Laura decided to take advantage
of the previous achievement to move towards a more communicative use of the
foreign language. She took an extended turn to get the message across (turns 19
to 23 and 26 & 27), before again falling into an emphasis on knowing the
language item ‘how do you say ‘I’?’
and ‘how do you say ‘I am’ (turns 28
& 29). Although the teacher created
a good opportunity for Sebastian to use the target language ‘how do you answer’ (turn 21), she then narrowed this down and
clearly signalled what he should say (how
would you say in English, ‘I am happy’).
Although two failed attempts followed to answer Laura’s enquiry using the
mother tongue ‘yo estoy feliz’ (turns
24 & 25), she became aware of Sebastian’s
inability to respond appropriately, so she turned to another student ‘are you happy Johan’ (turn 27). After a 1.7”
pause, she realised Johan was also not able to accomplish the pedagogical goal,
and decided to provide a structural key to help him complete the interactional
event. It is interesting to note that Laura aimed for knowledge about the
language ‘how do you say, ‘I’?’ and ‘how do you say ‘I am?’ as a strategy to help the student
succeed. The data give an important insight into the incongruence between
stated and enacted beliefs. Laura chose to prioritise knowledge of language –
grammar and vocabulary – over the ‘meaningful
ideas’ referred to in the interview. Excerpt 2 displays another perspective
on Laura’s pedagogical beliefs, and explores their relationship with classroom
practice.
Excerpt 1 (b):
The teacher (T)
stands at the front of the class. She is delivering a lesson of English to a
mixed fourth year group. Students (Ss) are organised in six rows. The topic of
the lesson is a review of the verb ‘to be’ – present simple. T shows flash
cards to Ss.
01. T: ↑happy (0.4) #T
shows a flash card#
02. yo
se que ↑todos has escuchado esa palabra
((I am sure you have all heard this word before))
03. ↑happy (0.4)
what’s ↑happy (0.5)
04. S1: feliz (0.6)
((happy))
05. S2: ↑feliz=
((happy))
06. S3: (xxxxxx) (0.8)
07. T: and ( . ) ↑sa::d (0.5)
#T shows a flash card#
08. Ss: and (0.2) sa::d (0.7)
09. T: ↑sa::d
10. SS: sa:::d
11. T: and ↑ha::ppy
#T
writes on the white board#
12. S3: ha::ppy=
13. S4: es como una i
((that is something like an ‘e’))
14. T: ↑sa::d (0.4)
15. Ss: sa::d=
16. T: =sa::d and ↑happy (0.3)
17. Ss: sad and happy (0.4)
18. T: listo
(2.7)
((OK))
19. si yo le pregunto algo (0.6) Sebastián
(2.1) en español ((if I
ask something, Sebastian
in Spanish))
20. yo
te pregunto Sebastián estas fe↓liz
((I ask you Sebastian, are you
happy?))
21. ↑cómo
dices una frase para contestarme eso (1.2)
((how do you answer))
22. en español (0.5) yo estoy feliz
(1.5)
((in
Spanish, I am happy))
23. ↑cómo me lo dirías en in↓gles=
((what
would
you say in English))
24. S2: =↑yo
estoy feliz (0.9)
((I am
happy))
25. S3: yo estoy [feliz
((I am happy))
26. T: [are you ha↓ppy (0.6)
27. are you happy Johan (1.7)
28. ↑cómo dices
(1.2) ↑yo:: (0.7)
((how
do you say, ‘I’?))
29. cómo
dices soy (0.2) o estoy
((how do you say, ‘I am’?))
(Video-recorded
lesson 1: 00:12’:10”)
In excerpt 2 (a)
below from data in the interview, Laura showed awareness of the kind of teacher
she would like to be. She expressed a clear rationale for the use of managerial
classroom skills as a principle of the teacher’s authority. These core principles
in Laura’s pedagogical knowledge offered a coherent explanation of how she
foresaw herself as a language teacher. Although she highlighted the importance
of combining control of the class with friendly and understanding relationships
with students (somebody who is close to
them, who understands their needs), Laura also expanded on her beliefs
about the meaning of being a teacher, and placed herself beyond the narrow function
of delivering linguistic knowledge (not only
restricting myself to teaching a grammar lesson on the whiteboard). But how
were such well-grounded pedagogical beliefs aligned with what Laura did while
teaching English to young learners? The answer to this is explored in excerpt 2
(b).
