confirm that the story was accurate, but in the way he engaged with it he assumed a kind of ownership for it. He developed, too, not just his understanding of research as he discussed the text with me, but the member checking process also seemed to heighten his awareness of his own development.(Wyatt, 2008, p. 67).
However, a methodological limitation was that I was unable to conduct meetings for the purpose of “member checking” with all the research participants; the schools were closed in July 2006 when I was doing this, and for cultural reasons I could not have met the female research participants in other locations. They were nevertheless sent drafts, with invitations for written comments, and I received some feedback.
The Findings of the Study and How These Findings Have Been Shared
The findings of my PhD research into the developing practical knowledge and TSE beliefs of five Omani in-service teachers of English were presented as five, approximately 10,000-word, case studies distinguished by “thick description” (Geertz, 1973), each focused on a different teacher and with a different theme. The themes, all subsequently explored in different articles organized as individual case studies, included: using communicative tasks to develop speaking skills (Wyatt, 2009); enhancing motivation through materials design (Wyatt, 2011a); helping learners to overcome difficulties in reading (Wyatt, 2012); developing reflective practice as teacher (Wyatt, 2010a) and mentor (Wyatt & Arnold, 2012); and supporting low achievers in group work activities (Wyatt, 2010b). Another individual case study, which focused on one of these five teachers’ efforts to overcome low TSE beliefs in adjusting to the task of teaching primary as opposed to secondary school learners as a result of curriculum changes (Wyatt, 2013a), was developed from a sub-theme within the thesis (Wyatt, 2008). Comparative studies of two to five teachers (e.g., Wyatt, 2011b, 2013b; Wyatt & Borg, 2011) also emerged from the data-rich thesis; these studies tended to focus less on overarching themes than on particular dimensions of change, such as the impact of engaging in action research (Wyatt, 2011b). More theoretically based papers, including meta-analyses (e.g., Wyatt, 2014, 2016), additionally sprang from the original study (Wyatt, 2008), which has inspired my continuing work in this research area, including the exploration of language TSE (LTSE) beliefs as a distinctive emerging field (e.g., Wyatt, 2018a, 2018b; Wyatt & Dikilitaş, 2019).
The strategies I adopted in disseminating my original work (Wyatt, 2008) may provide insights not only into what I learned from it, but also my perceptions of how I needed to negotiate the quantitatively oriented research environment that surrounded TSE beliefs. In fact, I felt that two of the five cases were of teachers who overcame some initial self-doubt (Wheatley, 2002), but who were largely efficacious, in developing materials to enhance motivation (Wyatt, 2011a) and in supporting the development of reflective practice through mentoring (Wyatt & Arnold, 2012) respectively; the articles written about these two teachers were consequently focused primarily on their developing practical knowledge in these areas.
However, from other teachers in the collective case study, I gained deep insights into TSE beliefs, which shaped articles I subsequently developed. Wyatt (2010b), for example, explored a teacher’s TSE beliefs for supporting low achievers in group work activities in relation to dimensions of practical knowledge, using a framework based on Elbaz (1981), which included practical knowledge for learners and learning, the curriculum, teaching techniques, the self and the school context. In this study (Wyatt, 2010b), the teacher’s practical knowledge growth appeared uneven, but so did his TSE beliefs, and a good degree of fit between the two was identified. For example, on the positive side, he seemed to develop practical knowledge for learners and learning through experimenting with forms of group organization and analyzing learning outcomes, and also reported enhanced TSE beliefs in these areas. And yet some of his teaching techniques were less developed, for example, when organizing reading races in groups, and he also reported feeling inefficacious in relation to such tasks. My interpretations here, with the implications for teacher education they carried, were based on “data source” and “methodological” triangulation (Stake, 1995), drawing on observations, interviews, and analysis of reflective writing produced over time; the findings provided evidence that there is a need to study TSE beliefs in relation to practical knowledge.
Another article developed from the original study (Wyatt, 2008) focused more on the processes of change, as it examined how a teacher tried to overcome low TSE beliefs, specifically regarding classroom management and instructional techniques, in teaching much younger learners than she had taught before (Wyatt, 2013a). There was evidence of change; while the teacher reported that anxiety in the classroom and accompanying sleep loss disappeared, observational and interview data also suggested that she became more efficacious in employing strategies that appeared to support beneficial learning outcomes. In discussing these changes, I merged fields, as Wheatley (2005) recommends, in highlighting how reflective learning, practical knowledge growth and a belief that she could improve, which relates to a growth rather than a fixed mindset (Dweck, 2000), all seemed to help the teacher progress (Wyatt, 2013a). Explanations for TSE beliefs growth need to recognize the complexities of the change processes.
I developed these two case studies (Wyatt, 2010b, 2013a) before producing more theoretical articles from the original thesis (Wyatt, 2008) – for example, Wyatt (2014), which highlighted problems with much of the quantitative research to date – as I could then use these cases to illustrate theoretical arguments. The case study work also led into further data analysis in Wyatt (2015), which presented data relating to apparent lack of fit between practical knowledge and TSE beliefs; one teacher seemed over-efficacious in supporting reading skills development, while another seemed to unnecessarily doubt her capabilities to use communicative tasks to help her learners to develop speaking skills (Wyatt, 2015). Implications for in-service teacher education were raised. The final article from my thesis presented a conceptual model illustrating how TSE beliefs might develop (Wyatt, 2016).
While, to a certain extent, I managed to disseminate the results from my original thesis (Wyatt, 2008) quite effectively, the process was not without challenges and rejections, which invariably followed reviews that were mixed, for instance when one or two reviewers were in favor and another was against. Peer reviewers in the quantitative tradition sometimes strongly objected to my (occasionally fierce) criticisms of the field of research into TSE beliefs. One hostile review, for example, included the following:
The assumptions throughout pp. 1-8 are suspect and not well presented either theoretically, empirically, or practically. The author assumes there are connections between the issues selected but does not carefully and cautiously consider the confounding variables that undergird the various issues(anonymous review).
Occasionally, reviewers dismissed the relevance of observation to the study of TSE beliefs or seemed to be demanding a narrower “psychological lens” (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998) that did not allow perspectives from related fields, such as language teacher cognition (Borg, 2006), or consideration of related constructs, such as mindset theory (Dweck, 2000). The paradigm wars (Gage, 1989) may largely be over, but not entirely perhaps in all research areas traditionally dominated by quantitative research methodology, such as TSE beliefs.
Conclusions
Methodological Issues
Since the two individual case studies discussed above (Wyatt, 2010b, 2013a), I am unaware of any further TSE beliefs case studies of individuals teaching any subject. So, there still appear to be unfortunately only four, including Milner and Woolfolk Hoy (2003) and Mulholland and Wallace (2001), and there may be reasons for this. Firstly, three of these case studies (Mulholland & Wallace, 2001; Wyatt, 2010b, 2013a) were longitudinal, with data collected over several years. This was possible as the researchers were teacher educators who had access to participating teachers while they were in schools; conducting the research therefore represented an extension of work activity rather than