likely to be beyond the scope of full-time doctoral students, since the costs that would incur while the data accumulate might be prohibitive (Cohen et al., 2011). So, in-depth investigations over shorter periods might be more practical. For example, Richard Milner spent 5 months in a school observing lessons daily as a doctoral student (Milner & Woolfolk Hoy, 2003); his study thus benefited from relatively “prolonged engagement” and “persistent observation” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), which can enhance a study’s credibility. It can be difficult, though, in some cultures for doctoral students to gain access to in-service teachers’ classrooms; Phan (2015), who seemed to fully understand the benefits of observation as part of a case study approach to investigating (L)TSE beliefs, was given permission to observe lessons by only two of the eight university teachers in her collective case study set in Vietnam and observed these two twice each. She speculated that the other teachers might have felt threatened or have had negative prior experiences of being observed (Phan, 2015).
Since observations can be vital in working “the researcher towards greater understanding of the case” (Stake, 1995, p. 60), a lack of observational data appears to limit various (L)TSE beliefs collective case studies such as Filatov and Pill (2015). Rushton (2003), for example, used interviews, group discussions, and reflective writing, but not the observations and post-observation discussions that can focus investigations on particular classroom tasks. If the focus of the investigation is on task-specific TSE beliefs, observations can provide clues as to which self-directed goals (Henson, 2001) are most important to teachers, which can help the researcher focus the study, as in Mulholland and Wallace (2001) and Wyatt (2010b, 2013a), and gain insights into how efficacious the teachers are in carrying out specific tasks (Wyatt, 2008). From observations of teachers’ “body language, gestures, eye contact, choice of words or voice” (Wyatt, 2015, p. 123), the researcher can infer teachers’ apparent levels of self-efficacy, while continually questioning the basis for such inferences reflexively, and using the semi-structured interviews conducted subsequently to probe further. Such observations can also, of course, furnish insights into related factors, including the performative aspects of the teachers’ practical knowledge (Wyatt, 2010b; Wyatt & Borg, 2011).
Collective case studies that do not gather observational data suffer also from the limitation that it is harder to take the reader into the heart of the action through providing the “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) that can make the case strong on reality (Nisbet & Watt, 1984) and support vicarious experience in the reader, optimizing the reader’s opportunities to reflect and learn (Stake, 1995). However, even when observational data are drawn upon, it does not, of course, invariably follow that “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) will be used; for example, in a collective case study of six mathematics teachers that did employ observations, Katz and Stupel (2016) presented their qualitative data in a way that did not draw the reader into the teachers’ stories. Consequently, the strengths of case study, in focusing on the particularities of experience and providing readers “with good raw material for their own generalizing” (Stake, 1995, p. 102), were not fully exploited.
The Need for More Qualitative Case Study Research Into LTSE Beliefs
As should be evident so far, interpretive qualitative case study has been underexploited in research into LTSE beliefs, particularly given the need for such research, highlighted above. Longitudinal qualitative case studies of preservice English language teachers, for example, following these teachers through their practicums and first years of teaching, much as Mulholland and Wallace (2001) did with a beginning science teacher, could provide valuable insights. Preservice English language teachers are not ignored in the LTSE beliefs literature (Wyatt, 2018a, 2018b); indeed, several studies set in Turkey have followed cohorts of preservice teachers into their beginning years. Individual case studies have not resulted from such research initiatives, however.
The individual case studies of English language teachers we do have (Wyatt, 2010b, 2013a) were both of in-service teachers adjusting to new and challenging situations, one switching from teaching Grade 9 to Grade 1, and the other moving from teaching a curriculum in which there was no group work in a school in which the students’ desks were in rows, to an entirely different situation in which group work was important. In many contexts, as curricula and teaching assignments change, in-service language teachers’ tasks can change quite dramatically; this can impact their LTSE beliefs in ways which case study research could investigate.
One point of interest in LTSE beliefs research is in how these beliefs intersect with language proficiency to shape teaching behavior (e.g., Wyatt & Dikilitaş, 2019).
However, the case studies above (Wyatt, 2010b, 2013a) shed little light on this issue, as they were of Omani English teachers largely secure in their use of the target language. In contrast, in contexts such as Korea and Vietnam (Hiver, 2013; Phan, 2015), limited language proficiency can unfortunately be a major issue for in-service teachers, eroding their self-confidence. Consequently, we need more LTSE beliefs case studies in such contexts, drawing on observational and interview data and providing “thick description” (Geertz, 1973) to bring the reader there.
Questions for the Reader
Having read this chapter, you may wish to reflect:
How has case study research advanced understanding of (L)TSE beliefs?
How can this understanding be built upon?
Suggested Reading
Robert Stake’s (1995) book on the art of case study research (bibliographic details below) remains a classic; it seems as relevant today as it did when it first appeared.
References
1 Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.3102%2F0013189X028005012
2 Atkins, J., Lamb, M., & Wedell, M. (Eds.). (2009). International collaboration for educational change: The BA project. Ministry of Education, Sultanate of Oman.
3 Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
4 Borg, S. (2001). Self-perception and practice in teaching grammar. ELT Journal, 55(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/55.1.21
5 Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. Continuum.
6 Burns, A. (1999). Collaborative action research for English language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
7 Calderhead, J. (1988). The development of knowledge structures in learning to teach. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professional learning (pp. 51–64). The Falmer Press.
8 Cameron, L. (2001). Teaching languages to young learners. Cambridge University Press.
9 Clandinin, J. D., & Connelly, M. F. (1990). Narrative and story in practice and research. In D. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies of reflective practice (pp. 258–282). Teachers College Press.
10 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (8th ed.). Routledge Falmer.
11 Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Pearson Education.
12 Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Taylor & Francis.
13 Elbaz, F. (1981). The teacher’s “practical knowledge”: A report of a case study. Curriculum Inquiry, 11(1), 43–71. https://doi.org/10.1080/03626784.1981.11075237
14 Filatov, K., & Pill, S. (2015). The relationship between university learning experiences and English teaching self-efficacy: Perspectives of five final-year