Excerpt 2 (a):
318. R: Listen, Laura. What would
you like to be,
I
mean, what is that professional image
that helps you think,
you will be a good teacher
[of languages?
319. LP: [Oh. It
is a mixture.
320. LP: It is a mixture of things. The
teacher, I would like to be,
is
a teacher who gains control of her class;
who possesses classroom management
skills;
somebody
who is a friend of her students,
but at
the same time exercises authority in the classroom;
somebody
who is close to them, who understands their needs; who listens to what they wish to learn;
what they want from the lesson.
That
is what I wish the most.
That is the kind of teacher I would
like to be,
and not only restricting myself to
teaching
a grammar lesson on the whiteboard.
I
mean a real lesson, an authentic lesson
321. R: Right
322. LP: That is what I would like to
be.
(Interview: 00:30’:58”)
Although it is clear that beliefs may
not be easy to trace, and that they are not necessarily transmitted directly
into observable classroom behaviour, excerpt (b) below provides another opportunity
to explore the relationship between believing and doing. Laura’s pedagogical
focus becomes relevant in the first turn in this extract. She asked a question
(what was the first one?) which
prioritised the learning goals of the lesson – identifying vocabulary about
animals. This pedagogical orientation seemed to dominate most of the interactional
moves of the lesson (see, for example, turns 04, 06, 07 and 11). Students
seemed to interpret this teaching purpose and responded accordingly ‘rabbit rabbit rabbit’ (turn 03).
Although one student introduced a more communicative strategy ‘ooh teacher we have three left’ (turn 02),
Laura insisted on her learning goal and used turn 04 to maintain the
pedagogical direction of the lesson (hey,
hold on). As the student insisted in his observation that ‘we have three left’ (turn 05), the
teacher paid attention to him (you have
some strips left) and then used her turn to return to the pedagogical focus
of the lesson ‘do not talk about strips
now’ (turn 07). The students seemed greatly engaged in the task and
responded according to the teacher’s enquiry (see turns 08 and 10). Although S4
made another attempt to capture the attention of the teacher through an
unfinished enquiry ‘teacher teacher’ (turn
09), Laura ignored him entirely and rather used her turn to re-gain the focus
of the lesson by asking another student ‘Julian,
say it’ (turn 11). The data here clearly show how Laura’s beliefs about gaining
control of the class and managing classroom interaction were congruent with
classroom practice.
Laura also manifested a belief in
the need to maintain friendly relationships with students. How was this belief
reflected in her classroom practice? The last part of excerpt (b) sheds some
light on this. The interactional sequence from turn 12 onwards seems to confirm
her beliefs about maintaining a relaxed and friendly atmosphere in her
relationship with pupils. The teacher shows no concern about noticeable mistakes
in pronunciation (see turns 12, 14 and 17) and, rather than correcting them,
lets them pass, despite them being noted by the pupils who reacted with hilarity
(note laughter in turn 14). It is also worth noting that S5 voluntarily nominated
himself to carry on with the task. This may suggest a sense of rapport and
confidence between the teacher and pupils. When S9 mispronounced the word ‘sheep’ (turn 18), the teacher invited
him in a gentle tone of voice to be aware of his
mistake (Alejo, really?). As other
students confirmed Alejo’s pronunciation mistake ‘no::: no::::’ (turn 20), Laura
took another turn to reformulate the question in an attempt to help the student
to overcome it (Really? Is that what you
want to say?). It may be important to
note here how the teacher used several strategies, including a change in tone of voice and two
personal invitations, to achieve language improvements. This allows the conclusion
to be drawn that congruence was shown here between Laura’s stated and enacted
beliefs. Put simply, what she stated as a core teaching belief in terms of maintaining
a close and friendly relationship with students, was certainly manifested in
what she did in the language classroom.
Excerpt 2 (b):
The teacher (T)
is delivering an English lesson to a mixed four year group. The topic of the
lesson is “animals”. Students (Ss) are organised in 5 rows. The teacher stands
at the front of class. Ss are following her actively. Pupils are fulfilling a
written matching task.
01. T: ↑cuál
fue el prime↓ro (0.2)
((what
was the first one?))
