Language teaching competencies

This study is based on the assumption that language teachers never cease to develop in the course of their careers. Although a lot of teachers think “Now that I am qualified, my professional education is over.” (Bolitho, cited in Head & Taylor, 1997), a great number of them seem to agree with Underhill’s statement that teachers “can only help others to learn to the extent that we [teachers] are learning ourselves” (2001, p.1).

Knowledge and its many dichotomies have been given ample attention in psychology ever since Aristotle defined technical knowledge and practical knowledge (Pléh, 2001; Reis-Jorge, 2005). A distinction is made between school-based information learning, i.e.

knowledge, and the streetwise application of knowledge, i.e. skills. A similar distinction is made between knowing what and knowing how. There seem to be two kinds of knowledge:

declarative knowledge, that is, the knowledge of or about information, and procedural knowledge, that is, what we know how to do. An additional kind of knowledge may be knowledge about knowledge, which includes some reflection on or critical evaluation of one’s own knowledge. In applied linguistics, a similar dichotomous distinction between the different kinds of knowledge researchers may create and offer and teachers might need is made by McIntyre (2005). He argues that these are “two sharply contrasting kinds of knowledge […] on a possible continuum of different kinds of knowledge” (p. 359). He contrasts pedagogical (knowing how) with propositional knowledge (knowing what), and argues that propositional knowledge cannot simply be translated into pedagogical knowledge because for teachers the pragmatic focus of knowledge is on practicality, whereas researchers’

knowledge is generalisable and researchers focus on clarity and coherence. In addition, teachers’ knowledge is local, unique and context-based, they depend on their schemata, while

impersonal while teachers’ knowledge is personal and based on the realities of classroom teaching. A summary of the two kinds of knowledge according to McIntyre can be seen Table 2.

Table 2 Two kinds of knowledge according to McIntyre (2005)

Pedagogical knowledge Propositional knowledge The “how”

Practical

Personal and personalised Local, unique and context-based Complex

Multidimensionality, simultaneity, immediacy, unpredictability, publicness, history

Based on intuitive judgment

The “what”

Theoretical

Impersonal, clear and coherent Abstract, general, generalised and generalisable

Patterns to simplify

Based on explicit and rational argument While teachers are supposed to deal with several dimensions at the same time in the unpredictable complexity of the classroom, researchers have to identify patterns in order to simplify and establish order in the “immense complexity” of the classroom. Good research is explicit and rigorous, while teaching often depends on tacit or creative thinking, quick “on the spur of the moment” decisions. McIntyre believes that these two kinds of knowledge should mutually complement each other and there should be a dialogue between them (2005, p. 362).

The sum of declarative and procedural kinds of knowledge a language teacher needs is supposed to make them a “teacher of extraordinary abilities: a multidimensional, high-tech, Wizard-of-Oz-like superperson – yet of flesh and blood” (Medgyes, 1990, p. 107). The complexity of language teacher competence is better understood if one examines the components it is said to comprise. A training book devised for kindergarten teachers differentiates between two kinds of pedagogical skills (Hegyi, 1996). General pedagogical skills include communication skills, constructive or didactic skills and organisational skills.

Specific skills entail such sub-skills as the ability to judge a situation, to make a decision, to adapt, to tolerate, to empathise, to multitask, etc. For a teacher, received or content knowledge is vital; in the case of a language teacher this might be made up of sub-components such as

language proficiency, syntax, phonetics, phonology, pragmatics, knowledge about the language, etc. Some consider personal or experiential knowledge, as well as local or contextual knowledge, of utmost importance (Mann, 2005; Wallace, 1991). Even specialised knowledge about education is mentioned (Elliott, 1993) as an important part of a teacher’s knowledge. Based on empirical research, procedural knowledge, knowledge of pupils, classrooms, and self are listed by Kagan (1992). It is evident that teaching skills, such as interpersonal skills or presentation skills, are also fundamental. Richards (1998) proposes six domains of content: theories of teaching, teaching skills, communication skills, subject matter knowledge, pedagogical reasoning and decision making, and contextual knowledge.

In fact, so many components had been added to the knowledge base of language teachers that Yates & Muchisky felt it was time to send some warning signals. In a 2003 article, they emphasised that language itself is not to be marginalised and neither should lessons learnt from interlanguage studies. The fact that learners bring the knowledge of their mother tongue with them to the learning situation is not to be neglected either (135-147).

Yates & Muchisky believe in the centrality of language and that second language acquisition research does offer relevant findings to second language learning. Issues such as what it means to be able to use English, how languages are organised, how second languages are learned, how these influence what teachers do in the classroom and what options are available for teachers influenced by the setting also need to be examined and taught to teacher trainees.

They do not believe that “knowing how to teach” should be privileged over “knowing the disciplinary knowledge” (p. 145).

