Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Language Education

Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Language Education Mohamed Benhima Sidi Mohamed Ben Abdeallah University Abstract The current report discusses the link between Pedagogical Knowledge and Content Knowledge in language education drawing mainly on the works of Shulman (1986, 1987), Richards (1992, 1996) and Andrews (2007). It presents a brief background behind the emergence of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in 1986 when Schulman first came up with the term in general pedagogy. It goes a step further to describe the main components of this new dimension after providing some tentative definitions of the term. Moreover, the practical side of Pedagogical Content Knowledge is also described with reference to several classroom procedures in second and foreign language education. Keywords: Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Teacher Cognition, Teacher Education. Introduction The history of language education has always been full of dichotomies that have constituted the subject of constant debates. These debates have long revolved around the dichotomy between theory and practice, implicit and explicit teaching, pedagogical and content knowledge in language education. The solutions often offered to these issues lie in diluting the boundaries between them and not considering them as blue and white contradictions. A tentative solution has, thus, been the reconciliation between the two extremes of the continuum into praxis (Freire, 1972), guided inductive approach (Corder, 1973) and pedagogical content knowledge (Schulman, 1986), respectively. The latter is the subject of the current report. In this respect, we shall be dealing briefly with the developments of PCK in the history of language teaching followed by some recent definitions. Then, we will be looking into the components of PCK and its implications in second or foreign language classrooms with a personal view at the end. Background The new developments in education, psychology and human sciences in general have brought with it a change in focus from the teacher and the teaching to the learner and the learning processes with regards to language education. With the advent of the humanistic approaches to education, the learner has been put in the centre of the teaching and learning by taking into account his or her needs, wants and lacks. Thus, new approaches have started focusing on the learner rather than the teacher, such as Suggestopedia, Community Language Learning and Communicative Approaches, among others. Similarly, cognitive psychology has become primarily concerned with learning strategies (Oxford, 1990; O‟Malley and Chamot, 1991), learners‟ ~1~ schemata and learners‟ script. Thus, a lip service has been paid to the teacher‟s knowledge and beliefs. With regards to the latter, a renewed interest has been put in teachers‟ knowledge, especially in the post-method era (Kumaravadivlieu, 1992) in which it is assumed that theory is far from practice in teaching and that teachers should develop a principled pragmatism as well as the wisdom of practice on the basis of experiential, experimental and practical knowledge. However, there is more to teaching than just the theory and practice dilemma. This involves the link between knowing how to teach and knowing what to teach (Schulman, 1986). Actual classroom practices necessitate the combination of both subject matter knowledge (subject matter cognition) and pedagogical knowledge. In a similar vein, new concepts that relate to the what and how of teaching such as language awareness, teacher maxims and teacher images have been developed in the field of teacher education (Hawkins, 1987; Richards, 1996; and Clandinin, 1999). Teacher language awareness is defined by Thornbury (1997:x) as „the knowledge that teachers have of the underlying systems of the language that enables them to teach effectively‟. This view is concerned mainly with the subject matter content knowledge in language teaching by developing a meta-language to describe the language. In this regard, Andrews (2007:24) confirmed that: When we look at examples of how teachers handle grammar-related issues in the classroom itself, it becomes apparent that the relationship between subject-matter knowledge and classroom teaching is very complex, and that subject-matter knowledge alone is not sufficient to ensure the effective application of TLA in pedagogical practice. Emphasis added Closely linked to the distinction between pedagogical and content knowledge is the notion of teacher maxims which are defined according to Richards (1996: 284) as follows: Teachers’ belief systems are founded on the goals, values, and beliefs teachers hold in relation to the content and process of teaching and their understanding of the systems in which they work and their roles within it. These beliefs and values serve as background to much of the teachers’ decision making and action. Emphasis added These maxims are drawn from the field of pragmatics as they were introduced by Grice (1975) in the socalled Cooperative Principle. In language teaching, they include the maxim of relation (make the lesson relevant to students‟ needs), the maxim of order (follow the lesson plan), the maxim of quantity and the maxim of quality. Besides, Richards (1996) further listed the maxim of involvement (follow the learners‟ interests to maintain student involvement), the maxim of efficiency (make the most efficient use of class time), the maxim of empowerment (give the learners control), the maxim of conformity (make sure your teaching follows the prescribed method) and the maxim of accuracy (work for accurate student output). Although these maxims can, in part, illustrate the pedagogical aspect of teacher cognition, they are still ~2~ subject to criticism as they advocate the principles of some traditional approaches. This has opened the door for the adoption of new views. In 1999, Clandinin and Connelly adopted “professional knowledge landscape” metaphor with regards to teachers‟ professional knowledge. This knowledge involves in-classroom and out-of-classroom settings that constitute a kind of dynamic landscape with regards to teacher narratives in his or her professional identity. The use of this metaphor dates back to Shulman who first coined the term Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the fields of biology and geology in 1986 in an article entitled “Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform”. This notion of landscape relates to the outside world and the different variables that constitute teaching, such as the language, the methodology and the context of teaching. In this regard, Shulman (1987:8) asserted that “it is the landscape of such materials, institutions, organizations and mechanisms with which he or she the teacher must be familiar”. Thus, it is the external variables that presuppose the type of knowledge to be developed as teaching and learning are psychological processes that are shaped in accordance with extraneous variables. Tentative Definitions Pedagogical Content Knowledge in the field of language education has been a complex concept to define. It consists of two components, namely pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge. The first component, According to Richards and Schmidt (1992: 115), can be defined as: Content knowledge in teaching is teachers’ knowledge of their subject matter. For example, a language teacher’s content knowledge includes his or her knowledge of grammar, phonetics, etc. Teachers’ knowledge of their subject matter is assumed to affect how well they understand items they are asked or choose to teach, how well they are able to provide explanations, and how they construct learning activities for learners. Hence, what characterizes teachers of languages is, first and foremost, being knowledgeable about the different aspects of language, namely grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation. However, having a subjectmatter-knowledge is not enough to teach it in an effective way that backs away from improvising. In fact, teaching involves, in addition to the language, the way one goes about teaching it, which is exactly what is called Pedagogical Content Knowledge as is defined in the following: Pedagogical content knowledge in teaching is a teacher’s knowledge of subject matter and the ability to represent it in a way that will facilitate teaching and learning. (Ibid) As can be seen from the definitions provided above, it is through transforming the content into what can be teachable and learnable that language teachers become professionals. It is the type and the degree of this knowledge that distinguish teachers from other practitioners and even novice teachers from prospective ~3~ teachers. In fact, Pedagogical Content Knowledge consists of "knowledge that is specific to teaching a particular subject matter" (Shulman, 1987: 7). Hence, PCK should not be looked at as having separate entities but as being one unified construct. In this regard, it is further stated that: Whereas content knowledge refers to knowledge of subject matter, pedagogical content knowledge refers to knowing how to turn that subject matter into plans for teaching and learning. It is a key component of teaching skill. (Ibid) It is this knowledge that adds up to the professional skills, pedagogical reasoning and the wisdom of practice which teachers develop in their professional growth, and it distinguishes the teacher from other subject matter specialists in all disciplines, be they mathematics, physics, geography and the like. In similar vein, Brophy (1991:xii) describes PCK as the following: A special form of professional understanding that is unique to teachers and combines knowledge of the content to be taught with knowledge of what students know or think they know about this content and knowledge of how this content can be represented to the students through examples, analogies, etc. in ways that are most likely to be effective in helping them to attain the intended outcomes of instruction. Pedagogical Content Knowledge, in brief, involves, on the one hand, being aware of the different teaching approaches, methods and techniques and, on the hand, having a thorough understanding of the different aspects of language including its phonetic, morphologic, syntactic, semantic and pragmatic dimensions. Accordingly, different components can constitute this cognitive construct. Categories of Teacher Knowledge As was stated above, Pedagogical Content Knowledge is a concept developed by Lee Schulman in the late 1980‟s when his research helped applied linguists and pedagogues see that teachers have three types of knowledge. One piece of such knowledge varies from one subject area to another subject area. These three types include: general pedagogical knowledge, content knowledge and content pedagogical knowledge 1) This general pedagogical knowledge requires every beginning teacher to know how to manage classrooms, how to deal with special needs and differentiated learners, how to communicate with students. Therefore, every teacher in any subject area has this kind of knowledge. 