02. S1: ↑uy
profe nos [sobraron tres
((ooh teacher we have three left))
03. Ss: [rabbit [rabbit rabbit]
04. T: ↑e::y [déjame
((hey, hold on))
05. S1: ↑profe
profe nos sobraron tres (0.8)
((teacher teacher we have three left))
06. T: te
sobraron más tiriritas
((you have some strips left))
07. ahorita no nos pongamos [a hablar de
tiritas
((do not talk about strips now))
08. S3: [pig
rabbit rabbit [duck
09. S4: [profe profe ((teacher teacher))
10. S3: pig [(xxxx) (0.7)
11: T: [Ju↑lian
(0.6) dilo=
((say it))
12. S4: chɪp
(0.6)
13. S5: yo quiero pasar
((I want to do it))
14. S6: chɪp #laughs#
15. S7: cat [duck
16. Ss: [cat
duck (0.3)
17. S8: dock (0.3) chep dug (0.6) y
pig=
((and))
18. S9: chɪp (0.5)
19. T: en
↑serio Ale↓jo (0.3)
((really?))
20. Ss: no::::
[no::::
21. T: [en ↑serio
((really?
Is that what you want to say?))
(Video-recorded
lesson 2: 00:05’:36”).
The analysis of the data in the two
previous excerpts suggests two kinds of relationships between belief and action.
While excerpt 1 showed an incongruent relationship between Laura’s stated
beliefs as manifested in the interview and what was observed in classroom
interaction, excerpt 2 displayed a closer connection. This suggests both the
complex nature of teachers’ beliefs as well as a sense of how beliefs are not
always mirrored in classroom actions. Data from the second teacher, Susan Caicedo, is now examined.
3.2. Teacher B, Susan Caicedo
The interpretation of data form teacher B offers several insights scrutinizing
the connection between beliefs as statements and classroom action. In excerpt 3
(a) from the interview data, Susan Caicedo manifested certain beliefs about the
use of the foreign language in the classroom. It seems clear from the data collected
that the teacher was able to state a well-grounded understanding of second
language learning. She started by quoting a general belief about the frequent use
of the target language as a principle of language acquisition (see turns 87 to
89). Although Susan did not specifically mention the source of this belief, she
also provided further information about how the use of English in the classroom
is expected to promote, for example, vocabulary and practical language
learning. However, Susan appeared to understand what this process entails with
young learners (I
can’t put a child into a situation where English is spoken all the time). She supported her belief about the negative effects that this might
have on a learner’s motivation (he would
probably not like to talk again). Susan then positioned herself as a
language teacher and displayed a pedagogical foundation for second language
acquisition (turns 95 to 102), which includes the use of teaching strategies such
as ‘body language’ or the mother
tongue as another resource. She finally concluded that the best way is to not
use the mother tongue. But to what extent was this belief mirrored in Susan’s
classroom actions? Excerpt (b) sheds some light on this.
Excerpt 3 (a):
R: Researcher
SC: Susan Caicedo
86. R: How important is the use of
English in the classroom?
87. SC: It is believed that I should
speak in English
all
the time during the lesson
for
students to learn vocabulary,
and
expressions and stuff like that.
But
I can’t put a child into a situation where English
is
spoken all the time and if he doesn’t understand
he
would probably not like to talk again
because
I don’t know=
88. R:
=What to do then?
89. SC: Ah, OK. The idea is that kids are
able to
understand
everything I say progressively.
Something
like, for example, if I say:
take
your notebook out;
if
they don’t understand me, they don’t
understand me
so
then I use body language.
If
they were still not able to guess what it means,
I
would say to them ‘saquen el cuaderno’.
((take the notebook out))
But the best thing is
not using Spanish.
(Interview:
00:09’:47”).
