Knowledge about Language and the ‘Good Language Teacher’
Both of us have extensive involvement in ESOL teacher education, working mainly with non-native speaker teachers of English, but also with native-speaker teachers. In our work, we have encountered a variety of attitudes towards Knowledge About Language (KAL) among the pre-service and in-service L2 teachers with whom we have worked. For some, their perceived lack of KAL is a source of considerable anxiety: words like ‘fear’ and ‘panic’ are not uncommon when they discuss their feelings about grammar, for example. At the same time, we have also frequently observed L2 lessons given by pre-service and serving teachers where the object of learning, the language itself, appears to have received far less attention than issues of methodology and classroom management. As a result, the lesson has often seemed, to the observer at least, to be presenting learners with confused and confusing messages about the language to be learned. Since messages about language mediated by the teacher constitute a major part of the input for learning within any lesson, we have become increasingly convinced that the extent and the adequacy of L2 teachers’ engagement with language content in their professional practice is a crucial variable in determining the quality and potential effectiveness of any L2 teacher’s practice.
Arising from these experiences, our own research interests in recent years have led us to investigate various aspects of L2 teachers’ KAL, with particular reference to grammar (see, for example, Andrews 1994; 1997; 1999a; 1999b; 2001) and vocabulary (McNeill 1996, 1999), and to explore the impact of those teachers’ KAL on their professional practice. In our work, we have tended to refer to teacher language awareness rather than KAL, and that former term is the one we shall use in our discussion of the present research. Teacher language awareness has been defined by Thornbury as ‘...the knowledge that teachers have of the underlying systems of language that enables them to teach effectively’ (Thornbury 1997:x). Our own conception of teacher language awareness goes beyond Thornbury’s definition to incorporate beliefs as well as knowledge, since the two are so closely intertwined (Pajares 1992:312-313). In our view, teacher language awareness also encompasses awareness of language from the learners’ perspective, and awareness of the learners’ interlanguage, both its present state and its potential developmental path. As teacher educators, we have been centrally concerned not only with the declarative dimension of teacher language awareness, i.e. the nature, breadth and depth of teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and awareness of the language systems, but also with the procedural dimension, i.e. how teachers’ knowledge, beliefs and awareness impact upon their pedagogical practice.
Our own growing interests in teacher language awareness have developed in the context of a greater appreciation worldwide of the importance of teachers’ subject-matter knowledge as a component of their pedagogical content knowledge (see, for example, Shulman 1986, 1987; Brophy 1991; Gess-Newsome and Lederman 1999; Turner-Bisset 2001). Teacher language awareness has itself been described as a sub-component of the L2 teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge (Andrews 1999a, 2001). This increasing emphasis on the teachers’ subject knowledge base can be observed in many parts of the world and across subjects, as governments seek to create ‘benchmarks’ of teacher competence in a range of areas, including subject-matter knowledge. The Hong Kong Government’s introduction of the LPAT (Language Proficiency Assessment for Teachers) tests is just one example of this trend (see Coniam and Falvey, 2002 and forthcoming for discussion of the LPAT tests). In L2 teacher education, this emphasis has been especially evident in, for instance, the changes to the assessment requirements and criteria for the RSA/Cambridge teachers’ schemes for ESOL teachers (CELTA and DELTAI).
In the research on teacher language awareness up to now, attention has mainly been paid to teachers with relatively limited experience and training. In the case of Andrews’s research (for instance, Andrews 1999a), most of the subjects whose teacher language awareness was investigated had less than five years’ teaching experience and none had professional training. As a result, comparisons between those subjects and the ‘model’ language-aware teacher generally found the performance of the former wanting in a number of respects, not only in their mediation of the language that was made available to learners as input for learning, but also in terms of the extent to which they were willing or able to engage fully with grammar-related issues in their teaching (see, for example, in Andrews 2001:84-88). Much of the discussion in those studies reflects a tendency elsewhere in the literature on teacher language awareness to focus on teachers’ deficiencies. Thornbury (1997), for instance, sets out a number of potential consequences of such deficiency, including an inability to anticipate learners’ learning problems and therefore to plan lessons pitched at the right level, and ‘...a general failure to earn the confidence of the learners due to a lack of basic terminology and ability to present new language clearly and efficiently’ (Thornbury 1997:xii).
This ‘deficit’ perspective seems to be based upon a widely held assumption that in order to be a ‘Good Language Teacher’ it is essential to have a high degree of language awareness. This is akin to the more general perception in education that a high level of subject-matter knowledge is an integral part of a teacher’s professionalism. Shulman (2000), for example, reflects this latter view when he speaks of ‘...the recognition that professional teachers must be well educated, especially in the subject matter content they teach, and that their career-long professional education experiences must continue to be grounded in the centrality of that content’ (Shulman 2000:xiii).
The assessment criteria for the RSA/Cambridge DELTA (UCLES 2001) illustrate the expectations in relation to teacher language awareness of at least one branch of the TESOL profession. In the teaching part of their coursework assignments, for example, successful DELTA candidates have to be able to demonstrate, where relevant, their understanding, knowledge and awareness of language by a) adapting their own use of language to the level of the group, b) providing accurate and appropriate models of language use, c) giving accurate and appropriate information about language form, meaning and use, and d) responding to and exploiting learners’ contributions. To gain a Distinction, a candidate must show exceptional sensitivity, creativity and skill in these areas.
