English teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching vocabulary: The case of teaching experience

Abstract

Evidently, vocabulary learning has a vital role in learning a foreign language. Accordingly, the way teachers approach teaching vocabulary is also of tremendous importance. Moreover, the role of experience in teaching vocabulary is of significance when it comes to novice and experienced teachers. Thus, the present study set out to investigate the differences between second language (L2) vocabulary teaching beliefs and practices of novice and experienced English as a Foreign Language (EFL) teachers. Initially, 100 male and female teachers of Modiran Institute in Tehran were selected via convenience sampling. Then, they were briefed about the purposes of the study and data collection. Next, they were asked to fill out the novice and experienced teacher questionnaire and the questionnaire of teachers’ belief about L2 vocabulary learning and teaching. Then three classroom sessions of 20 of the participants were observed using 15 items of the questionnaire of teachers’ belief about L2 vocabulary learning and teaching as an observation checklist. The results of statistical analysis indicated that there was no significant difference between the beliefs and practices of teachers in terms of L2 vocabulary teaching. However, there were significant differences among the externally observed practice (EOP), self-perceived practices (SPP) and self-perceived beliefs (SPB) total scores. Moreover, on the whole, teachers’ EOP was significantly different from and lower than their SPP and SPB. The results also revealed that novice and experienced teachers differed significantly in terms of their SPB total scores and experienced teachers had a significantly higher SPB than novice teachers.

Keywords:

• teachers’ beliefs
• teachers’ cognition
• teaching practice
• vocabulary teaching

PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT

Words are highly important in general and even more important when learning another language. Obviously, teachers have different opinions about how to teach words. Thus, having knowledge about the way teachers teach the words and the way they think about vocabulary teaching and learning is important. Moreover, experienced and novice teachers have also been found to practice teaching differently. Therefore, if teacher educators know about the way teachers teach vocabulary and how they think about vocabulary teaching and learning, they can help teachers select the best approaches towards vocabulary teaching which can be to the benefit of language learners. Thus, this study investigated the differences between L2 vocabulary teaching beliefs and practices of novice and experienced EFL teachers. The results revealed that novice and experienced teachers were different in terms of the way they thought about vocabulary teaching and also the way they taught vocabulary.

1. Introduction

In today’s modern world of education, second/foreign language teacher education as an independent field of applied linguistics has gained upsurge attention because teachers are an integral part of any successful educational system. According to Evelein, Korthagen, and Brekelmans (2008, p.1137), “since the 1980s, the teacher-thinking paradigm, which emphasizes the rational system of teachers, has had a considerable influence on the research into teachers and teaching”. On the other hand, the relationship between teachers’ belief and what exactly they practice as their academic behaviors in the classroom and their decision making have been recently emphasized in the English Language Teaching (ELT) research. Hence, the present study is an attempt to address the experienced and novice English teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching vocabulary in the Iranian context. In the previous two decades, second language studies have progressively concentrated on educator perception, especially the connection between instructors’ beliefs and their educational practices (Phipps & Borg, 2009; Theriot & Tice, 2009). Nevertheless, few investigations have analyzed L2 instructors’ beliefs and practices about vocabulary teaching (Borg, 2006) in spite of the focal part that vocabulary learning plays in L2 acquisition (Schmitt, 2008) and the significance of teaching in cultivating learners’ vocabulary (Niu & Andrews, 2012).

The assumption of the educators is that teachers’ thinking guides their behaviors and their conscious decisions during their teaching (Clark, 1986, as cited in Evelein, Korthagen, & Brekelmans, 2008) based on the theories about learning and teaching they have in their minds. On the other hand, teaching is known to be a stressful profession (Borg & Riding, 1991). “In comparison with other professions, teachers show higher levels of exhaustion and cynicism, the core dimensions of burnout” (Schaufeli &Enzmann, 1998, p.23). Teachers’ beliefs about what they do is of paramount significance and could affect their classroom behaviors. Indeed, beliefs can be reformed or reoriented by being exposed to input from other professionals and different types of activity (Gross, 2008). Beliefs are halfway between information and activity; between people and their performance (Alarcón Hernandez, Ortiz Navarrete, & Díaz Larenas, 2015). They display the information that is most worth and has demonstrated itself in performance (Alarcón Hernandez et al., 2015).

Given the important role of etchers’ beliefs and the fact that vocabulary learning is significant in the process of language learning and teaching, the present study was an attempt to investigate the differences between L2 vocabulary teaching beliefs and real practices of novice and experienced EFL teachers in the Iranian context. One of the main concerns of teacher education programs is enabling the teachers to be true decision makers when needed (in the so-called immediate situations). Such ability is influenced by various factors including teachers’ beliefs (Alarcón Hernandez et al., 2015). On the other hand, the teacher-thinking paradigm and beliefs, which accentuate the rational system of decision making and teaching in the classroom, have had a considerable influence on the research into teachers’ real practices and classroom behaviors (Kumaravadivelu, 2012). Teachers’ beliefs about vocabulary teaching include memory, meaning, and function based lexical instruction (Ghaffarzadeh Hassankiadeh, Jahandar, & Khodabandehlou, 2012). Memory-based belief points to “concentrating on memorizing words, analyzing the parts of speech, focusing on affixes, listening and repeating, writing and practicing, imagining the written forms of the words and connecting the words with their synonyms and antonyms” (Ghaffarzadeh Hassankiadeh et al., 2012, p. 23). Instructors assert that utilizing keyword techniques to retain the words, focusing on the form of the words and utilizing techniques to recall the words (without much regard for meaning) is a powerful instructing technique to deal with vocabulary instruction (Bhasin & Baveja, 2010).

Borg (2006) hypothesizes that teaching experience is an important factor which might shape the beliefs of EFL teachers. Previous studies suggested that there could be positive relationships between the enrichment of teachers’ beliefs and their professional practices (Alarcón Hernandez et al., 2015; Amiryousefi, 2015; Ghaffarzadeh Hassankiadeh et al., 2012; Niu & Andrews, 2012). As the research findings might be a culture bound issue, different results might be achieved in different cultures. Based on the purposes of the study and the problems stated above the following research questions were raised:

RQ1:

To what extent are Iranian EFL teachers’ beliefs in teaching L2 vocabulary reflected in their classroom practices?

RQ2:

Are there any statistically significant differences between the novice and experienced English teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching vocabulary?

2. Method

2.1. Participants

The non-native English speaking teachers (NNESTs) taking part in the present study were 100 EFL teachers selected from among the male and female teachers of English teaching in Modiran Language Institute in Tehran. The reason behind this decision was that the researcher had already taught and supervised other teachers in some of these institutes and this familiarity facilitated the process of conducting research. The EFL teachers taking part in the present study received the Novice and Experienced Teacher Questionnaire (Rodríguez & McKay, 2010) based on which the researcher could determine if they were novice or experienced. Therefore, the participants were both experienced teachers (with more than 3 years of experience in teaching English in the institutes) and novice teachers (with 2 years of experience or less than that as well as the student teachers studying at the Bachelor of Arts (BA) level and working as teachers in the institutes). The participants were both male and female teachers and within the age range of 22 to 45 (M = 34). Out of the huge population of EFL teachers in different institutes in Tehran (N = 2700) (http://tehranedu.ir), based on Krejcie and Morgan (1970) table of sample size, 100 EFL male and female teachers working in different branches of Modiran language Institute were selected as the main participants of the study (n = 100).