Laura’s stated belief that the foreign
language should be used in the classroom became explicit in this vignette of
the lesson observed. From data in the video-recorded lesson 1 in excerpt 3 (b)
below, the teacher posted a question to the class, making a great pedagogical
effort to help students decode the meaning. It is important here to note that
she divided her question into three parts each one separated by pauses to allow time for students to get the message (so (0.5) what time (0.7) do you have
breakfast (1.7)). By the same token, body language and changes in intonation
were also used in her pedagogical strategy. After a 1.7” pause without a reply,
the teacher then extended her turn providing more information in an attempt to
get an appropriate response (turn 02). This second attempt contextualised the
learning task a bit more (for example i
have breakfast). A 0.4” pause at the end of the turn was allowed with the
intention of encouraging students to accomplish the interactional goal. As
Laura was aware of their lack of understanding, her next communicative
manoeuvre displayed a new pedagogical strategy, including re-stating her previous
utterance ‘i have breakfast’ (Turn 03),
as well allocating a 0.7” pause to encourage the students’ understanding. It is
also worth noting here that miming was used one more time as a decoding
resource. The teacher continued in turn 04 to create another opportunity for
learning, which is manifested in the pauses allocated. Laura then reformulated
the question ‘so what time do you have
breakfast’ (turn 05) followed by a 3.6” pause for a response. The teacher
did not give up, and rather extended her turn reformulating the question one
more time and allocating time for an interactional exchange ‘what time do you have breakfast’ (turn
06). As no response was prompted, Laura provided a sample of an appropriate
answer to the question ‘i have breakfast
at seven o’clock’ (turns 07 and 09), which seemed to work this time as it provoked
two interactional turns by S1 (turn 08) and S2 (turn 10). As the teacher noted
that students were not able to respond to the question in the way she expected,
Susan then nominated a student to respond (Jonathan
what time do you have breakfast). As two students failed to provide the
appropriate response, the teacher then used the mother tongue to check the reason
for their lack of understanding ‘We don’t
understand what the picture tells us. Do
we?’ (turn 14). This vignette of the lesson clearly shows a congruent
relationship between beliefs as a stated and as classroom action. Excerpt 3 (b)
confirms that the belief about using the target language in varied pedagogical
strategies should not restrict the use
of the mother tongue as a valid resource. But are beliefs and classroom
practice always in accord? Excerpt 4 explores this question.
Excerpt 3 (b):
The teacher (T)
stands at the front of the class. The topic of the lesson is “what is the
time”. She is delivering a one-hour lesson to a mixed 4th year
group. The students (Ss) are organised in six rows. T shows flash cards to Ss
and asks questions to them.
01. T: so (0.5) ↑what time (0.7) do you have breakfast (1.7) #T mimes eating#
02. for example ↑i have breakfast (0.4)
03. i have breakfast (0.7) #T mimes eating#
04. at (0.4) at (0.1) six (0.2) o’clock
(1.0)
05. so what time do you have breakfast (3.6)
06. ↑what time do you have break↓fast
(3.5)
07. ↑i have break[fast #T
points to herself#
08. S1: [twelve (0.4)
09. T: at seven [o’clock (0.3)
10. S2:
[twelve o’clock (1.5)
#T chooses one student to answer the question#
11. T: Jonathan
what time do you have break↓fast (4.6)
12. S3: three
(0.4)
13. S4: break
(0.2) ↓fast
14. T: no entendemos
el el lo que nos dice el dibuji↓to
((We
don’t understand what the picture tells us. Do we?))
(Video-recorded
lesson 1: 00:08’:15”).
Susan believed in language teaching
as an opportunity to emphasise personal values. In excerpt 4 (a) below from the
data in the interview, she stated a clear understanding concerning what she
considered a fundamental role of teaching (to
place a strong emphasis on personal values). She constructed a coherent
discursive representation of the meaning of language teaching (see turn 372),
in which she showed full awareness of promoting for example, respect for others
as a fundamental principle of education (before
learning to write anything or learning how to say something in English). By the same token, her belief about
language teaching did not exclude teaching about the language. In fact, she
included teaching skills (learning to
write anything), vocabulary (how to
say something), and grammar as salient domains in the teacher’s role.
Susan also believed that teaching
about the language could be easier once the teacher has created a learning
atmosphere based on respect for each other. Although no further insight was
gained into this concept due to the limitations of the data collected, this
issue deserves further research. The teacher then expanded on some other
factors that in her opinion constitute the foundations of teaching, for example
being ‘loved by her students’. She
then clarified the meaning of this statement. Being loved, according to her,
essentially entails contributing to students’ lives as much as being ‘academically’ good. In what ways was
this belief reflected in Susan’s classroom practice? This connection is
explored in excerpt (b).
