Integrating Language Teachers’ Discipline Knowledge in a Language Course
INSTRUCTOR PROFILES
First Profile: Monica
Monica’s Views of Language and Learning
In order to explore the views of language and learning that underlie Monica’s practice, we looked at the teaching process as well as at the views she expressed during the interview. The lesson observed develops according to the Presentation-Practice-Performance model, with a significant emphasis on declarative knowledge. Monica adopts a deductive approach whereby declarative knowledge constitutes the basis for the development of procedural knowledge. As for its orientation, the lesson seems to fluctuate between the analyst and the user type of competence—with special emphasis on the latter—while there are no references to the teacher type of competence. According to this instructor, “giving” or “explaining the theory” consists of the following aspects: (1) describing the form, (2) how it functions and (3) when it is used. Thus, the definition she gives during the interview suggests an unsophisticated analyst type of competence, oriented to language use rather than mere description.
apart from explaining how a passive is formed, which in the end is nothing but a mathematical formula, because they are all done in the same way, one explains how it functions, when it is used. This is the difference maybe between a language school and what we try to do
This dual orientation towards the analyst and user type of competence becomes even more evident when the instructor compares ‘language’ with ‘linguistics’ modules in the ES degree program. She establishes clear differences between the “practical” level of analyst competence required in language courses, and the sophistication of the analytical skills required in linguistics courses:
(...) the language subjects, first, are much more practical and general. You deal with all the language. The goal is to reach a level of language to be able to use it. The linguistics subjects are obviously linguistics; we are now talking of analysis.
In sum, the views expressed by Monica and the analysis of the lesson suggest that, for her, ES programs approach the analyst type of competence in two levels or stages, which would coincide with the division between language and linguistics modules:
this [language module] would be a foundation to later take syntax and morphology [linguistics modules]
Accordingly, the first stage—i.e. language courses—could be defined as grammatical awareness, with the purpose of (a) improving the student’s performance (user type of competence) and (b) preparing them for developing sophisticated analytical skills (analyst type of competence). The second stage, in which linguistics modules would be included, is entirely devoted to the analyst type of competence. In this sense, she views language development courses in the ES degree program as courses focusing on how to use the language as well as how to explain its use. Monica, thus, emphasizes the analyst type of competence that an ES graduate should attain, which involves the capacity to reflect upon language, as a linguist. As she puts it, an ES graduate should be able “to speak about the language” or “to carry out a study on the language”. In the instructor’s view, the role of language development courses in the ES degree program is precisely to contribute to both developing students’ level of performance as well as to raising their awareness of language.