Although the L2 profession sets such criteria, and the characteristics of idealized language-aware teachers have been described (see, for example, Leech 1994), there has been little or no research to examine the language awareness of flesh-and-blood ‘Good Language Teachers’. The language awareness of such teachers is of direct interest to both of us because a number of the students we admit to our respective Master’s programs possess certificates identifying them as ‘Good Language Teachers’ (for instance, a Distinction for the Practical component of their professional training). In spite of such qualifications, it is our experience (supported by feedback from the teachers themselves) that such teachers benefit from courses aimed at enhancing their teacher language awareness. In other words, L2 teachers identified as exceptionally good practitioners by the level of their professional certification are by no means the ‘finished article’ as far as their teacher language awareness is concerned. The present study therefore represents a first attempt to investigate the language awareness of the ‘Good Language Teacher’. Although teacher language awareness applies in principle to the full range of a teacher’s language knowledge and awareness, this study limits attention to teacher language awareness as it relates to grammar and vocabulary.
Research Questions and Methodology
The study set out to investigate the following three questions:
1. Do ‘Good Language Teachers’ possess highly developed levels of declarative knowledge of the language systems?
2. Do ‘Good Language Teachers’ exhibit highly developed levels of teacher language awareness in their pedagogical practice?
3. What are the characteristics of the teacher language awareness of ‘Good Language Teachers’?
In order to shed light on these issues, data were collected over a three-month period from three highly experienced graduate non-native speaker teachers of ESOL. Each of them could be classified as ‘Good’ according to the criterion mentioned above: having been awarded a Distinction for the practical component of their professional training. In other words, their classroom L2 teaching had been rated as exceptional on the basis of at least two observed lessons. Two of the teachers work in secondary schools in Hong Kong, while the third teaches in a tertiary institution in the UK. All three subjects are female. All of them are highly proficient users of English both in speaking and writing. In the following discussion, the three subjects have been assigned pseudonyms (Anna, Bonnie and Trudi) in order to protect their anonymity. Anna and Bonnie are the Hong Kong teachers, while Trudi is based in the UK.
The data took various forms. In relation to the first question, the data comprised results on a test of Language Awareness, focusing specifically on grammar and vocabulary. The grammar component was the test previously used by Andrews (1999). That test was largely based on Alderson, Clapham and Steel’s test (see Steel and Alderson 1995; Alderson et al, 1996, 1997), which in turn drew on Bloor (1986). This grammar component was in two sections, the first focusing on grammatical metalanguage (three tasks requiring the recognition and production of grammar terms) and the second on the identification of grammatical errors (involving correction and explanation). The vocabulary component of the test was specifically produced for use in the present study, and was designed to parallel the structure of the grammar component. It therefore also consisted of two sections, the first focusing on vocabulary metalanguage and awareness (three tasks examining the ability to: recognize vocabulary terms, divide words into morphemes, and describe the lexical relations within sets of words), and the second on vocabulary error identification (involving correction and explanation). The subjects were given ten minutes to complete each of the four sections of the whole test.
Lesson observation, interview, and stimulated recall (see, for example, Gass and Mackey, 2000) were the sources of data relating to the other research questions. Each subject was observed teaching two lessons, which were videotaped. Before they planned the lessons, subjects were given the following instructions:
For each lesson, we would like you to remain as true as possible to your normal teaching style. However, we would like to ensure that the observed lessons have a strong language focus. Please therefore include:
Revision of previously learned grammar
Introduction of some new grammar
Introduction of some new vocabulary (6-12 items)
Incorporate this within a task-based/communicative framework, as appropriate to your normal teaching approach.
The scheduling of the observations was initiated by the subjects, who identified language-focused lessons likely to occur in their normal teaching sequence.
The subjects were interviewed twice. Each interview was audiotaped. The interviews were semi-structured: the interviewer worked from a set of prompts, but the questions based on those prompts were not necessarily asked in the same sequence. Unscripted questions were also posed as appropriate in the context of the specific interview. Interview 1 was conducted some time before the first observed lesson, and focused on the role of grammar and vocabulary in L2 teaching and learning, and approaches to handling grammar and vocabulary in the L2 classroom. Interview 2 took place immediately after the first observed lesson and concentrated on eliciting the subject’s rationale for her planning of the lesson, her perspectives on events taking place during the lesson, and potential follow-up.
The stimulated recall was rather different, in that it was totally unscripted. Gass and Mackey (2000) describe stimulated recall as a means of attempting to explore subjects’ thought processes and strategies, one that ‘... is carried out with some degree of support, for example, showing a videotape to learners so that they can watch themselves carrying out an activity while they vocalize their thought processes at the time of the original activity’ (Gass & Mackey, 2000:37-38). In this instance, each subject was shown a videotape of herself teaching. As soon as practicable following the second observed lesson, the interviewer and subject sat together and watched the videotape of that lesson. The subjects were invited to comment on the lesson at any point, pausing the videotape as necessary. On occasions, a pause led to an extended interchange. The interviewer also posed spontaneous questions relating to incidents in the lesson. Like the interviews, each stimulated recall was audiotaped.
I CELTA and DELTA are the Certificate and Diploma in English Language Teaching to Adults. The CELTA is a short (100+ hour) course of very basic initial training, while the DELTA is for teachers (normally graduates) with a minimum of two years’ full-time TESOL experience with adult learners. Within the TESOL profession in many parts of the world, the DELTA (formerly known as the DTEFLA) is recognized as a professional qualification.
