Integrating Language Teachers’ Discipline Knowledge in a Language Course
In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in the profile of the non-native EFL teacher (see Medgyes, 1995). In particular, one of the questions that have received special attention refers to the scope of the teacher’s professional competence. Thomas (1987), for example, describes language teacher competence (LTC) as consisting of two components: language competence (including both linguistic competence, i.e. accuracy, and communicative competence, i.e. the ability to communicate meaning appropriately), as well as pedagogic competence. Besides the language competence component, Thomas (1987) also advocates the need for language awareness (i.e. explicit knowledge), which has a role as an aid in both language and pedagogic competence. This component of teachers’ learning, also referred to as ‘knowledge about language’ (KAL) among other terms, has been addressed in recent years by Andrews (1999), Bartels (2002), Borg (1999), Brumfit (1991) and Mitchell et al. (1994), among others. Other studies (Cullen, 1994; Edge, 1988; Wright, 1991; Wright and Bolitho, 1993), also concerned with the description of the components of LTC, clearly emphasize the presence and interrelationship of the three components of language, linguistics, and teaching. These descriptions are in turn used as the basis for proposals that entail a three-pronged approach to teacher training courses. Based on this view of language teacher competence, this study aims at finding out whether, and to what extent, these three components are dealt with and interrelated in an undergraduate language development course, called “English language” (EL), addressed to future EFL language teachers.
In Spain, prospective secondary school EFL teachers are required to take a university degree in English Studies (ES), which includes three main areas of courses: language development, linguistics, and literature. The programs do not include a teaching methodology component as part of their core subjects, and when they do, it is in the form of optional modules in the last two years. For this reason, future graduates who want to go into teaching are required to follow a six-month teaching certification program before or after they graduate.
Particularly inspired by the framework proposed by Edge (1988) and later developed by Wright (1991, 2002) and Wright and Bolitho (1993), in our research we view the language teacher as a professional that fulfils the roles of user, analyst, and teacher, which implies the possession of the three types of competence mentioned above (language, linguistics, and teaching). These three roles are thus regarded as central to the competence of future graduates, since, in addition to language competence, they need to possess the necessary skills to analyze and understand language and to be able to report or explain certain language phenomena to others. In this sense, we think that university language development courses can serve as the interface between the three types of competence.
The goals of language courses combine explicitly the development of user and analyst competence. This should give us an opportunity to explore the extent to which these two types of competence are referred to in the construction of a ‘pedagogic’ discourse, reflected both through the instructors’ teaching practices and through the views they expressed during an interview. Language development courses require students and instructors to analyze and verbalize their views of language, applying metalinguistic notions and descriptive frameworks from linguistics. At the same time, students have the opportunity to approach linguistics and methodology from practice (Cullen, 1994), which makes this metalinguistic work all the more relevant to students, as they can engage in reflective activities based on their own perceptions as language learners. The analysis of the discourse of instructors and students should result in a deeper understanding of some elements of the dominant ‘linguistic ideology’ in the training of future secondary school EFL teachers in Spain.
The second reason for focusing our study on language courses is that they provide not only the main body of knowledge that most ES graduates consider that they will need in their future career as EFL teachers (i.e. language competence), but also represent a particular model of what to teach and how to teach it. Students’ gradual transition from language learners to language teachers leads to “the meeting point of two perspectives: that of the learner and that of the teacher” (Szesztay, 1996: 37) and enables students to observe their lessons from a teacher rather than a learner perspective (Cullen, 1994). Furthermore, their student experience will become part of their repertoire as teachers (John, 2000). It is from this point of view that teacher competence becomes a relevant notion for our analysis of the discourse of university instructors and students.
The hypotheses that underlie the present study are the following:
_ The dual definition of language courses in the ES curriculum in Spain, with elements of both analyst and user competence, is implemented in somewhat contradictory ways by different instructors.
_ In spite of the initial dual definition of language courses in ES programs, the academic context of the university will influence the discourse of both instructors and students towards a more analyst-oriented rather than user approach.
_ Language courses provide an implicit (and, on occasions, explicit) model of language teaching and learning, based on a traditional view of language learning, which is transmitted from instructors to students and may thus become part of the ideology of future EFL teachers.
This study, thus, sets out to explore how the notion of language teacher competence is discursively constructed by instructors both in their classroom practices and in an interview. The ultimate goal of the study is to deepen our understanding of foreign language teaching as it is done in Spain by delving into the linguistic and pedagogic ideological basis underlying teacher-training practices.
