The Internet TEFL Journal

March 2003, Volume 43

Teacher Beliefs on
English Language Learning
David E. Shaffer
Chosun University, Korea

INTRODUCTION
As do all teachers, teachers of English as a foreign language have individual beliefs on
teaching and learning in their instruction area. And as do teachers in all areas of
instruction, EFL teachers vary significantly in their individual beliefs concerning EFL
teaching and learning. With the day-to-day duties of preparing lessons and teaching
classes, it is easy to loose touch with exactly what our beliefs are with respect to English
language learning. Below is a collection of beliefs 1 commonly held by English teachers,
of which we will discuss the weaknesses and strong points.

COMMON ENGLISH TEACHER BELIEFS

1. Language can be thought of as a set of structures that are learned consciously.
Those holding this belief consider English to be a subject of study much like history and
mathematics where words can be memorized like historical dates and grammatical
structures can be learned by heart like mathematical formulas. Theses people are
overlooking the fact that language learning is a skill, not so very different from riding a
bicycle. You can memorize all the rules and steps in the procedure for bike riding but
still wont be able to ride a bike. Language learning is much the same. First languages
are acquired unconsciously almost in their entirety, and second languages can
effectively be acquired in much the same way as a first language. However, as the
second-language learner approaches and passes adolescence, conscious learning about
the language becomes a more helpful supplement, but cannot replace unconscious
learning.
2. Language can be described as a set of behaviors that are mastered through
extensive drill and practice exercises.
This belief is reminiscent of the Skinnerian behaviorism prevalent in North America in
the late 1950s and 1960s. It reduces language learning to a set of stimuli and responses.
A linguistic stimulus is provided to which the learner is to provide a predetermined
response in the form of pattern drills. The benefit of pattern drills is that they isolate
structures and give learners intensive practice. However, these types of drills typically
consist of single sentences, unrelated to each other, and lacking a unifying, relevant
context. Therefore, as learners perform these drills, no real communication takes place.

This isolated practice may allow students to memorize target grammar structures but
offers no relevant context and therefore has little meaning for the learner. This
realization led to large-scale abandonment of behaviorism and audio-lingual language
laboratories in language learning. Drills and practice exercises remain a useful addition
to a comprehensive language-learning program, but an efficient program should not be
centered on them.
3. Language can be thought of as meaningful communication and is learned
subconsciously.
First languages are, for the most part, acquired through meaningful communication
experiences from the baby saying to the toddler saying and both
receiving nourishment from their mother and subconsciously. Second languages can
efficiently be learned in the same way. Instead of expecting learners to acquire English
through rote memorization or by parroting pattern drills, learners should be provided
with language-learning activities in which meaningful communication can take place.
By focusing on the message, the task at hand, language learning occurs unconsciously
and the acquired material is stored in the language center of the brain, instead of
elsewhere, which is what happens in the case of rote memorization and drilling. Pattern
drills and memorization have a place within the language-learning process, but they
should be used sparingly for things like focusing on form, while centering the languagelearning program around meaningful communication.
4. Language learning is controlled by the language learner.
No matter how much we as language teachers would like to think differently, the truth is
that we are not very much in control of what is actually being learned by our students.
We may be somewhat in control of what is made available for the learner to learn, but
with the increase in sources of English input other than the classroom television,
movies, the Internet this is becoming less and less possible. Testimony to this is
elementary school-aged learners talking about the piledrivers, body slams, and
powerbombs of professional wrestling.
At most, language learners learn what they want to learn and do that only if they
want to learn. As language teachers, we can only facilitate the language-learning process
by providing the language learner with appropriate materials in an appropriate way at
the appropriate time, and at the same time, keep the learner motivated.
5. Language learning occurs best in the academic environment of the classroom.
From personal experience with learning our mother tongue, we all know that the above
statement is not true for first-language learning. Most of our mother-tongue learning
took place before we were old enough to attend school, and what language instruction
did occur in the classroom often did so with reluctance on the part of the learner and
with very little of the content of instruction retained. Language learning occurs best
when meaningful communication takes place, and the artificial environment of the
classroom is not the best place for meaningful communication, particularly in the case
of second-language acquisition. It is much more natural for meaningful communication
to take place outside the classroom in an every-day situation if you are living in an