2.2. Instruments

To collect the desired data, a Novice and Experienced Teacher Questionnaire, Questionnaire of Teachers’ Beliefs about L2 Vocabulary Learning and Teaching and an In-depth Classroom Observation were used as the instruments of the study. The description of the instruments used in the study is as follows:

2.2.1. Novice and experienced teacher questionnaire

This questionnaire has been developed and validated by Rodríguez and McKay (2010) (See Appendix A). Novice and Experienced Teacher Questionnaire can relatively specify the teachers’ level of experience. It consists of three scales with a total of 12 items. The Cronbach’s Alpha reliability index reported for this questionnaire is (α = .72), which is a good reliability (Rodríguez & McKay, 2010). The minimum score is 12 and the maximum score is 60. The cut score specified is 30 to 36. It means that the teachers with scores below 30 are labeled as novice and the ones with scores above 36 are considered as experienced ones. The teachers with scores between 30 and 36 are left out to confirm the clear cut scoring system.

2.2.2. Questionnaire of teachers’ belief about L2 vocabulary learning and teaching

This questionnaire had already been developed and used for surveying integration of grammar in the L2 classroom by Borg and Burns (2008). To be used as a means of data collection, the questionnaire was adopted and adapted to the L2 vocabulary learning and teaching and the questionnaire for the current study was developed (See Appendix B). Then, the questionnaire was piloted through being administered to a group of 30 EFL teachers and its reliability was checked again. The Cronbach’s Alpha index for the questionnaire calculated in this study was .82.

The content validity of the questionnaire was put to the scrutiny of two experts who were TEFL PhD holders of Islamic Azad University in the Science and Research branch of the university. The questionnaire included 30 items in total. The initial 15 items on the questionnaire measured the self-perceived beliefs of the participants concerning vocabulary teaching while the second 15 items examined teachers’ beliefs on their self-perceived practices regarding vocabulary teaching.

2.2.3. In-depth classroom observation

To examine the real practices of the participants in classroom settings, items 16 to 30 of the Questionnaire of Teachers’ Belief about L2 Vocabulary Learning and Teaching were used. The researcher observed 20 of the participants while they were teaching and recorded their performance in relations to vocabulary teaching on the 15 items checklist. Class observation helped the researcher to elicit the required data concerning the correspondence of beliefs about vocabulary teaching generally as well as specific beliefs and reported practices about the integration of vocabulary skills teaching. Teachers might have expressed strong beliefs in the need to avoid teaching vocabulary in isolation and may have reported high levels of integration of vocabulary in their practices. This in-depth classroom observation revealed how well they had put into practice their own beliefs. To be in line with the ethic codes in research, teachers already were informed two days prior to being observed that they would be observed. Also, the teachers were informed that the results of the observation were used only for research purposes and the data would be kept confidential with the researcher and would not be a part of the formal observations done by the institutes managers. Hence, they did their real job in the classroom without any anxiety or stress about being observed.

2.3. Procedure

At first 100 male and female teachers of English teaching English in different branches of Modiran Institute in Tehran were selected based on their teaching experience and considering convenience sampling. Then they were briefed about the purposes of the study and data collection and the specifications of the questionnaires. In the next step, they were asked to fill out the questionnaires of teachers’ belief about L2 vocabulary learning and teaching. Then, three classroom sessions of the 20 of the participants filling out the questionnaires were observed, and analyzed. The data were analyzed via Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software; version 24, and then reported and checked against the research questions of the study.

3. Results

3.1. Answering the first research question

The first research question of the study was:

Question 1. To what extent are Iranian EFL teachers’ beliefs in teaching L2 vocabulary reflected in their classroom practices?

Answering this question required two comparisons as follows:

• Comparison of self-perceived practices (SPP) and self-perceived beliefs (SPB) means of 100 teachers in terms of total scores and item scores

• Comparison of externally observed practice (EOP), SPP and SPB means of 20 teachers in terms of total scores and item scores

3.1.1. Comparison of SPP and SPB total scores

In order to compare SPP and SPB total scores, first the descriptive statistics were computed (Table 1). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors) were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data met this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96), hence running t test as a parametric test requiring normally distributed data to compare the SPP and SPB mean scores.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics

						Skewness		Kurtosis
	N	Min	Max	Mean	SD		Std. Error		Std. Error
SPP	100	37.00	73.00	53.640	6.87481	.038	.241	.387	.478
SPB	100	38.00	73.00	54.180	6.62316	−.005	.241	.090	.478
Valid N (listwise)	20

Table 2 presents the paired samples t test results showing that there is no significant difference between the SPP and SPB mean total scores of the teachers (p > .05). This result shows that on the whole there is no difference between the beliefs and practices of teachers in terms of L2 vocabulary teaching as perceived by the teachers themselves.

Table 2. Paired samples test

		Paired Differences
					95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
		Mean	SD	Std. Error Mean	Lower	Upper	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)
Pair 1	SPP—SPB	−.540	5.69675	.56967	−1.67036	.59036	−.948	99	.345

3.1.2. Comparison of EOP, SPP and SPB total scores

In order to compare EOP, SPP and SPB total scores, first the descriptive statistics were computed (Table 3). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors) were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data met this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96), hence running repeated measures analysis of variance (RM ANOVA) as a parametric test requiring normally distributed data to compare the EOP, SPP and SPB mean scores.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics

						Skewness		Kurtosis
	N	Min	Max	Mean	SD	Statistic	Std. Error		Std. Error
EOP	20	38.00	57.00	48.10	5.04610	−.458	.512	−.516	.992
SPP	20	51.00	70.00	57.40	5.07211	.859	.512	.362	.992
SPB	20	43.00	67.00	56.55	6.07389	−.355	.512	−.028	.992
Valid N (listwise)	20

Another assumption of RM ANOVA is sphericity measured by Mauchly’s test whose results in Table 4 show that it is not met (p < .05); therefore, Greenhouse-Geisser results were checked in Table 5 of RM ANOVA results, which does not assume sphericity.

Table 4. Mauchly’s test of sphericity^a

Measure: MEASURE_1
					Epsilonb
Within Subjects Effect	Mauchly’s W	Approx. Chi-Square	df	Sig.	Greenhouse-Geisser	Huynh-Feldt	Lower-bound
Test	.664	7.358	2	.025	.749	.798	.500

Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix.

a. Design: Intercept

Within Subjects Design: Test

b. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.

Table 5. Tests of within-subjects effects (RM ANOVA results)

Measure: MEASURE_1
Source		Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Partial Eta Squared
Test	Sphericity Assumed	1057.433	2	528.717	28.843	.000	.603
	Greenhouse-Geisser	1057.433	1.498	706.130	28.843	.000	.603
	Huynh-Feldt	1057.433	1.597	662.170	28.843	.000	.603
	Lower-bound	1057.433	1.000	1057.433	28.843	.000	.603
Error(Test)	Sphericity Assumed	696.567	38	18.331
	Greenhouse-Geisser	696.567	28.453	24.482
	Huynh-Feldt	696.567	30.342	22.958
	Lower-bound	696.567	19.000	36.661

Table 5 presents the RM ANOVA results showing that there is a significant difference among the EOP, SPP and SPB total scores (p < .05). In order to see where among the scores the significant difference exists, multiple post hoc pairwise comparisons were run having Bonferroni adjustment controlling for Type I Error.

The multiple post hoc pairwise comparisons result in Table 6 show that on the whole teachers’ EOP is significantly different from and lower than their SPP and SPB (p < .05).

Table 6. Pairwise comparisons

Measure: MEASURE_1
					95% Confidence Interval for Differenceb
(I) Test	(J) Test	Mean Difference (I-J)	Std. Error	Sig.b	Lower Bound	Upper Bound
1	2	−9.300*	1.398	.000	−12.969	−5.631
	3	−8.450*	1.639	.000	−12.753	−4.147
2	1	9.300*	1.398	.000	5.631	12.969
	3	.850	.927	1.000	−1.583	3.283
3	1	8.450*	1.639	.000	4.147	12.753
	2	−.850	.927	1.000	−3.283	1.583

Based on estimated marginal means

*. The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.

b. Adjustment for multiple comparisons: Bonferroni.