Excerpt 4 (a):
371. R: What would you expect that your
students achieve from you
as a language teacher?
372. SC:
Uhm. I would like that my
students before
learning to write anything or
learning how to say something
in English, maybe they would rather learn hm (pause) to
value
that we have to respect a classmate, a parent, a teacher
a teacher, I mean to place a strong emphasis on
personal
values. I think that working like that,
teaching how to say something like grammar
or something like that will be much
(pause) much easier
373. R: and what would you not like
to do as teacher?
374. SC: Uhm. (pause) I don’t know. (pause)
I wouldn’t like
to
be a teacher
who is not loved by her students (pause) but neither I would
like
to be a teacher who is just pretty cool.
I mean somebody who is just a nice person
but
doesn’t contribute
to students life at all. I would like to be
a good teacher, not only academically,
but
a teacher who contributes to
students’ lives.
(Interview: 00:
33’:25”).
Excerpt 4 (b) displays another side
of Susan’s classroom practice. From data in vide-recorded lesson 2, the teacher
repeated the word ‘purple’ three
times in a clear pedagogical attempt to help students catch both meaning and
pronunciation. The rise in intonation in the last word signalled a question
that was answered by S1 (turn 02), who nominated himself (purple). This overlapped with the group’s confirmation ‘purple’ (turn 03). Despite the fact that
the students displayed sufficient knowledge in previous turns, the teacher
insisted in reformulating the same question (what colour is purple?). Two students responded straightforwardly ‘purple’ (see turns 05 and 06), which was
then confirmed by the teacher (turn 07). Students went on fulfilling the
colouring task. There were two self-allocated turns, one by S4 ‘inaudible’ (turn 08), and another by S5,
which did not provoke any interactive exchange ‘raise your hand’ (turn 09).
This was followed by a 0.3” pause. Then the
teacher happened to notice misbehaviour when a student threw a pencil at a
classmate which she caught in mid-air. Susan then accomplished a specific pedagogical
manoeuvre in order to sort out this contextual situation ‘Jorge, do not do that again. Do you understand?’ (turn 10). It is
worth noting the special emphasis within her statement through two pauses as
well as stressing the term ‘do not’.
This seemed to indicate the importance of the situation and how the teacher
took advantage of it in order to focus on personal values. Although the incident could have ended with recriminations
about Jorge’s lack of respect, Susan extended her turn by asking him in a
pleasant tone to behave more appropriately, which included standing up and
giving the pencil back to the other student ‘stand up and give it to him’ (turn, 11), as well as allocating some
time to make sure Jorge did as she demanded (note the 0.4” pause here). As Jorge attempted to avoid the teacher’s
suggestion, she then reiterated her instruction putting more emphasis on the
command ‘come here, come here, give it to
him’ (turn 13). Susan did not give up till Jorge did as required (see the long
7.0” pause allocated to this action). The teacher even ignored S6 (see turn 12)
in a clear demonstration that the teaching of values was a priority at that
moment. Then the lesson went on normally (OK
did you finish that word). This vignette of the lesson confirmed Susan’s belief
that language teaching significantly entails the strengthening of personal and
social values. She took the responsibility for raising the learner’s awareness
of appropriate social behaviour and used some valuable lesson time in order to focus
on good manners and respect. The data here clearly show a cohesive relationship
between beliefs and classroom practice. At face value, her beliefs were certainly
mirrored in what Susan did in the classroom.
Excerpt 4 (b):
The teacher (T)
is delivering a two hour lesson to a mixed 4th year group. The topic of the
lesson is ‘The alphabet’. She stands at the front of the classroom. Students
are colouring on a Sheet. They are organised in 6 rows.
01. T: ↑purple ( . ) purple purple ↑is (0.6)
02. S1: púr[pura
((purple))
03. Ss: [morado
((purple))
04. T: ↑what colour is ↑pur::ple
05. S2: púrpura
((purple))
06. S3: morado (1.0)
((purple))
07. T: mora↓do
((purple))
08. S4: (xxxxxxxxx)
09. S5: alcen la mano (0.3)
((raise your hand))
#a
student throws a pencil to a classmate.
The
teacher catches it in the air #
10. T: ↑Jorge
(0.3) no vuelvas a hacer eso (0.4) bue↓no
((Jorge, do not do that again. Do you understand?))