English-speaking community. The problem with teaching EFL is that the learners do not
have the advantage of living is an environment where the target language is spoken.
Therefore, though the classroom may not be the best place for language learning to
occur, it may be the best alternative, if it provides for meaningful communication and
simulates an English-speaking community as best it can.
6. Language learning occurs best in the non-academic, social environment outside
the classroom.
Since children learn their first language with apparent ease in the non-academic, social
environment of their home and neighborhood, it is quite easy to jump to the conclusion
that the same holds true for second-language learners. But second-language learners are
different from first-language learners. L2 learners already have one fully operational
language, their L1, to fall back on. They are also older and mentally developed in ways
that favor somewhat different language-learning methods.
More than a few language learners have returned from six-to-twelve month stays in
North America, Australia, or other English-speaking areas to tell of their failures in
learning English. They had decided to spend their time abroad at entertainment spots
such as amusement parks and nightclubs to learn English by osmosis. What they had
failed to realize is that they had to also give attention to their language-learning process.
Language learning does not readily occur without noticing noticing what others say
to describe different things and different situations and noticing what you say that others
didnt understand or corrected in some way. Without noticing ones mistakes,
fossilization can easily occur. Because many learners have difficulty noticing in an
uncontrolled language environment, classroom instruction provides for them the
noticing that they need both in the form of additional words and structures and in the
form of correction of errors in using them.
7. It is best to correct language learners oral errors as soon as they occur.
The problem of error correction is multifaceted. The teacher must decide how to correct
errors, when to correct them, and which errors to correct almost on a one-by-one basis.
Students often say that they want the teacher to correct every mistake that they make,
but in many cases, because of the sheer volume of errors made, correction of every
mistake would make communication on the topic at hand virtually impossible. Timing
of error correction is also important. For some types of errors, immediacy of correction
highlights the relevance and significance of the error. For other, more complex types of
errors, correction at a later time and with a more detailed explanation may be more
effective. The method of correction to be used by the teacher must also be determined.
In some cases, explicit correction may be effective but in others it may create an
unacceptable degree of embarrassment or other negative emotion. Therefore, it is not
always best to correct learners errors as soon as they occur.
8. It is good to incorporate language learners oral errors into a separate lesson.
The most obvious advantage of correcting errors at a later date is that it does not
interrupt communication. In addition, by not calling attention to a students mistakes as
they are being made, the student is not subjected to embarrassment that has the potential

of curtailing their oral production. However, by postponing correction to the end of

class or incorporating errors into a future lesson, it is quite likely that the students
responsible for making errors will not recognize that the errors that the teacher is
discussing are their own and, therefore, will see little relevance in the error correction
activity. This is especially true of errors in singular and plural noun usage, subject-verb
agreement, prepositions, and article use. A separate lesson incorporating noticing of
errors would be more useful for more complex structural errors, such as defining and
non-defining relative clauses.
9. It is good to provide language learners with ample practice in using
constructions that they make many errors in using.
Practice makes perfect, so the saying goes. And if anything is necessary in learning a
second language, it is practice. How effective that practice is, though, depends on both
the type of practice employed and what is being practiced. As mentioned earlier,
practice that includes meaningful communication will be more effective than practice
that excludes it. In addition, learners will benefit more from practicing some patterns
than they will others. Since some language structures are generally learned later in the
language-learning process than others. Structures being practiced should be those in the
language-learning sequence to which the learners have progressed. Having learners at
an early stage of language development practice structures acquired at a much later
stage of development will result in very little learning of those structures.
10. It is best to ignore language-learner errors if successful communication is
taking place.
As mentioned above, it is better to ignore learners errors if they involve structures
learned later in the language-learning process and if successful communication is
occurring. However, continued ignoring of errors made in forms or structures generally
acquired at an earlier stage in development than that which the learner is at (e.g., *goed
as the past tense of go instead of went) may result in fossilization of that error. If the
learner is making the same type of error over and over but still communicating
effectively, the error can be corrected by the teacher a few times to bring it to the
learners attention and ignored at other times so that correction does not excessively
interfere with communication. To eliminate much of the interference of explicit error
correction yet not ignore a learners error the teacher can bring it to the learners
attention through recasting and other types of modeling (e.g., S: John *goed to school
today. T: Did John go to school today? He goes to school everyday, doesnt he? I saw
him leave the house this morning, so I know he went to school today.).

IN CONCLUSION
To review the misconceptions discussed above, the first is holding the belief that
English can best be taught by rote memorization of words and phrases or by pattern
drills. Meaningful communication must be the main ingredient for the acquisition of
language. The second and third are that the teacher is in control of what is learned and
that the best place to learn is in the classroom. Actually, the student is in control of their

learning and that learning can best be done in the English-speaking environment outside
the classroom with supplementary support coming from within the classroom. And the
fourth concerns error correction: either correcting too often, not often enough, at the
wrong time. A balance must be struck between what is corrected, when it is corrected,
and how it is corrected. This is not an easy task for the teacher. It may even rival in
difficulty that which the student has in learning the language.
1

Statements of teacher beliefs adapted from: Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers
beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Reading
Behaviour, 24(1), 83-108.