3.1.3. Comparison of SPP and SPB item scores

In order to compare SPP and SPB item scores, first the descriptive statistics were computed (Table 1). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors) were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data for the majority of items did not meet this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96). Moreover, since the items were scored on a Likert scale, the item data were considered as ordinal data, hence running Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test as a non-parametric test not requiring normally distributed data to compare the SPP and SPB items mean scores.

Table 7 displays the descriptive statistics for the items. Tables 8 and 9 present the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test results for each item showing that there is a significant difference between some SPP and SPB items, that is items 1, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 15.

Table 7. Descriptive statistics

						Skewness		Kurtosis
	N	Min	Max	Mean	SD		Std. Error		Std. Error
q1SPB	100	1.00	5.00	4.0200	1.04427	−1.127	.241	.785	.478
q1SPP	99	1.00	5.00	3.5152	1.34288	−.755	.243	−.650	.481
q2SPB	100	1.00	5.00	4.0100	1.10550	−1.256	.241	1.014	.478
q2SPP	100	1.00	5.00	4.1100	.88643	−1.285	.241	1.766	.478
q3SPB	99	1.00	5.00	4.2727	.86683	−1.427	.243	2.228	.481
q3SPP	99	1.00	5.00	4.0303	1.04447	−1.268	.243	1.092	.481
q4SPB	99	1.00	5.00	3.3838	1.11307	−.675	.243	−.155	.481
q4SPP	100	1.00	5.00	3.5600	1.13991	−.861	.241	−.009	.478
q5SPB	99	1.00	5.00	3.0707	1.41603	−.281	.243	−1.322	.481
q5SPP	99	1.00	5.00	3.4545	1.23943	−.698	.243	−.519	.481
q6SPB	100	1.00	5.00	2.0100	1.27521	1.084	.241	−.089	.478
q6SPP	99	1.00	5.00	2.1919	1.23451	.655	.243	−.773	.481
q7SPB	100	1.00	5.00	3.5200	1.13244	−.625	.241	−.248	.478
q7SPP	99	1.00	5.00	3.2020	1.12467	−.585	.243	−.531	.481
q8SPB	100	1.00	5.00	4.2700	.95193	−1.573	.241	2.336	.478
q8SPP	100	1.00	5.00	4.4400	.87985	−2.174	.241	5.576	.478
q9SPB	99	1.00	5.00	3.3838	1.26739	−.577	.243	−.723	.481
q9SPP	94	1.00	5.00	3.7553	1.13295	−1.179	.249	.835	.493
q10SPB	99	1.00	5.00	3.3838	1.36058	−.507	.243	−.987	.481
q10SPP	99	1.00	5.00	3.1717	1.30962	−.269	.243	−1.099	.481
q11SPB	98	1.00	5.00	4.1735	1.03571	−1.437	.244	1.607	.483
q11SPP	100	1.00	5.00	4.2900	1.02784	−1.637	.241	2.172	.478
q12SPB	100	1.00	5.00	4.5600	.70094	−2.193	.241	6.990	.478
q12SPP	100	1.00	5.00	4.3700	.77401	−1.687	.241	4.165	.478
q13SPB	100	1.00	5.00	3.6900	1.10732	−.859	.241	.189	.478
q13SPP	100	1.00	5.00	3.9300	.99752	−1.104	.241	1.008	.478
q14SPB	100	1.00	5.00	2.8300	1.26375	.052	.241	−.937	.478
q14SPP	100	1.00	5.00	2.5500	1.27426	.334	.241	−.967	.478
q15SPB	100	1.00	5.00	3.8600	1.32589	−1.064	.241	−.021	.478
q15SPP	98	1.00	5.00	3.5612	1.23578	−.712	.244	−.348	.483
Valid N (listwise)	86

Table 8. Wilcoxon signed ranks test

	q1SPP—q1SPB	q2SPP—q2SPB	q3SPP—q3SPB	q4SPP—q4SPB	q5SPP—q5SPB	q6SPP—q6SPB	q7SPP—q7SPB	q8SPP—q8SPB
Z	−3.199b	−.518c	−1.816b	−1.420c	−2.499c	−1.597c	−2.551b	−1.659c
Sig.	.001	.605	.069	.156	.012	.110	.011	.097
b. Based on positive ranks.
c. Based on negative ranks.

Table 9. Wilcoxon signed ranks test

	q9SPP—q9SPB	q10SPP—q10SPB	q11SPP—q11SPB	q12SPP—q12SPB	q13SPP—q13SPB	q14SPP—q14SPB	q15SPP—q15SPB
Z	−2.402c	−1.779b	−1.251c	−2.172b	−1.576c	−1.788b	−2.190b
Sig.	.016	.075	.211	.030	.115	.074	.029

b. Based on positive ranks.

c. Based on negative ranks.

These items along with their means are listed in Table 10. In sum, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Tests results and the observed means demonstrate that in teachers’ belief, teachers consider:

• More significance for “presenting vocabulary to learners before expecting them to use it” in comparison to their own actual practice.

• Less significance for item 5, which is “During lessons, a focus on vocabulary should come after communicative tasks, not before” than their actual practice of vocabulary teaching.

• More significance for item 7, which is “In a communicative approach to language teaching vocabulary is not taught directly.” than their actual practice of vocabulary teaching.

• Less significance for item 9, which is “In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to explain the rules.” than their actual practice of vocabulary teaching.

• More significance for item 12, which is “Vocabulary learning is more effective when learners use them repeatedly by themselves.” than their actual practice of vocabulary teaching.

• More significance for item 15, which is “It is necessary to study the vocabulary of a second or foreign language in order to speak it fluently.” than their actual practice of vocabulary teaching.

Table 10. SPP and SPB item differences

Item No.	Item Content	SPB/SPP	Mean
1	Teachers should present vocabulary to learners before expecting them to use it.	q1SPB	4.0200
		q1SPP	3.5152
5	During lessons, a focus on vocabulary should come after communicative tasks, not before.	q5SPB	3.0707
		q5SPP	3.4545
7	In a communicative approach to language teaching vocabulary is not taught directly.	q7SPB	3.5200
		q7SPP	3.2020
9	In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to explain the rules.	q9SPB	3.3838
		q9SPP	3.7553
12	Vocabulary learning is more effective when learners use them repeatedly by themselves.	q12SPB	4.5600
		q12SPP	4.3700
15	It is necessary to study the vocabulary of a second or foreign language in order to speak it fluently.	q15SPB	3.8600
		q15SPP	3.5612

3.1.4. Comparison of EOP, SPP and SPB item scores

In order to compare EOP, SPP and SPB item scores, first the descriptive statistics were computed (Table 11). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors) were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data for the majority of items did not meet this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96). Moreover, since the items were scored on a Likert scale, the item data were considered as ordinal data, hence running Friedman Test as a non-parametric test not requiring normally distributed data to compare the EOP, SPP and SPB items mean scores.

Table 11. Descriptive statistics

	N	Min	Max	Mean	SD	Skewness		Kurtosis
	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Std. Error	Statistic	Std. Error
q1SPB	20	1.00	5.00	3.9500	.99868	−1.653	.512	3.511	.992
q1SPP	20	1.00	5.00	4.0000	1.12390	−1.977	.512	4.067	.992
q1EOP	20	1.00	5.00	3.4500	1.14593	−.797	.512	−.574	.992
q2SPB	20	1.00	5.00	4.1500	1.13671	−1.518	.512	2.023	.992
q2SPP	20	2.00	5.00	4.1000	.71818	−1.099	.512	3.030	.992
q2EOP	20	2.00	3.00	2.9500	.22361	−4.472	.512	20.000	.992
q3SPB	20	2.00	5.00	4.4000	.82078	−1.548	.512	2.609	.992
q3SPP	20	1.00	5.00	4.1000	1.11921	−1.467	.512	2.015	.992
q3EOP	20	1.00	5.00	3.5000	1.10024	−.659	.512	−.076	.992
q4SPB	20	1.00	5.00	3.4500	.99868	−1.433	.512	2.204	.992
q4SPP	20	1.00	5.00	3.6500	1.08942	−1.649	.512	2.260	.992
q4EOP	20	1.00	5.00	3.8500	1.03999	−1.543	.512	2.414	.992
q5SPB	20	1.00	5.00	3.5000	1.35724	−.912	.512	−.383	.992
q5SPP	20	1.00	5.00	3.8500	1.30888	−1.572	.512	1.591	.992
q5EOP	20	1.00	4.00	2.9500	1.23438	−.456	.512	−1.621	.992
q6SPB	20	1.00	5.00	2.1500	1.30888	.946	.512	−.418	.992
q6SPP	20	1.00	5.00	2.2500	1.40955	.634	.512	−1.226	.992
q6EOP	20	1.00	4.00	2.1000	1.07115	.925	.512	−.197	.992
q7SPB	20	2.00	5.00	3.7000	1.12858	−.312	.512	−1.244	.992
q7SPP	20	2.00	5.00	3.8500	.67082	−.985	.512	2.448	.992
q7EOP	20	1.00	5.00	3.3000	1.12858	−.908	.512	−.175	.992
q8SPB	20	4.00	5.00	4.6000	.50262	−.442	.512	−2.018	.992
q8SPP	20	1.00	5.00	4.6500	.93330	−3.508	.512	13.433	.992
q8EOP	20	2.00	5.00	3.9500	.51042	−2.751	.512	13.144	.992
q9SPB	20	1.00	5.00	3.1500	1.38697	−.428	.512	−1.045	.992
q9SPP	20	2.00	5.00	4.1000	.71818	−1.099	.512	3.030	.992
q9EOP	20	1.00	3.00	2.8000	.52315	−2.745	.512	7.401	.992
q10SPB	20	1.00	5.00	3.6000	1.23117	−.632	.512	−.660	.992
q10SPP	20	1.00	5.00	3.4500	1.19097	−.803	.512	.023	.992
q10EOP	20	3.00	3.00	3.0000	.00000	.	.	.	.
q11SPB	20	1.00	5.00	4.0000	1.29777	−1.124	.512	.026	.992
q11SPP	20	1.00	5.00	4.0500	1.31689	−1.176	.512	.056	.992
q11EOP	20	1.00	4.00	3.0500	1.23438	−.664	.512	−1.397	.992
q12SPB	20	4.00	5.00	4.6500	.48936	−.681	.512	−1.719	.992
q12SPP	20	4.00	5.00	4.6500	.48936	−.681	.512	−1.719	.992
q12EOP	20	1.00	4.00	3.5500	.94451	−1.825	.512	1.930	.992
q13SPB	20	2.00	5.00	3.9000	.91191	−.713	.512	.154	.992
q13SPP	20	2.00	5.00	4.2000	.76777	−1.147	.512	2.362	.992
q13EOP	20	2.00	4.00	3.4000	.94032	−.945	.512	−1.242	.992
q14SPB	20	1.00	5.00	3.1500	1.18210	.106	.512	−.964	.992
q14SPP	20	1.00	5.00	2.5000	1.19208	.518	.512	−.668	.992
q14EOP	20	1.00	3.00	2.5500	.68633	−1.283	.512	.542	.992
q15SPB	20	1.00	5.00	4.2000	1.05631	−1.929	.512	4.119	.992
q15SPP	20	1.00	5.00	4.0000	1.12390	−1.236	.512	1.350	.992
q15EOP	20	1.00	5.00	3.7000	.97872	−1.564	.512	2.437	.992
Valid N (listwise)	20

Tables 12 and 13 present the Friedman results for each item showing that there is a significant difference among some EOP, SPP and SPB items, that is items 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13.

Table 12. Friedman test

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
N	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20
Chi-Square	2.122	21.909	9.864	5.353	6.045	.300	3.073	18.034
df	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Asymp. Sig.	.346	.000	.007	.069	.049	.861	.215	.000

Table 13. Friedman test

	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
N	20	20	20	20	20	20	20
Chi-Square	17.552	6.814	17.200	26.034	7.614	4.000	5.773
df	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Asymp. Sig.	.000	.033	.000	.000	.022	.135	.056

In order to see where among EOP, SPP and SPB items these significant differences exist, pairwise post hoc comparisons were run, who results are presented in Table 14.

Table 14. Pairwise post hoc comparison of EOP, SPP, and SPB Items

Sample1-Sample2	Test Statistic	Std. Error	Std. Test Statistic	Sig.	Adj. Sig.
q2EOP-q13SPB	1.125	.316	3.558	.000	.001
q2EOP-q13SPP	1.200	.316	3.795	.000	.000
q2SPB-q13SPP	.075	.316	.237	.813	1.000
q3EOP-q13SPB	.600	.316	1.897	.058	.173
q3EOP-q13SPP	.825	.316	2.609	.009	.027
q3SPB-q13SPP	.225	.316	.712	.477	1.000
q5EOP-q13SPB	.325	.316	1.028	.304	.912
q5EOP-q13SPP	.575	.316	1.818	.069	.207
q5SPB-q13SPP	−.250	.316	−.791	.429	1.000
q8EOP-q13SPB	.875	.316	2.767	.006	.017
q8EOP-q13SPP	1.075	.316	3.399	.001	.002
q8SPB-q13SPP	−.200	.316	−.632	.527	1.000
q9EOP-q13SPB	.450	.316	1.423	.155	.464
q9EOP-q13SPP	1.200	.316	3.795	.000	.000
q9SPB-q13SPP	−.750	.316	−2.372	.018	.053
q10EOP-q13SPB	.525	.316	1.660	.097	.291
q10EOP-q13SPP	.675	.316	2.135	.033	.098
q10SPB-q13SPP	.150	.316	.474	.635	1.000
q11EOP-q13SPB	.900	.316	2.846	.004	.013
q11EOP-q13SPP	1.050	.316	3.320	.001	.003
q11SPB-q13SPP	−.150	.316	−.474	.635	1.000
q12EOP-q13SPB	1.200	.316	3.795	.000	.000
q12EOP-q13SPP	1.200	.316	3.795	.000	.000
q12SPB-q13SPP	.000	.316	.000	1.000	1.000
q13EOP-q13SPB	.250	.316	.791	.429	1.000
q3EOP-q13SPP	.725	.316	2.293	.022	.066
q13SPB-q13SPP	−.475	.316	−1.502	.133	.399

These items along with their means are listed in Table 15. In sum, the Friedman test results, post hoc comparisons and the observed means demonstrate that based on when teachers are externally observed, teachers give less significance to the following items:

• Item 2, which is “Learners who are aware of vocabulary rules can use the language more effectively than those who are not.” than their self-perception of their belief and actual practice of vocabulary teaching.

• Item 3, which is “Exercises that get learners to practice vocabulary structures help learners develop fluency in using vocabulary.” than their self-perception of their belief of vocabulary teaching.

• Item 8, which is “In learning vocabulary, repeated practice allows learners to use structures fluently” than their self-perception of their belief and actual practice of vocabulary teaching.