11. te levantas y se lo entregas (0.4)
((stand
up and give it to him))
12. S6: (xxxxxx) (0.3)
13. T: ven ven se lo
entregas (7.0)
((come
here come here, give it to him))
# a
student stands up comes to the teacher and takes the pencil back to his classmate #
14. ↑OK did you finish that ↓word
(Video-recorded
lesson 2: 00:14’:37”).
4. Discussion
This paper has considered whether or not what two pre-service teachers thought
about teaching and learning – their stated beliefs – corresponded to what they actually did while
teaching English to young learners – enacted beliefs. The gathering of data
from interviews followed by observations of classroom interaction allowed the
researcher to substantiate the claim that an important step forward in
understanding teachers’ beliefs is to establish a comparison between beliefs as
concepts and in action. The findings showed that, while there were significant
cases of connection between beliefs and classroom practice, there was also
evidence of incongruent relationships between the two.
Laura Palacios claimed that
language teaching should emphasise meaningful communication over isolated vocabulary learning (excerpt 1a),
despite the fact that observation of her language classroom manifested that the
teacher prioritised learning about the language (excerpt 1b). Although this teacher
displayed a well-grounded understanding of the relevant theories and principles
concerning language teaching and learning, her classroom practice did not
always coincide with her stated beliefs. However, this might be explained by
the fact that Laura was experiencing the transition between being student of
teaching to becoming a teacher, or by contextual factors such as still being
under teaching supervision.
The findings also
provide evidence that the use of classroom managerial skills was at the centre of Laura’s belief system. This included the notion that the use of
appropriate managerial skills was crucial for authority and control in the
classroom (excerpt 2a). Rather than being conceived as hermetic and unidirectional,
these skills were believed to be combined with a well-balanced sense of pupils’
friendship and understanding. An observation of a lesson (excerpt 2b) showed a
congruent connection between her stated beliefs and Laura’s practice in the
language classroom. This finding is in line with similar phenomena described in
the literature (see for example, Book et
al.,1983; cited in Walls et al.,
2003). It is argued that prospective teachers are at times more concerned about
pupils’ behaviour rather than their academic
achievement. This could have led Laura Palacios in this study to prioritise gaining control of the group over the
achievement of pedagogical goals.
The
findings provide evidence that Laura’s beliefs were fundamentally oriented
towards second language teaching and learning. Important insights were gained
into her understanding of second language pedagogy. This includes the fact that
learning another language entails exposing the learner to meaningful language,
as well as strengthening classroom managerial skills as a principle of teacher
authority. Although these core principles did not entirely match what the two
student teachers did in the language classroom, it is apparent from the limited
data presented here that beliefs and classroom practice may not always align. This
is in accordance with the conclusions of studies such as Garton, (2008);
Gonzalez, (2008); Blay and Ireson, (2009); Phipps and Borg, (2009); Li and
Walsh, (2011).
On the other hand,
Susan Caicedo demonstrated a well-grounded understanding of second language
teaching and learning. This included principles concerning the use of the
target language as a fundamental route for the acquisition of vocabulary and
contextual language learning (excerpt 3a). It may be worth noting that she manifested
beliefs about using a more linguistically oriented approach. An observation of
her classroom practice displayed a cohesive relationship between beliefs and
classroom dynamics (excerpt 3b). Due to the limitations of the data presented
here, no further evidence can be provided here of Susan’s understanding of the
extent to which the mother tongue could be used. At face value, however, these findings are in
accordance with those of studies such as Blay and Ireson, (2009); Phipps and
Borg, (2009); Li and Walsh, (2011).
The findings have also identified
beliefs concerning the purpose of education. Susan Caicedo stated that a
fundamental role of teaching was to place a strong emphasis on personal values
(excerpt 4a). A congruent
connection was observed between her pedagogical beliefs and the interactional
directions adopted in the language classroom (excerpt
4b). This was manifested when Susan changed
the direction of the lesson in order to tackle one pupil’s misbehaviour. She not only forced him to act more kindly with a classmate but also warned
him not to do it again. Although it could be argued that this situation is
simply unavoidable in a primary school classroom, and that any teacher might
have behaved in the same way, it is evident from the limited data collected
here that the teacher exhibited a clear understanding of her role as primary
language teacher. Evidence of similar findings has been reported elsewhere (see
for example, Reeves & Kazelskis 1985; cited in Walls at al., 2002).