Even though very different domains are proposed, there seems to be an agreement on second language teaching being “a multifaceted yet integrated activity” in which “each of the domains overlaps and intersects with others” (Richards, 1998, pp. 1-2). Perhaps it is the very closely integrated nature of teacher knowledge, skills, and beliefs that gave impetus for

teacher cognition research, a dimension which was given ample attention in the 1990s.

Teacher cognition is an umbrella term for “the unobservable cognitive dimension of teaching – what teachers know, believe, and think” (Borg, 2003, p. 81). Many practising teachers would be contented with the notion of teacher cognition as the term embraces the complexity of teachers’ mental lives. “Components of knowledge, beliefs, conceptions, and intuitions are inextricably intertwined,” say Verloop et al. (2001, cited in Borg, 2003). Pajares came to the same conclusion upon reviewing research articles on teacher beliefs and knowledge (1992).

One conclusion Borg draws from his review of the literature on teacher cognition research is that the distinction between knowledge and beliefs is blurry and separating knowledge from beliefs is problematic. Another finding that surfaces from the literature on teacher cognition is that changes in knowledge and skills are seen as the restructuring of earlier knowledge, or, as Borg puts it, “relabeling”. It is also seen as a debated question whether cognitive changes result in behavioural changes or behavioural changes stem from cognitive changes. What seems to be certain, however, is that there is a constant interaction between cognition and behaviour.

In addition, two further notions and two acronyms, BAK and PPK, were coined in the literature investigating teachers’ knowledge base. BAK was introduced in order to cover beliefs, attitudes and knowledge, which are thought to be inseparable in the life of a language teacher and to emphasise that they are not distinct concepts but “an integrated network”

(Woods, 1996, p. 185) or “points on a spectrum of meaning” (Borg, 2003, p. 96). The abbreviation PPK stands for the term “personal practical knowledge” and was taken from educational research. PPK implies the knowledge of self, subject matter, instruction and context and is a type of knowledge that is personal, situational, practice-oriented, dynamic, moralistic and emotional (Golombek, 1998, pp. 448-452).

Whereas many researchers and theoreticians emphasise that dissecting knowledge and identifying its components is useful when an analysis is carried out, most practicing teachers believe that these components are inseparable, merged and blended. As Johnson & Goettsch state the categories of content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and knowledge of students are “melded together in complex and inextricable ways” (2000, cited in Borg, 2003, p. 102) or as Golombek (1998) points out teachers draw on their knowledge in a holistic manner.

In the Hungarian context, defining teacher competence levels has taken centre stage recently. A set of criteria for the evaluation of teacher development is being worked out at six levels. The levels include that of the trainee teacher, the qualified teacher, the appointed teacher, the experienced teacher, the excellent teacher and the master teacher, where the last two levels are likely to be achieved by a limited number of teachers only (Kotschy, 2011, p.

8). The authors of the scheme have identified eight competencies in which teachers are expected to develop during their careers and have worked out the criteria for the first three levels, i.e. the trainee who is allowed to start their teaching practice, the qualified teacher who has obtained a teaching certificate and the appointed teacher who already has a teaching position. The different competencies or components are expected to develop at a different pace but their development needs to be examined together and in a complex way, which reflects the view found elsewhere in the literature that the knowledge areas are very much intertwined and integrated (Richards, 1998; Szesztay, 2004; Verloop et al., 2001, cited in Borg, 2003; Woods, 1996).

The eight components discussed in the Hungarian teacher evaluation scheme mentioned above are the following: learner character development, learner community development, subject matter and curricular knowledge, planning, methodological expertise, continuous assessment, communication and professional cooperation, and, last but not least, commitment and responsibility for one’s own professional development.

The component of learner character development is a component in which the ability of establishing rapport with students, the ability to reflect on lessons, self assessment and, for example, applying theoretical knowledge in practice are evaluated. Learner community development covers areas such as commitment to democratic values, the ability to take into consideration individual differences or participation in school sustainability projects. Subject matter and curricular knowledge covers areas such as solid theoretical knowledge, methodological knowledge or the ability to organise and present teaching material. Planning refers to planning teaching and learning strategies, writing lesson plans as well as the ability to use opportunities provided by social learning. Methodological expertise includes, for example, understanding factors in the learning environment, establishing trust or adaptability.

Continuous assessment involves working out realistic requirements, giving feedback, or enhancing realistic self-assessment. Communication and professional cooperation involves planning classroom communication, using professional literature and discourse, or resolving classroom conflicts. The component of commitment and responsibility for own professional development entails, for instance, an awareness of own beliefs, reflection on learner behaviour and a knowledge of research methodology. In the above list merely a small number of indicators have been selected out of the many available in Kotschy (2011) in order to illustrate the complexity inherent in designing such a comprehensive system of standards in teacher evaluation. Even though the list above is incomplete since it is impossible to include the whole teacher evaluation scheme here, it can be seen that there are overlaps between the components and all are closely interrelated.