• Item 9, which is “In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to explain the rules.” than their self-perception of their actual practice of vocabulary teaching.

• Item 11, which is “Correcting learners’ spoken vocabulary errors in English is one of the teacher’s key roles.” than their self-perception of their belief and actual practice of vocabulary teaching.

• Item 12, which is “Vocabulary learning is more effective when learners use them repeatedly by themselves.” than their self-perception of their belief and actual practice of vocabulary teaching.

Table 15. EOP, SPP and SPB item differences

Item No.	Item Content	SPB/SPP	Mean
2	Learners who are aware of vocabulary rules can use the language more effectively than those who are not.	q2SPB	4.15
		q2SPP	4.10
		q2EOP	2.95
3	Exercises that get learners to practice vocabulary structures help learners develop fluency in using vocabulary.	q3SPB	4.40
		q3SPP	4.10
		q3EOP	3.50
8	In learning vocabulary, repeated practice allows learners to use structures fluently.	q8SPB	4.60
		q8SPP	4.65
		q8EOP	3.95
9	In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to explain the rules.	q9SPB	3.15
		q9SPP	4.10
		q9EOP	2.80
11	Correcting learners’ spoken vocabulary errors in English is one of the teacher’s key roles.	q11SPB	4.00
		q11SPP	4.05
		q11EOP	3.05
12	Vocabulary learning is more effective when learners use them repeatedly by themselves.	q12SPB	4.65
		q12SPP	4.65
		q12EOP	3.55

All in all, it seems that in all the items identified above, teachers show less practice of the issues addressed in the items when compared with what they believe and practice in their classrooms.

3.2. Answering the second research question

The second research question of the study was:

Question 2. Are there any statistically significant differences between the novice and experienced English teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching vocabulary?

To answer this question, first the teachers participating in this study were divided into novice and experienced based on a questionnaire. Then they were compared in terms of EOP, SPB and SPP total and item scores.

3.2.1. Comparison of SPP and SPB total scores of novice and experienced teachers

In order to compare SPP and SPB total scores of novice and experienced teachers, first the descriptive statistics were computed (Table 16). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors) were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data met this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96), hence running one-way ANOVA as a parametric test requiring normally distributed data to compare the SPP and SPB mean scores of novice and experienced teachers.

Table 16. Descriptive statistics

							Skewness		Kurtosis
Experience. Level		N	Min	Max	Mean	SD		Std. Error		Std. Error
Novice	SPP	38	40.0	60.0	52.5263	5.1082	−.76	.383	−.33	.750
	SPB	38	42.0	64.0	52.3684	5.4098	−.12	.383	−.25	.750
	Valid N (listwise)	38
Experienced	SPP	62	37.0	73.0	54.3226	7.7221	.02	.304	.03	.599
	SPB	62	38.0	73.0	55.2903	7.0812	−.17	.304	.13	.599
	Valid N (listwise)	62

Another assumption of ANOVA is Equality of Error Variances measured by Levene’s test whose results in Table 17 show that it is not met for SPP scores (p < .05); therefore, a stricter Alpha level (i.e. .025) was considered in ANOVA results for SPP.

Table 17. Levene’s test of equality of error variances^a

	F	df1	df2	Sig.
SPP	5.944	1	98	.017
SPB	1.890	1	98	.172
Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.
a. Design: Intercept + Experience. Level

According to Table 18 of ANOVA results novice and experienced teachers differ significantly in terms of their SPB total scores (p < .05). Based on the descriptives above, experienced teachers have a significantly higher SPB than novice teachers.

Table 18. Tests of between-subjects effects

Source	Dependent Variable	Type III Sum of Squares	df	Mean Square	F	Sig.	Partial Eta Squared
Experience. Level	SPP	76,018	1	76.018	1.618	.206	.016
	SPB	201.144	1	201.144	4.760	.032	.046

a. R Squared = .016 (Adjusted R Squared = .006)

b. R Squared = .046 (Adjusted R Squared = .037)

3.2.2. Comparison of SPP and SPB item scores of novice and experienced teachers

In order to compare SPP and SPB item scores of novice and experienced teachers, first the descriptive statistics were computed (Table 19). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors) were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data for the majority of items did not meet this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96). Moreover, since the items were scored on a Likert scale, the item data were considered as ordinal data, hence running Mann-Whitney U Test as a non-parametric test not requiring normally distributed data to compare the SPP and SPB items mean scores.

Table 19. Descriptive Statistics

							Skewness		Kurtosis
Experience. Level		N	Min	Max	Mean	SD		Std. Error		Std. Error
Novice	q1SPB	38	2.00	5.00	4.1579	.97333	−1.26	.383	.866	.750
	q1SPP	37	1.00	5.00	3.7027	1.30947	−.980	.388	−.155	.759
	q2SPB	38	1.00	5.00	3.9737	1.10250	−1.35	.383	1.434	.750
	q2SPP	38	1.00	5.00	3.8947	.89411	−1.46	.383	2.740	.750
	q3SPB	38	2.00	5.00	3.8947	.89411	−.743	.383	.132	.750
	q3SPP	37	1.00	5.00	3.5946	1.21242	−.629	.388	−.656	.759
	q4SPB	38	1.00	5.00	3.2632	1.10733	−.935	.383	.120	.750
	q4SPP	38	1.00	5.00	3.3947	1.12801	−.976	.383	.070	.750
	q5SPB	38	1.00	5.00	2.8947	1.41018	−.170	.383	−1.41	.750
	q5SPP	37	1.00	5.00	3.5135	1.30430	−.746	.388	−.644	.759
	q6SPB	38	1.00	5.00	1.8947	1.18069	1.358	.383	1.019	.750
	q6SPP	38	1.00	4.00	2.0263	1.19655	.746	.383	−1.02	.750
	q7SPB	38	1.00	5.00	3.5789	1.13021	−.503	.383	−.773	.750
	q7SPP	38	1.00	5.00	3.1053	1.18069	−.318	.383	−.965	.750
	q8SPB	38	1.00	5.00	3.8421	1.10347	−.945	.383	.066	.750
	q8SPP	38	1.00	5.00	4.4737	.86170	−2.18	.383	6.086	.750
	q9SPB	38	1.00	5.00	3.0789	1.32301	−.300	.383	−1.03	.750
	q9SPP	37	1.00	5.00	3.5405	1.06965	−1.11	.388	.781	.759
	q10SPB	38	1.00	5.00	3.3421	1.38088	−.270	.383	−1.27	.750
	q10SPP	37	1.00	5.00	3.2432	1.27814	−.484	.388	−.887	.759
	q11SPB	37	2.00	5.00	4.1892	.84452	−1.25	.388	1.700	.759
	q11SPP	38	1.00	5.00	4.3421	.93798	−1.79	.383	3.668	.750
	q12SPB	38	3.00	5.00	4.5000	.55750	−.494	.383	−.833	.750
	q12SPP	38	2.00	5.00	4.3158	.73907	−1.43	.383	3.264	.750
	q13SPB	38	1.00	5.00	3.5000	1.15665	−.774	.383	−.162	.750
	q13SPP	38	1.00	5.00	3.8947	.98061	−1.05	.383	1.107	.750
	q14SPB	38	1.00	5.00	2.7368	1.17828	−.083	.383	−.827	.750
	q14SPP	38	1.00	5.00	2.3684	1.19506	.329	.383	−1.05	.750
	q15SPB	38	1.00	5.00	3.6316	1.36404	−.899	.383	−.437	.750
	q15SPP	38	1.00	5.00	3.5789	1.08133	−.959	.383	.721	.750
	Valid N (list wise)	34
Experienced	q1SPB	62	1.00	5.00	3.9355	1.08448	−1.06	.304	.790	.599
	q1SPP	62	1.00	5.00	3.4032	1.36056	−.657	.304	−.806	.599
	q2SPB	62	1.00	5.00	4.0323	1.11573	−1.23	.304	.962	.599
	q2SPP	62	2.00	5.00	4.2419	.86243	−1.28	.304	1.427	.599
	q3SPB	61	1.00	5.00	4.5082	.76644	−2.32	.306	7.509	.604
	q3SPP	62	1.00	5.00	4.2903	.83739	−1.81	.304	4.455	.599
	q4SPB	61	1.00	5.00	3.4590	1.11913	−.558	.306	−.319	.604
	q4SPP	62	1.00	5.00	3.6613	1.14439	−.852	.304	.021	.599
	q5SPB	61	1.00	5.00	3.1803	1.42019	−.366	.306	−1.25	.604
	q5SPP	62	1.00	5.00	3.4194	1.20855	−.697	.304	−.356	.599
	q6SPB	62	1.00	5.00	2.0806	1.33427	.961	.304	−.475	.599
	q6SPP	61	1.00	5.00	2.2951	1.25624	.614	.306	−.651	.604
	q7SPB	62	1.00	5.00	3.4839	1.14150	−.711	.304	.082	.599
	q7SPP	61	1.00	5.00	3.2623	1.09395	−.785	.306	−.061	.604
	q8SPB	62	1.00	5.00	4.5323	.74035	−2.24	.304	7.419	.599
	q8SPP	62	1.00	5.00	4.4194	.89714	−2.21	.304	5.796	.599
	q9SPB	61	1.00	5.00	3.5738	1.20359	−.772	.306	−.312	.604
	q9SPP	57	1.00	5.00	3.8947	1.16011	−1.35	.316	1.298	.623
	q10SPB	61	1.00	5.00	3.4098	1.35864	−.669	.306	−.760	.604
	q10SPP	62	1.00	5.00	3.1290	1.33655	−.158	.304	−1.16	.599
	q11SPB	61	1.00	5.00	4.1639	1.14281	−1.44	.306	1.306	.604
	q11SPP	62	1.00	5.00	4.2581	1.08546	−1.57	.304	1.714	.599
	q12SPB	62	1.00	5.00	4.5968	.77797	−2.60	.304	8.143	.599
	q12SPP	62	1.00	5.00	4.4032	.79876	−1.86	.304	5.020	.599
	q13SPB	62	1.00	5.00	3.8065	1.06876	−.931	.304	.566	.599
	q13SPP	62	1.00	5.00	3.9516	1.01509	−1.16	.304	1.143	.599
	q14SPB	62	1.00	5.00	2.8871	1.31952	.082	.304	−1.03	.599
	q14SPP	62	1.00	5.00	2.6613	1.31752	.304	.304	−.999	.599
	q15SPB	62	1.00	5.00	4.0000	1.29311	−1.22	.304	.456	.599
	q15SPP	60	1.00	5.00	3.5500	1.33309	−.622	.309	−.711	.608
	Valid N (list wise)	52

