In my research, the emphases have been on the mismatch between teachers’ and students’ beliefs in the usefulness of speaking activities. The research results in the present study showed that the mismatch between CTU teachers’ and second-year English major students’ beliefs in the usefulness of classroom speaking activities was remarkable and considerable. The findings from section 2 of both teacher and student questionnaires were consistent with the related study by Peacock (1998), who found the existence of the wide gap between learner and teacher beliefs on the relative usefulness of activities for EFL. Peacock (1998) also concluded that this existent gap did have a negative effect on his participants’ linguistic progress, satisfaction with the class, and perhaps also on their confidence in their teachers.
The present study discovered an amazing difference in the beliefs of the students and the teachers. Although the activities of discussion and brainstorming were considered to be similar (Kayi, 1984), in my research the students ranked discussion the most useful while brainstorming, the fifth. Meanwhile, the teachers ranked brainstorming the most effective and discussion, the third. The reason that may underpin these differences could be the ways these activities were organized in the students’ classes – brainstorming was often used in the first stage of the lesson, whereas discussion was often a while- or post- activity. In that way, the former functioned as a means of providing or eliciting the ideas, information, or knowledge, and the latter as reinforcement.
Similarly, while interview and information gap are the activities of which the main purpose is to obtain the needed information, interview was ranked the second
and information gap, the sixth by the teachers. In contrast, they were ranked the third and fourth respectively by the students. Strikingly, the usefulness of these activities was perceived to be ‘medium high’ by the students; however, the teachers rated information gap as ‘medium’ only. Again, the possible explanation might be their different experiences in learning and teaching.
More interestingly, reporting was rated ‘high’ by the students and ‘medium high’
by the teachers in order of usefulness. However, the students ranked it the second after discussion, while the teachers thought it was the fifth on the list. Also, both groups agreed that storytelling was in the seventh ranking; nevertheless, while the students rated it medium high in order of usefulness, the teachers thought it low. It might be that reporting and storytelling provided the students with a safe and low- anxiety learning environment, as they could work together and/ or had more time to prepare for the report or the story. Such an environment could help students learn better (Ellis, 2008a). On the contrary, teachers might think that reporting and storytelling could not much create students’ willingness to communicate - i.e. ‘the intention to initiate communication, given a choice’ (Ellis, 2008a, p.697) – which is of obvious interest to communicative language teaching (CLT). It has been suggested that learners with a strong willingness to communicate may be able to benefit from CLT while those who are not so willing may learn better from more traditional instructional approaches (Ellis, 2008a) with a considerable extension of the aims of language teaching beyond attention only to the correct, accurate production of language.
The results also revealed that the students were not very much interested in role play although they could recognize the usefulness of this activity – it was rated medium high. The reason for this belief could not be found from the questionnaire;
nevertheless, the assumption was that the students might not be familiar with the activity or it could be that they found it difficult to act for someone else; i.e. to take a role in a simulated context. The teachers’ belief was, however, somewhat different. They ranked the activity the fourth and highly valued its usefulness (high degree). This was quite understandable as in CLT approach the stress is placed on active, meaningful production by the learner, and on engagement in message- focused activity which simulates the contexts and conditions of genuine communication (Johnson, 1995). Thus, role play can satisfy such goals because in this activity students take on a variety of roles, simulating a wide range of experiences. This develops awareness of appropriateness and responsibility of the students’ contribution (Johnson, 1995).
Thus, the findings of the present study indicated that the students favoured
“traditional”, and the teachers “communicative” activities. As mentioned before, it can be inferred that the students are not accustomed to communicative approach
applied in university due to their previous experiences in language learning, in most real contexts, which consists merely of learning grammar rules and vocabulary. It should also be noted that learner beliefs do not automatically change when learners are merely exposed to new methods (Ellis, 2008a). As a result, the mismatch between learners’ and teachers’ beliefs can unavoidably lead to problems in class.
The results of the research undertaken by Peacock (1998) provided further support to the present study, which illustrated that a considerable mismatch between teachers’ and students’ in the usefulness of classroom speaking activities existed and affected surely both teaching and learning process. Therefore, it is important for teachers to be aware of what beliefs their students hold in order to reduce the gap between teacher and learner beliefs. More specifically in this study, teachers should base on real situations and contexts in their speaking classes as well as identify their students’ beliefs when planning speaking lessons. In other words, it should be ensured that speaking activities in particular, and each and every classroom activity in general, should meet students’ expectations to obtain the satisfactory results for both teaching and learning process.
5. 2 Implications for learning and teaching English
In the present investigation, the discrepancies found between students’ and teachers’ beliefs implied significant implications for learning and teaching English.
Despite the “static” and “unchangeable” characteristics of beliefs, it is highly recommended that teachers promote their students to hold more “correct” or functional beliefs in their English learning so that some of the “incorrect” or
“dysfunctional” beliefs could be decreased or even finally eliminated.
Consequently, the gap between students’ and teachers’ beliefs might become narrower, a satisfying learning environment might be created, and more positive language “outcomes” might be achieved ultimately (Horwitz, 1988, p. 292).
Besides, beliefs are constructed in social and cultural contexts with one’s mental and individual characteristics (White, 1999; YANG, 1999). Also, as Ellis (2008) states, “… learners’ beliefs are both situated and dynamic. They change as a product of new situational experience…” Thus, it is essential to direct teaching towards a more communicative-oriented and learner-centered approach so that learners can become familiar with new learning environment as well as new teaching approach, so they can form more positive beliefs in language learning, thereby gaining more success in study. It is highly recommended that the emphasis on learning English should focus on the real purpose of learning a language, i.e., to use the language to communicate with people rather than only to pass exams. By this way, teachers can motivate students to take part in the activities and can also help them change their beliefs in learning. More importantly, teachers should be flexible in organizing
speaking activities to offer students more choices in what activities they do in class.
In other words, teachers should at least give some thought to the idea of giving learners what they want, rather than telling learners what they need.