2) Another type of knowledge teachers need is content knowledge. This varies from one discipline to another. In language teaching, it encompasses a knowledge base of the language, the reasons for learning a language, the cultural assumptions behind learning the language and the like. 3) The third type is content pedagogical knowledge. This involves facilitating the teaching and learning of the language. This knowledge comes at the intersection between pedagogy and didactics. ~4~ Other accounts have been developed with the aim of categorizing the teachers‟ knowledge according to its nature in the field of teacher cognition. The first taxonomy of these categories has been proposed by Shulman himself in 1987. PCK, according to him, can be categorized into three categories, namely (a) subject matter content knowledge, (b) pedagogical content knowledge, and (c) curricular knowledge. The first category refers to “the amount and organization of knowledge per se in the mind of the teacher” (Shulman 1986: 9). This can be represented through several ways, such as Bloom‟s cognitive taxonomy, Gagne's varieties of learning, and Schwab's distinction between substantive and superficial knowledge. The second category is pedagogical content knowledge which “goes beyond knowledge of subject matter per se to the dimension of subject matter knowledge for teaching” (ibid). In this regard, knowledge for teaching is derived from research and the wisdom of practice. The third category is the so-called curricular knowledge which involves “the full range of programs designed for the teaching of particular subjects and topics at, a given level, the variety of instructional materials available in relation to those programs” (ibid). Thus, curricular knowledge requires from teachers to become knowledgeable about syllabus designs in their professional practice. Implications The distinction between pedagogical and content knowledge can be beneficial for the teacher, the teacher educator and even the applied linguist by providing a theoretical ground for the latter to develop practical tools. An immediate consequence of this construct can be seen in designing coursework for teacher educators in teacher training and preparation programs. In this regard, new training courses for teachers incorporate a content subject and a pedagogy subject. The former includes the description of language, whereas the latter encompasses the learning theories, the teaching approaches and the instructional strategies in order to better prepare student teachers for the task of teaching. Moreover, linguists started rethinking the description of language and the utility of linguistic theories in teaching. This description was undertaken by applied linguists and transformed into what is known today as pedagogic grammar, i.e., the type of grammar used for teaching and learning. In more or less the same regard, the distinction between pedagogical and content knowledge has impacted even teaching materials. The latter have become divided into textbooks for the learner and teaching pedagogical manuals for the teachers. All these examples, among others, are the practical manifestations of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in second and foreign language education. Conclusion The intersection between pedagogical and content knowledge has added a new dimension to the ongoing debates in language education. In this regard, the background of this construct was briefly introduced. Moreover, some definitions were tentatively provided to understand the nature of this knowledge. The types and categories of pedagogical content knowledge were succinctly described, followed by some implications of this division of teacher knowledge in second and foreign language teaching and learning. However, this ~5~ new construct that was introduced by Shulman (1986) has focused largely on the teacher, thus, relegating the learner to a secondary position. However, it is my view that even the learner can develop pedagogical content knowledge in that language learners can develop the content knowledge by studying the grammar and the vocabulary of the language, whereas pedagogical knowledge of learners can be manifested in learning strategies and study skills. Moreover, PCK remains a label without a substance, and it is replete with overlap that generates confusion due to its inherently theoretical nature and its intricate taxonomies. Thus, it is suggested that practical procedures and a learner-centered dimension be added to the construct of Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Bibliography Andrews, S. (2007). Teacher Language Awareness. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press. Brophy, J. (ed.) (1991). Advances in Research on Teaching, Vol. 2. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Connelly, F. Michael, & Clandinin, D. Jean (1999). Shaping a Professional Identity: Stories of Educational Practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Corder, S.P. (1973). Introducing Applied Linguistics. Harmondsworth : Penguin. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Hannondsworth: Penguin. Kumaravadivelu, B. (2006). Understanding Language Teaching: From Method to Postmethod. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. O‟Malley, J. M. & Chamot, A. U. (1990). Learning Strategies in Second Language Acquisition. New York: Cambridge University Press. Oxford, R. (1990). Language Learning Strategies: What Every Teacher Should Know. New York: Newbury House Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers‟ Beliefs and Educational Research: Cleaning up a Messy Construct. Review of Educational Research , 62 , 307 – 332 . Richards, J. (1996). Teachers‟ Maxims in Language Teaching. TESOL Quarterly 30(2), 281-296. Richards J.C. & Schmidt R. (1992). The Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics. London: Longman Group UK Limited. Shulman, L.S. (1986). Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching. Educational Researcher, Vol. 15, No 2, pp. 4-14. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, I, pp 1-22. Thornbury, S. (1997). About Language: Tasks for Teachers of English. Cambridge Teacher Training and Development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ~6~