Table 20–22 present the Mann-Whitney U Test results for each item showing that there is a significant difference between novice and experienced teachers in terms of some SPP and SPB items, that is items 2 of self-perceived practice, 3 of self-perceived practice and belief, 8 of self-perceived belief, and 9 of self-perceived practice.

Table 20. Mann-Whitney U

	q1SPB	q1SPP	q2SPB	q2SPP	q3SPB	q3SPP	q4SPB	q4SPP	q5SPB	q5SPP
	1033.00	987.500	1126.000	884.000	671.000	763.500	1054.500	1010.000	1018.500	1062.000
Sig.	.272	.227	.693	.020	.000	.003	.429	.201	.296	.518

a. Grouping Variable: Experience. Level

b. Not corrected for ties.

Table 23 lists the items of difference between novice and experienced teachers along with their observed means. These results specifically show that according to teachers’ self-perceived practice:

• Experienced teachers give more significance to item 2, which is “Learners who are aware of vocabulary rules can use the language more effectively than those who are not” than novice teachers.

• Novice teachers give more significance to item 3, which is “Exercises that get learners to practice vocabulary structures help learners develop fluency in using vocabulary” than experienced teachers.

• Experienced teachers give more significance to item 8, which is “In learning vocabulary, repeated practice allows learners to use structures fluently” than novice teachers.

• Experienced teachers give more significance to item 9, which is “In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to explain the rules” than novice teachers.

Table 21. Mann-Whitney U

	q6SPB	q6SPP	q7SPB	q7SPP	q8SPB	q8SPP	q9SPB	q9SPP	q10SPB	q10SPP
	1116.000	1016.000	1116.500	1076.000	722.000	1132.000	902.000	810.000	1135.000	1090.500
Z	−.474	−1.077	−.456	−.628	−3.567	−.376	−1.924	−2.050	−.178	−.420
Sig.	.635	.282	.649	.530	.000	.707	.054	.040	.859	.674

a. Grouping Variable: Experience. Level

b. Not corrected for ties.

Table 22. Mann-Whitney U

	q11SPB	q11SPP	q12SPB	q12SPP	q13SPB	q13SPP	q14SPB	q14SPP	q15SPB	q15SPP
	1044.000	1168.50	990.000	1071.00	1004.50	1121.500	1113.000	1038.500	963.500	1110.500
Sig.	.501	.940	.113	.395	.193	.665	.635	.309	.108	.823

a. Grouping Variable: Experience. Level

b. Not corrected for ties.

Table 23. SPP and SPB item differences between novice and experienced teachers

Item Content		SPB/SPP	Mean
Learners who are aware of vocabulary rules can use the language more effectively than those who are not.	Novice	q2SPP	3.8947
	Experienced	q2SPP	4.2419
Exercises that get learners to practice vocabulary structures help learners develop fluency in using vocabulary.	Novice	q3SPB	3.8947
	Experienced	q3SPP	3.5946
	Novice	q3SPB	4.5082
	Experienced	q3SPP	4.2903
In learning vocabulary, repeated practice allows learners to use structures fluently.	Novice	q8SPB	3.8421
	Experienced	q8SPB	4.5323
In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to explain the rules.	Novice	q9SPP	3.5405
	Experienced	q9SPP	3.8947

3.2.3. Comparison of EOP total scores of novice and experienced teachers

In order to compare EOP total scores of novice and experienced teachers, first the descriptive statistics were computed (Table 24). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors) were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data met this assumption (i.e. ratios within −1.96), hence running independent samples t test as a parametric test requiring normally distributed data to compare the EOP mean scores of novice and experienced teachers.

Table 24. Descriptive Statistics

							Skewness		Kurtosis
Experience. Level		N	Min	Max	Mean	SD		Std. Error		Std. Error
Novice	EOP	10	41.0	53.00	48.60	3.97772	−.96	.687	.025	1.334
	Valid N (listwise)	10
Experienced	EOP	10	38.0	57.00	47.60	6.11374	−.16	.687	−.94	1.334
	Valid N (listwise)	10

According to Table 18 of t test results novice and experienced teachers do not differ significantly in terms of their EOP total scores (p > .05).

3.2.4. Comparison of EOP item scores of novice and experienced teachers

In order to compare EOP item scores of novice and experienced teachers, initially an independent samples t-test was run (Table 25). After that, the descriptive statistics were computed (Table 26). Then, skewness and kurtosis ratios (by dividing the values by their standard errors) were computed to check normality assumption, showing that the data for some of items did not meet this assumption (i.e. ratios beyond −1.96). Moreover, since the items were scored on a Likert scale, the item data were considered as ordinal data, hence running Mann-Whitney U Test as a non-parametric test not requiring normally distributed data to compare the EOP items mean scores.

