Competence and Performance #3 – The role of content knowledge (i)

Interchange author Jack C. Richards is looking at what distinguishes the very best language teachers, and what we can learn from them. Here, Jack will be looking at the role played by content knowledge.

A recurring issue in second language teacher education (SLTE) concerns what the content knowledge or subject matter of language teaching is, and consequently the question of what it is that we think teachers need to know in order to reach their full potential as language teachers. This is the “content knowledge dilemma,” and it has provided a ripe field for debate and discussion since SLTE emerged as a discipline.

Here I am distinguishing “knowledge” from “skill,” since while there is little disagreement concerning the practical skills language teachers need to master, there is much less agreement concerning what the formal or academic subject matter of language teaching is. Content knowledge refers to what teachers need to know about what they teach (including what they know about language teaching itself), and constitutes knowledge that would not be shared by teachers of other subject areas.

Traditionally, the content knowledge of language teaching has been drawn from the discipline of applied linguistics, which emerged in the 1960s – at about the same time that language teaching was being revitalized with the emergence of new methodologies, such as audiolingualism and situational language teaching (Richards and Rodgers 2001). Applied linguistics generated the body of specialized academic knowledge and theory that provided the foundation of new approaches to language teaching, and this knowledge base was represented in the curricula of MA programs that began to be offered from this time. Typically it consisted of courses in language analysis, learning theory, methodology, and sometimes a teaching practicum, but the practical skills of language teaching were often undervalued. The debate over the relation between theory and practice has been with us ever since.

Some of the confusion that often appears in debate over the theory-versus-practice issue is due to a failure to distinguish between disciplinary knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge. Disciplinary knowledge refers to a circumscribed body of knowledge that is considered by the language teaching profession to be essential to gaining membership to the profession. Such knowledge is acquired by special training, and possessing knowledge of this kind leads to professional recognition and status.

It is important to stress here that disciplinary knowledge is part of professional education and does not translate into practical skills. When language teaching emerged as an academic discipline in the 1960s, this disciplinary knowledge was largely drawn from the field of linguistics, but today it encompasses a much broader range of content. For example, it could include the history of language teaching methods, second language acquisition, sociolinguistics, phonology and syntax, discourse analysis, theories of language, critical applied linguistics, and so on.

Pedagogical content knowledge, on the other hand, refers to knowledge that provides a basis for language teaching. It is knowledge that is drawn from the study of language teaching and language learning itself, and which can be applied in different ways to the resolution of practical issues in language teaching. It could include course work in areas such as curriculum planning, assessment, reflective teaching, classroom management, teaching children, teaching the four skills, and so on. The Teacher Knowledge Test developed by Cambridge English Language Assessment is an example of an attempt to provide a basis in relevant pedagogical content knowledge for entry-level teachers.

The language teaching literature often divides clearly into texts addressing either disciplinary knowledge or pedagogical content knowledge. So, for example, we can compare a book such as Ortega’s Understanding Second Language Acquisition (2008) with Lightbown and Spada’s How Languages Are Learned (2006).

Ortega’s excellent book, like many tomes on second language acquisition, contributes to disciplinary knowledge, throwing valuable light on such issues as the critical period hypothesis, language transfer, cognition and language learning, aptitude, and so on but does not deal with practical application.

Lightbown and Spada’s book, on the other hand, contributes to pedagogical content knowledge since it is part of a series designed to resolve practical issues in language teaching. Although it covers some of the same topics that are included in Ortega’s book, the focus is not so much on research issues involved in investigating a phenomenon but practical implications of research. Similarly a book such as Halliday’s An Introduction to Functional Grammar (2004), along with similar books dealing with models of language analysis, belongs to the domain of disciplinary knowledge, whereas Parrott’s Grammar for English Language Teachers (2000) belongs to that of pedagogical content knowledge.

References and Further Reading

Read all the posts in this series: