What affects beliefs?

There are many different elements that affect our beliefs. Nespor (1987) suggested it involves feelings, moods, emotions and subjective evaluations and that these features make beliefs important in memory processes (p.323).

Certain events may give us representations built on inadequate information and influenced by a ‘signature feeling’, which in turn may distort our perception and understanding.

According to Rokeach (1976) some beliefs are more central than others and consist of beliefs we acquire early in life and in direct encounter with the object of belief. This can be looked upon as primitive or core beliefs that are psychologically incontrovertible. This type of belief is rarely looked upon as controversial, has a taken-for-granted character, and represents a person’s

“basic truths” about physical and social reality and the nature of self (p. 6).

This can also be described in terms of object constancy, person constancy and self-constancy. Rokeach views object constancy also as a social phenomenon.

For a child both object and person constancy is necessary for developing a sense of self-constancy and helps to build a basic trust that central people, the

physical world and objects in it remain stable. In this situation one might think if others know what I know, they would believe this too. These “basic truths”

are not easily changed especially if they are shared by many other people. On the other hand “violation of any primitive beliefs supported by unanimous consensus may lead to serious disruption of beliefs about self-constancy or self-identity, and from this disruption other disturbances should follow...” (p.

7). This may lead to questions about competence or inconsistencies in a person’s belief systems. (Type A: Primitive beliefs, 100 % concensus)

Another type of primitive beliefs that Rokeach pointed to are those held by a person concerning existential beliefs, but not necessarily shared by others. In this case a person might think nobody else could know, so their beliefs do not count, but mine do. With no reference group or people outside oneself there is no one to controvert the beliefs, to give argument for or persuade in favour of other viewpoints. (Type B: Primitive beliefs, 0 concensus)

Both types of primitive beliefs have this taken-for-granted essence. As a child grows and develops, he or she has more contact with other people, authorities and contexts compared to the younger child. This leads to the discovery that some beliefs are not held by everyone else. This is the development of what Rokeach (1976) classified as nonprimitive beliefs, which stem from primitive beliefs and are in a functional relationship to them. This type of belief does not have the taken-for-granted character, but helps us to develop a wider picture of the world where we can expect differing opinions and also controversy. Nonprimitive beliefs are not quite as important as primitive beliefs, nor as resistant to change. Rokeach claimed the most important in this category are beliefs concerning positive or negative authority and goes on to say “ such beliefs concern not only which authorities could know but which authorities would know” (p. 10). Which authorities people either rely on or do not trust may differ according to each person’s social structure and context.

(Type C: Authority beliefs)

Trusting and believing in an authority source implies that we may accept other beliefs that emanate from that source. Rokeach defined these beliefs as

“derived beliefs”. These beliefs are “derived secondhand through processes of identification with authority rather than by direct encounter with object of belief…” (p. 10). Derived beliefs may form what is usually referred to as

institutionalized ideology. Identification with reference persons and groups based on underlying ideology may lead to group identity. Knowing that a person believes in a certain authority, we may deduce that the person agrees with some or most of the beliefs derived from that authority’s ideology.

Derived beliefs are according to Rokeach less important dynamically than beliefs about authority, and a change in belief here may also lead to change in relating beliefs. (Type D: Derived beliefs)

Matters of taste influence many of our beliefs. There may be strong feelings also attached to these beliefs though they tend to be more arbitrary. Rokeach (1976) called these inconcequential beliefs because they have few or no connections with other beliefs, and if changed they have few or no implications or consequences for other beliefs (p. 11). (Type E:

Inconsequential beliefs)

Rokeach(1976) summed this up in the following manner (p. 11):

“A person’s total belief system includes inconsequential beliefs, derived beliefs, pre-ideological beliefs about specific authority, and pre-ideological primitive beliefs, socially shared or unshared, about the nature of the physical world, society, and the self. All such beliefs are assumed to be formed and developed very early in the life of a child. They are undoubtedly first learned in the context of interactions with parents. As the child grows older, he learns that there are certain beliefs that virtually all others believe, other beliefs about which men differ, and other beliefs that are arbitrary matters of taste. Taken together, the total belief system may be seen as an organisation of beliefs varying in depth, formed as a result of living in nature and in society, designed to help a person maintain, insofar as possible, a sense of ego and group identity, stable and continuous over time – an identity that is part of, and simultaneously apart from, a stable physical and social environment.”

We have now heard in general terms about belief systems from Rokeach’s (1976) point of view. How does this apply to teachers, and how are teachers’

beliefs affected? We can assume teachers’ belief systems develop in much the same manner as Rokeach has described. Primary and derived beliefs come early in life, influenced by family, peers and social environment. Beliefs that are shared or not shared with others become more apparent with age and different experiences. A person’s developing belief system is also part of an

ego and group identity. What a person believes to be interesting, important, honorable and worthwhile, may also in time lead to the choice of becoming a teacher.

Teachers, whether they work in daycare- or school settings, experience multiple interrelated contexts. Examples of this from Norway could be collaboration between neighborhood daycare centers and schools. In addition many teachers are parents and have children attending daycare and/or school, but also have extended family relations. Some teachers might also have political engagements, and it is quite common to have leisure activities. In all of these different settings teachers as individuals have different roles and meet different challenges and they can meet many of the same people in different settings such as church, alpine skiing facilities, at the shop, etc. Hamilton’s (1993) study addressed the influence of culture on beliefs and concluded that

“personal cultural history and the culture of the school affects them as they enact their practice and work with their students” (p. 96). Also Rosenholtz (1991) drew attention to how teachers’ thoughts and actions reflect the school culture in which they are embedded. The recent qualitative study by Smith (2005) pointed to contexts’ potential impact on science teachers’ thinking about academic content, teaching and learning, and emphasized the place of lived experience in specific contexts and how this shapes teachers’ beliefs.

The researcher claimed that the school-based context of the two teachers in the study was deeply influenced by local community, school district, state system of education, national context of science education reform, in addition to many other personal and professional contexts the teachers were rooted in.

Different activities and experiences connected to these interrelated contexts

“have shaped and continue to shape these teachers’ beliefs and identities as teachers of science” (p.7). Research findings pointed to by Pajares (1992) state that teachers’ beliefs profoundly influence their practice and are resistant to change, but research referred to by Richardson (1996) pointed to the impact of specific teacher education classes have on changes in conceptions and beliefs, although not as powerful an influence as life experiences and teaching experience. According to Smith (2005) through interactions with others within school contexts, teachers are likely to develop new perspectives and beliefs about what it means to teach and to learn (p. 29). In the study by Tabachnick and Zeichner (1986) addressing teacher beliefs, classroom

practices and responses to inconsistency they discovered a move to greater consistency between beliefs and behavior as the result of a negotiated and interactive process between individuals and organizational constraints and encouragements (p. 95).

Several elements affecting beliefs have been pointed to. These beliefs concern both physical and societal aspects of life, the influence of contexts and culture, and the role of humans in it. Experiences, encounters, challenges, relationships, goals, our successes and failures, play a part in developing identity and beliefs about the world and ourselves. Over the years there has been a focus, to varying degrees, on self-beliefs and the impact this may have on human lives. There is also a vast amount of literature concerning beliefs, teachers and teaching. In the next section I will look into two aspects of self-beliefs; self-concept and self-efficacy, with a main focus on the latter and the impact it may have on teachers and their work.