Table 25. Independent samples test

		Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances		t-test for Equality of Means
									95% Confidence Interval of the Difference
		F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Mean Difference	Std. Error Difference	Lower	Upper
EOP	Equal variances assumed	2.4	.13	.43	18	.670	1.00	2.30651	−3.845	5.845

Table 26. Descriptive statistics

Experience. Level		N	Min	Max	Mean	SD	Skewness		Kurtosis
								Std. Error		Std. Error
Novice	q1EOP	10	2.00	5.00	3.70	.94868	−1.2	.687	.947	1.33
	q2EOP	10	3.00	3.00	3.00	.00000	.	.	.	.
	q3EOP	10	2.00	5.00	3.30	1.15	.342	.687	−1.2	1.334
	q4EOP	10	2.00	5.00	3.80	1.03	−1.0	.687	.485	1.334
	q5EOP	10	1.00	4.00	2.90	1.19	−.25	.687	−1.8	1.334
	q6EOP	10	1.00	4.00	2.30	1.25	.569	.687	−1.3	1.334
	q7EOP	10	2.00	4.00	3.50	.84	−1.3	.687	.107	1.334
	q8EOP	10	4.00	5.00	4.10	.31623	3.16	.687	10.0	1.334
	q9EOP	10	2.00	3.00	2.90	.31623	−3.1	.687	10.0	1.334
	q10EOP	10	3.00	3.00	3.00	.00000	.	.	.	.
	q11EOP	10	2.00	4.00	3.20	1.03280	−.48	.687	−2.2	1.334
	q12EOP	10	2.00	4.00	3.60	.84327	−1.7	.687	1.40	1.334
	q13EOP	10	2.00	4.00	3.40	.96609	−1.0	.687	−1.2	1.334
	q14EOP	10	1.00	3.00	2.70	.67495	−2.2	.687	4.76	1.334
	q15EOP	10	1.00	4.00	3.20	1.1352	−1.0	.687	−.39	1.334
	Valid N (listwise)	10
Experienced	q1EOP	10	1.00	5.00	3.20	1.316	−.45	.687	−1.2	1.334
	q2EOP	10	2.00	3.00	2.90	.31623	−3.1	.687	10.0	1.334
	q3EOP	10	1.00	5.00	3.70	1.05935	−2.0	.687	5.41	1.334
	q4EOP	10	1.00	5.00	3.90	1.10050	−2.2	.687	6.62	1.334
	q5EOP	10	1.00	4.00	3.00	1.33333	−.70	.687	−1.5	1.334
	q6EOP	10	1.00	4.00	1.90	.87560	1.46	.687	3.61	1.334
	q7EOP	10	1.00	5.00	3.10	1.37032	−.54	.687	−.87	1.334
	q8EOP	10	2.00	4.00	3.80	.63246	−3.1	.687	10.0	1.334
	q9EOP	10	1.00	3.00	2.70	.67495	−2.2	.687	4.76	1.334
	q10EOP	10	3.00	3.00	3.00	.00000	.	.	.	.
	q11EOP	10	1.00	4.00	2.90	1.44914	−.60	.687	−1.9	1.334
	q12EOP	10	1.00	4.00	3.50	1.08012	−1.9	.687	2.81	1.334
	q13EOP	10	2.00	4.00	3.40	.96609	−1.0	.687	−1.2	1.334
	q14EOP	10	1.00	3.00	2.40	.69921	−.78	.687	−.14	1.334
	q15EOP	10	4.00	5.00	4.20	.42164	1.77	.687	1.40	1.334
	Valid N (listwise)	10

Tables 27 and 28 present the Mann-Whitney U Test results for each item showing that there is a significant difference between novice and experienced teachers in terms of only item 15.

Table 27. Mann-Whitney U

	q1EOP	q2EOP	q3EOP	q4EOP	q5EOP	q6EOP	q7EOP	q8EOP
	40.000	45.000	37.500	47.000	48.000	43.000	42.000	40.500
Sig.	.389	.317	.318	.789	.866	.564	.506	.168

a. Grouping Variable: Experience. Level

b. Not corrected for ties.

Table 28. Mann-Whitney U

	q9EOP	q10EOP	q11EOP	q12EOP	q13EOP	q14EOP	q15EOP
	44.500	50.000	44.000	49.000	50.000	36.500	24.000
Sig.	.503	1.000	.605	.914	1.000	.226	.015

a. Grouping Variable: Experience. Level

b. Not corrected for ties.

Table 29 shows the observed mean of item 15, which specifically shows that according to teachers’ EOP, the experienced ones give more significance to items 15, which is “I insist on studying the L2 vocabulary in order to make my students speak fluently.” than novice teachers.

Table 29. Differences between Novice and experienced teachers in item 15

Item Content		Mean
I insist on studying the L2 vocabulary in order to make my students speak fluently.	Novice	3.2000
	Experienced	4.2000

4. Discussion

The present study sought to investigate to which extent Iranian EFL teachers’ beliefs in teaching L2 vocabulary are reflected in their classroom practices. Moreover, the study aimed to probe any statistically significant differences between the novice and experienced English teachers’ beliefs and practices in teaching vocabulary. The results of statistical analysis for research question one indicated that on the whole there was no difference between the beliefs and practices of teachers in terms of L2 vocabulary teaching as perceived by the teachers themselves. However, there was a significant difference among the EOP, SPP and SPB total scores. Moreover, on the whole teachers’ EOP was significantly different from and lower than their SPP and SPB. The results concerning the second research question revealed that novice and experienced teachers differed significantly in terms of their SPB total scores and experienced teachers had a significantly higher SPB than novice teachers.

Given that in the present study instructors’ beliefs and their practices were in line with one another but their actual practice was different from their self-perceived practices, it can be concluded that the instructors’ beliefs and practices were not in line with each other. This finding has already been supported by many other studies (Attardo & Brown, 2005; Richardson, 2007). Some of these investigations report significant interactions between instructors’ beliefs and their teaching activities. Johnson (1992) surveyed L2 language teachers to profile their teaching theories and perspectives. He examined 30 L2 instructors’ theoretical views and beliefs regarding L2 instruction and learning. In other words, he intended to investigate L2 teachers’ ideas of L2 teaching and learning. Based on his observation, the teaching practices of these 30 teachers did not match with the respective instructors’ theoretical ideas. In simple terms, the way teachers thought of L2 teaching and learning did not correspond with their teaching behavior and practices. Johnson (1992) concluded that the results of this study lent credit to the notion that ESL instructors teach based on their theoretical beliefs.

Moreover, some other studies have yielded results that are consistent with the findings of this study. They report that there is sometimes some inconsistency between instructors’ acknowledged beliefs/attitude and their teaching activities. For example, Van der Schaaf, Stokking, and Verloop (2008) examined the effects of 18 instructors’ pedagogical beliefs obtained from their portfolios on the teaching status as well as their teaching practices assessed by students using a questionnaire. The results revealed that the relationship between instructors’ beliefs and attitudes as reported by themselves and students’ rating of their teaching activities lacked consistency in some cases. For instance, the instructors pointed to their desire to teach research skills to their students. On the contrary, the raters reported that the same instructors were mostly busy talking during class time and not working on research skills. The students perceived the role of their teachers as of little help in their classroom research activities.

Given the fact that available literature lacks conclusive findings concerning the relationship between instructors’ belief and practice, it follows that instruction and the learning context influence such relationships. According to Brown and Cooney (1982) beliefs, are described as orientations to action, with time and context serving as the main determinants of behavior which need to be included in research and measurement.

