When learning a foreign language, we hold a multitude of beliefs related to our approach. Not always consciously present, these beliefs concern our self-image as learners, the target language being studied, or the teaching method we follow. Despite their diversity, some beliefs are shared among individuals due to their cultural background, personality, or similar past experiences.
In this article, set against the backdrop of the trials and tribulations of an FLE teacher grappling with his students’ beliefs, we take a look at how they work and their impact both inside and outside the classroom.
Teaching tradition and belief formation
When it comes to finding out where our beliefs come from, the first place to look is undoubtedly our schooling. It is often from our own experiences in the classroom that a complex web of beliefs develops, establishing what is relevant to foreign language acquisition and what is not. So it might be useful to know what kind of instruction we’ve been exposed to.
Although we shouldn’t generalize, we must admit that we are heirs to an analytical tradition of foreign language teaching. Perhaps this goes back to the days when the education systems of reference taught Latin or Greek using the “grammar-translation” method. With dead languages, the communicative challenge was absent, and learners were not expected to be able to adjust to the demands of a real conversation. On the contrary, we relied solely on the written medium to set in motion lengthy analytical processes leading to comparisons and translations of texts from one linguistic code to another.
This tradition has contributed to making language an object of study rather than a tool for communication. That’s why today everyone thinks it’s normal for a language course to resemble a biology or geography course, in which knowledge is transmitted, rather than a music or sports course, in which the development of skills and automatisms is given priority.
Without going into too much detail, we could also mention the influence of the theories of linguist Noam Chomsky who, in the 50s and 60s, argued that the meaning of a statement could be deduced solely from its syntax. Yet another good reason to believe that it’s all a question of decoding formal rules.
On the other hand, supporters of a more “natural” approach are the first to believe, argue and, for some, even prove that no analysis is necessary, and that all you have to do is go and live abroad for a while.
Without pandering to one or the other, let’s turn instead to a few typical cases of potential conflicts that certain conceptions can generate in the classroom.
The learner-teacher divide
Let’s take the example of a teacher who is unable to answer a theoretical question on a tricky point of grammar. In the eyes of learners, who believe thata teacher must be an irreproachable “transmitter of knowledge”, this shortcoming is interpreted as a failure, a sign of amateurism, possibly prohibitive. And yet, who among them has ever wondered beforehand just how beneficial theoretical explanations are to the development of communication skills? Let’s hope the teacher has thought about it…
Now imagine that, for the same purpose, he consciously chooses not to provide written support for the words used in oral practice. It’s a safe bet that he’ll alienate all those in his class who define themselves as “visual”… Which of them will then be ready to listen attentively to arguments that run counter to their “learning styles” theory? theory of “learning stylesbut which no scientific study has yet been able to support?
So it seems that when information conflicts with their belief system, learners tend to question the teacher and their approach, rather than see it as an opportunity for reflection. Assuming that the teacher is a professional, it makes little sense to say “That doesn’t work for me!Obviously, this is tantamount to declaring oneself to function differently from the rest of one’s peers, without necessarily being able to provide solid justifications. While calling in a specialist is an admission that you don’t know much about it yourself, this reaction gives an impression of arrogance and contradiction.
But why should a novice find it harder to rely on the expertise of his language teacher than on the diagnosis of his mechanic when it comes to repairing his car?
The answer is far from simple, especially as there are many subtleties and ramifications.
Firstly, the disciplines are quite different: mechanics is not the acquisition of a second language, and the garage owner-customer relationship is not the teacher-learner relationship.
Secondly, it’s essential to remember that, in order to become autonomous, the learner must be able to take charge of the many aspects of his or her journey, without constantly relying on outside help.
Finally, the absence of a solid theory of language teaching and the persistence of ineffective practices can only encourage doubt.
But before we get too far off track, let’s take a look at what the experts have to say on the vast and complex subject of beliefs.
Specialist research
Cognitive psychology studies suggest that when incoming information has the potential to affect what we hold to be true, we take a moment to examine it. We check their consistency with our existing belief system and only then possibly update our inner software.
Some specialists even report that a number of the subjects in their study stated in interviews that their aim was to fight against any new data that might conflict with their existing beliefs.
In response, the authors suggest a process of deconditioning. Indeed, entrenched conceptions may prevent them from fully appreciating alternative ideas and activities presented in the language classroom, “especially when the methodology is not in line with their usual experience“.
Other researchers also point to a close link with personality. They find that the Big Five traits of the famous “The Big Five” personality test (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness) strongly determine subjects’ beliefs about others and the world.
In the same way, the beliefs we hold about ourselves as learners and speakers of a foreign language could be amalgamated with those that define us as individuals. This would explain their stability and resistance to change.
Assessment and suggestions
All the ingredients are there to ensure that the confrontation of beliefs, in the classroom or elsewhere, does not take place in a thoughtful, honest and detached way.
On the part of teachers and learners alike, we see the emergence of radical, defensive and inward-looking attitudes, reminiscent of the dogmatic postures of certain discussions within the family or between friends.
If you’re a teacher and you teach using methods that differ from the prevailing learning culture, expect resistance. The fact that your practices have a solid scientific foundation that you can explain at length doesn’t change the situation. You can’t reasonably address an individual’s belief system without involving his or her personality, experiences, perceptions and sensitivities.
A period of familiarization with new ideas is also necessary.
We could recommend, as some researchers do, having class discussions about each other’s convictions. This at least has the merit of making everyone aware of their intentions and objectives.
However, in my experience, such discussions rarely lead to anything constructive when people’s beliefs clash. It’s a pity that the exchange of ideas on this subject is often interpreted as a personal attack rather than an opportunity to question. With audiences who learn French mainly for entertainment, such an experience is sometimes enough to dull their motivation and see them give up.
To religion or politics, perhaps we should add the subject of foreign language learning to the list of discussions to avoid if you want to keep your friends or students! 😄