It has been argued in
the literature on teacher education that foreign language teachers play
distinct teaching roles (Becher and Trowler, 2001; Walls et al., 2002; Borg,
2006). It is claimed that teachers follow methodological principles, for
example, which are different to those of teachers in other subjects. Since
language teachers’ main goal is represented in the process of learning another
language, attention is placed on developing communication skills. These entail,
for example, the use of specific interactional strategies, as well as particular
means and methods of instruction. This claim emphasizes the role of language
teachers mainly from the perspective of teaching the target language. However,
little research has been undertaken in order to interpret other important
characteristics of primary school language teachers.
Although the main
concern in this study is the relationship between stated and enacted beliefs, Susan’s
emerging capacity to understand the social purpose of language teaching seems vital.
This provides insight into the political dimension of
teaching – an area of research that has been under-explored in the context of
language teacher education. Borg (2006: 13) argued that language teaching is a
political activity, and went on to explain that it ‘has a dimension of power,
and control, inducting learners into ways of thinking and being which reflect
those of the target language’. Teaching values, as reflected in the data, might
indicate the need to overcome the paradigm which sees language teaching as
primarily concerned with developing skills. Johnston (2003: 1) asserts that,
although teaching values is not completely ignored in the literature on teacher
education, attention to it has been very restricted. He went on to argue that:
“The moral
dimension of teaching has rarely been talked about, and most of the time
teachers are not consciously aware of it; yet there is a great need to uncover
and examine the values that inform teaching, in the interests both of the
professional development of teachers and of the practice of language teaching”.
In summary, this section has
presented two general topics for discussion concerning the connection between
stated and enacted beliefs. These include beliefs about language teaching and
learning and the purpose of education. The findings of this study generally
agree with those of the majority of similar studies, and where this was not the
case plausible explanations for such differences have been given.
5. Conclusion
It is widely claimed that what teachers do in
the classroom is significantly informed by their beliefs of teaching and
learning (Pajares, 2002). While plenty of evidence suggests that teachers’
beliefs inform their classroom practice (Garton, 2008; Gonzalez, 2008; Blay and
Ireson, 2009; Phipps and Borg, 2009; Li and Walsh, 2011), the connection between
stated and enacted beliefs among pre-service teachers has been less conclusive
(but see Peacock, 2001; Da Silva, 2005). At
face value, teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are closely connected to classroom
interaction. Put simply, the understanding of teachers’ beliefs necessarily
entails looking at the interactional processes that lie at the centre of
foreign language teaching and learning. Consequently, the language classroom becomes a
scenario for understanding the nature of pre-service teachers’ pedagogical
beliefs. This study argues that teachers’ pedagogical beliefs are intimately related to classroom
interaction. The findings are
locally and contextually tuned and further generalisation should be exercised
only with great caution.
Further research into the
relationship between pre-service teachers’ beliefs and classroom practice could
be undertaken. An important step forward in this field would involve the
identification of the sources of such beliefs, while intervention could tackle
possible misunderstandings concerning language teaching and learning. The
present study has also provided important insights into pre-service teachers’
theoretical and experiential knowledge. Research in this field which acknowledges
what teachers already know is also needed in the context of teacher education.
The
research findings could be used, for example, to introduce changes into the
curriculum of language teacher education. Therefore this could integrate the knowledge
of pre-service teachers, identify the sources of such knowledge and facilitate
the de-construction of personal theories through a conscious process of
discussion, reflection and theoretical exploration. This may contribute to
transforming pre-established social and cultural images of what a teacher knows
and does.
References
Allen, L. Q.
(2002). "Teachers' Pedagogical Beliefs and the Standards for Foreign
Language Learning." Foreign Language Annals 35(5): 518-529.
Blay, J. A. and
J. Ireson (2009). "Pedagogical Beliefs, activity, choice and structure,
and adult-child interaction in nursery classrooms". Teaching and
Teacher Education(25): 1105-1116.
Borg, M. (2005).
"A Case Study of the Development in Pedagogic Thinking of a Pre-service
Teacher." TESL-EJ 9(2).