The results of the present study concerning the observation of the factors more by experienced teachers in comparison with novice teachers can be justified in the light of self-efficacy. Teacher efficacy is the teacher’s self-confidence in his or her ability in order to form and implement courses of action vital to successfully achieve a specific teaching task in a specific context (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). According to Bandura (1977), teacher efficacy can be defined as a kind of self-efficacy in which people can make beliefs about their capability in performing at a particular level of achievement. This kind of self-efficacy is future-oriented and affects thought arrangements and feelings. Based on this theory, efficacy may be simply affected in learning; as a result, the first years of teaching could be critical to the long-term improvement of teacher efficacy. Two elements about teacher efficacy are personal teaching efficacy and general teaching efficacy. According to Riggs and Enochs (1989), the general teaching efficacy is also called outcome prospect which means people evaluate the significances of the performance level which they expect to attain. In addition, efficacy belief of novice teachers differs from experienced teachers (Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk Hoy, 2001). The efficacy belief of experienced teachers seems unchangeable in comparison with novice teachers. Moreover, there is a difference between novice teachers and experienced teachers based on three aspects of professional training which are knowledge base, pedagogical action and fundamental influences (Angell, Ryder, & Scott, 2005). Correspondingly, novice and expert teachers were compared by Hogan, Rabinowitz, and Craven (2003) following Shulman’s (1986) classifications (content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and pedagogical knowledge). And they came to the conclusion that experts and novice teachers differed in four key features:

• Experienced teachers were able to plan both long-term and short-term syllabus, while novice teachers were able to plan the short-term syllabus.

• Experienced teachers used more strategies in teaching specific skills while novice teachers can use fewer ones.

• From experienced teachers’ point of view, the class can be considered as unique individuals, while from novice teachers’ point of view the class is regarded as a whole.

• Student accomplishment and improvement was more important than anything else for experienced teachers, while for novice teachers, the attention was just paid to class interest.

Overall, the results of the current study corroborate Hogan et al.’s (2003) findings in that novice and experienced teachers in the present study were found to differ significantly in terms of their SPB total scores with experienced teachers having a significantly higher SPB than novice teachers.

5. Conclusion

The results of the present study shed more light on the differences between novice and experienced teachers when it comes to beliefs and practices concerning vocabulary learning. Thus, teacher educators are encouraged to consider the differences between novice and experience teachers’ beliefs and practices in vocabulary teaching in teacher education courses. Moreover, based on the findings of the present study, teacher educators and trainers may devise and plan courses through which teacher trainees become familiar with how their belief systems can possibly affect their practice in real classroom environments. In this way, teachers will gain more awareness, which will ultimately affect their practices positively. Teachers should receive explanations about the benefits of thinking about the way their teaching beliefs may interact with their teaching practice so as to be encouraged to become reflective practitioners. Giving more explanations to the teachers would help them have a better understanding of the procedures involved in reflective teaching practices as well. Teacher educators are encouraged to be more sensitive to teaching and learning theories they intend to transfer to L2 teachers. The more up-to-date they are about teaching and learning theories, the more they can familiarize L2 teachers with more modern theories.

The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices suggests that theory and practice are not separated. This is of great importance to language teaches. In other words, any attempt to change teachers’ theories and beliefs about teaching and learning would have consequences for their actual teaching in classrooms. Thus, the results of the current study can lay the foundation for teachers to acknowledge the point that theory and beliefs are interwoven and thus teachers can be encouraged to stay up-to-date with theories of learning in order to establish beliefs which can lead to their best practice in the classroom.

Additional information

Funding

The authors received no direct funding for this research.

Notes on contributors

Jahangir Mardali

Jahangir Mardali obtained his M.A in TEFL from Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University (SRBIAU) in Tehran, Iran. He has been teaching various general English language courses at different language institutes in Tehran. His is interested in doing research in teaching methodology, teacher cognition and vocabulary.

Masood Siyyari

Masood Siyyari is an assistant professor of TEFL and applied linguistics at Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University (SRBIAU) in Tehran, Iran. He received his Ph.D. in applied linguistics from Allameh Tabataba’i University in Tehran, Iran. Currently, he supervises MA theses and Ph.D. dissertations and teaches MA and Ph.D. courses in applied linguistics and translation studies at SRBIAU. His main areas of research include language assessment and second language acquisition.

Appendix A

Novice and Experienced Teacher Questionnaire

You might choose 1 (Little), 2 (A little), 3(Not-decided), 4 (Much), and 5(Very Much)

Table

		1	2	3	4	5
1	How satisfied are you with the level of preparation from your university’s college of education program?
2	To what extent do you struggle with classroom management during your teaching?
3	To what extent do you struggle with instructional delivery during your teaching?
4	To what extent do you struggle with parental involvement during your teaching?
5	To what extent do you struggle with the greatest success during your teaching?
6	To what extent have you participated in a formal new teacher induction program either at the district or at building level?
7	To what extent have your participations in the in-service training courses helped you get more experience?
8	To what extent do you most likely turn to for assistance if you are experiencing a problem within your classroom or with your instructional practice?
9	To what extent was “teaching students with special needs” covered during your teacher preparation experience?
10	To what extent do you think you are able to motivate the students?
11	To what extent can you hold the students’ attention?
12	To what extent do you feel you can manage your classroom effectively?

Appendix B

Questionnaire of Teachers’ Belief and Practices about L2 Vocabulary Learning and Teaching

You might choose 1 (Little), 2 (A little), 3(Not-decided), 4 (Much), and 5(Very Much)

Table

		1	2	3	4	5
1	Teachers should present vocabulary to learners before expecting them to use it.
2	Learners who are aware of vocabulary rules can use the language more effectively than those who are not.
3	Exercises that get learners to practice vocabulary structures help learners develop fluency in using vocabulary.
4	Teaching the rules of English vocabulary directly is more appropriate for older learners.
5	During lessons, a focus on vocabulary should come after communicative tasks, not before.
6	Vocabulary should be taught separately, not integrated with other skills such as reading and writing.
7	In a communicative approach to language teaching vocabulary is not taught directly.
8	In learning vocabulary, repeated practice allows learners to use structures fluently.
9	In teaching vocabulary, a teacher’s main role is to explain the rules.
10	It is important for learners to know terminology of the words.
11	Correcting learners’ spoken vocabulary errors in English is one of the teacher’s key roles.
12	Vocabulary learning is more effective when learners use them repeatedly by themselves.
13	Indirect vocabulary teaching is more appropriate with younger than with older learners.
14	Formal vocabulary teaching does not help learners become more fluent.
15	It is necessary to study the vocabulary of a second or foreign language in order to speak it fluently.
16	I present vocabulary on the board prior to the reading section.
17	I explain the vocabulary rules to my students so that they can use the language more effectively.
18	I provide my students with exercises to practice vocabulary structures and help them develop fluency in using vocabulary.
19	When I have older learners, I use direct and explicit teaching of the rules of English vocabulary in my teaching.
20	I focus on vocabulary after teaching the communicative tasks.
21	I teach L2 vocabulary separately, not integrated with other skills such as reading and writing.
22	In my teaching within the communicative approach I do not teach L2 vocabulary directly.
23	I ask my students to practice new words repeatedly.
24	I explain the rules of L2 vocabulary to my students.
25	I teach terminology and etymology of the words to the learners.
26	I correct my learners’ spoken vocabulary errors in English.
27	I ask my students to use the vocabulary taught repeatedly
28	When dealing with younger learners I rely on indirect vocabulary teaching.
29	I do not use formal vocabulary teaching in my class.
30	I insist on studying the L2 vocabulary in order to make my students speak fluently.