Experience, Knowledge about Language and Classroom Practice in Teaching Grammar
DISCUSSION
Despite some similarities (e.g., a belief in the value of explicit work and discovery learning), the two cases presented here contrast in many ways. Zsanna emerges as being highly aware of her KAL and constantly and proactively engaged in developing it further. In particular, she saw the classroom context as the arena which provides most scope for stimulating such development, and thus engaged students regularly in open, analytical discussions of grammar. She was also willing to address with her students issues she felt uncertain about. Dave, in contrast, though capable of acknowledging the limitations of his KAL, had not had or sought out opportunities to address this situation. Influenced by his lack of confidence in his own grammatical knowledge, grammar work in his teaching was infrequent and always planned. His knowledge about grammar seemed to be for him predominantly a resource to draw on when students asked questions about grammar. As Andrews (1999; 2001) argues though (and as Zsanna seemed to appreciate), teachers’ KAL has much wider implications for their pedagogical practices; for example it may influence the manner in which instructional materials are selected and presented to students.
The educational biographies of both teachers enable us to make some sense of these contrasts in their own KAL and practices in teaching grammar. Zsanna’s experience of foreign language learning was characterized by explicit analytical study which, despite initial reservations, she felt contributed positively to her KAL. In addition to negative experiences of studying English grammar in secondary school, Dave’s professional pathway had seemingly afforded him few opportunities to reflect on and develop his KAL. Before they became teachers, neither Zsanna nor Dave had been encouraged to think about KAL from a pedagogical perspective, and language and methodology respectively had been dealt with separately throughout their professional preparation. In the classroom, though, Zsanna found that planning lessons and working with students enabled her to develop a strong pedagogically-oriented sense of her KAL and its development; Dave, however, did not make such connections between KAL and practice and, powerfully shaped by a negative experience early in his career, had developed a wariness of students’ questions about grammar which remained with him many years later.
Looking at these cases from the perspective of a teacher educator aiming to support the development of teachers’ KAL, there are several points to make. One is that the work of such teacher educators may benefit from an awareness of teachers’ prior experience of language study. This suggestion reflects contemporary thinking in educational research, where the importance of understanding teachers’ prior beliefs and experiences is seen to be fundamental to the effectiveness of teacher education work (e.g. Holt Reynolds, 1992; Tillema, 1994; Verloop, Van Driel, & Meijer, 2001). Even though those responsible for KAL courses may think that such research is primarily relevant to an understanding of methodology, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the way teachers approach – and benefit from - the study of language will also be shaped by their existing beliefs and knowledge about language.
Another key point to emerge here is that ultimately teachers’ need KAL in order to facilitate instruction. This emerges very clearly from Zsanna’s case. Thus even in teacher education contexts where KAL and methodology are addressed discretely, it is not productive for what and how teachers learn about language to be disconnected from the roles which their KAL will play in the classroom. From this perspective, the work of Wright & Bolitho (1993) and Borg (1994; 2003) is instructive in the concrete examples provided of how KAL work can be made more pedagogically relevant in teacher education contexts. On the basis of the data presented here, I would also suggest that when KAL and methodology courses are interconnected, teachers will develop a qualitatively richer and pedagogically more informed sense of their KAL and of its roles in their teaching.
A final point to make here is that, as I have argued elsewhere (Borg, 2001), KAL courses should also aim to develop in teachers an extended, as opposed to restricted, conceptualization of KAL. In particular, teachers need a healthy attitude towards the continuing development of their KAL; as Johnston & Goettsch (2000) reported in their study, teachers’ understandings of language are constantly changing as they store, process, reflect on, add to, and modify what they already know. An awareness of this dynamic nature of teachers’ KAL is clearly something KAL courses can aim to promote. KAL courses can also assist teachers in learning how to monitor their own KAL, to identify gaps, and to respond strategically to these. The data presented here highlight the manner in which these skills can support the development of teachers’ KAL. And teachers who use such skills successfully themselves are likely, as we have seen here, to encourage their learners to adopt them too. A third hypothesis to make here then is that KAL courses which instill in teachers such dispositions and strategies reduce the danger that teachers may experience both the uncertainty and inability to respond to it which characterized Dave’s work in teaching grammar.