Borg, S. (2006).
"The distinctive characteristics of foreign language teachers." Language
Teaching Research 10(1): 3-31.
Cabaroglu, N.
and J. Roberts (2000). "Development in student teachers' pre-existing
beliefs during a 1-year PGCE programme." System (28): 387-402.
Da Silva, M.
(2005). "Constructing the Teaching Process from Inside Out: How
Pre-service Teachers Make Sense of their Perceptions of the Teaching of the
Four Skills." TESL-EJ 9(2): 1-19.
Ellis, R. 2000.
‘Task-based research and language pedagogy’. Language Teaching Research, 49/3: 193-220
Fajet, W., M. Bello, et al. (2005).
"Pre-service teachers' perceptions in beginning education classes." Teaching
and Teacher Education(21): 717-723.
Garton, S.
(2008). Teacher Beliefs and Interaction in the Language Classroom. Professional
Encounters in TESOL: Discourses of Teachers in Teaching. S. Garton and K.
Richards. Houndmills, Palgrave.
Gonzalez, M. E.
(2008). "English Teachers' Beliefs about Communicative Competence and
their Relationship with their Classroom Practices." Profile(10):
75-89.
Johnson, K. E.
(1994). "The emerging beliefs and instructional practices of pre-service
Englihs as a second language teachers." Teaching and Teacher Education
10(4): 439-452.
Kondracki, N.
L., N. S. Wellman, et al. (2002). "Content analysis: review of methods and
their application in nutrition education." Journal of Nutrition Education and Behaviour 34(4):
224-230.
Krippendorff, K.
(2004). Content Analysis: an introduction to its methodology. London,
Sage publications
Kvale, S.
(1996). Interviews. London, Sage.
Li, L. and S. Walsh (2011). "Seeing is
believing: looking at EFL teachers' beliefs through classroom
interaction." Classroom discourse 2(1): 39-57.
Neuendorf, K.
(2002). Content Analysis Guidebook. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications.
Pajares, F.
(1993). "Pre-service teachers' beliefs: A focus for teacher
education." Action in Teacher Education(15): 45-54.
Peacock, M.
(2001). "Pre-service ESL teachers' beliefs about second language learning:
a longitudinal study." System(29): 177-195.
Phipps, S. and
S. Borg (2009). "Exploring tensions between teachers' grammar teaching
beliefs and practices." System(37): 380-390.
Ryan, M. and A.
Healy (2009). "It's not all about
school: ways of disrupting pre-service teachers' perceptions of pedagogy and
communication." Teaching and Teacher Education(25): 424-429.
Santagata, R. (2005). "Practices and
beliefs in mistake-handling activities: A video study of Italian and US
mathematics lessons." Teaching and Teacher Education(21): 491-508.
Thompson, A. G.
(1992). Teachers' beliefs and conceptions: a synthesis of the research. handbook
of research on Mathematics teaching and learning. A. Grouws. New York,
Macmillan.
van Lier, L.
1996. Interaction in the Language Curriculum: Awareness, Autonomy and
Authenticity. New York: Longman
Verloop, N., J. van Driel, et al. (2001).
"Teacher knowledge and the knowledge based of teaching " International
Journal of Education Research(35): 441-461.
Viera, M. H.
(2006). "The Construction of Theoretical and Practical Knowledge in
Initial Teacher Education " Profile(7): 87-99.
Walsh, S. 2006.
Investigating classroom discourse. London. Routledge .
Walls, R. T., A.
H. Nardi, et al., (2002). "The characteristics
of effective and ineffective teachers." Teacher Education Quarterly(29):
39-48.
Appendix A:
Transcription conventions[1]:
T: teacher
S : student (not identified)
S1: S2: etc. identified student
[ ] overlap
between teacher and learner
or
interviewer and interviewee
= turn continues, or one turn follows another
without any pause
James, Nicholas capitals are only used for proper nouns
#
#
description of events noted by the researcher
((no,
this is not))
translation from Spanish
:: colons indicate prolongation of the immediately prior sound
(0.2) numbers in
parentheses indicate silence
by
tenths of seconds
( . ) micro
pause
↑↓ shifts
into especially high or low pitch
(xxxxx) unintelligible
speech
word underlining indicates stressed syllables
